Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...

Shortcuts

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

ColinFine, 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.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

Hi Joe Pastrana, it looks like you have a good start to your Wikipedia career. For your next steps, please add more references to the aricle. Five references would be a good goal. If you need help you can ask here. --Pine^✉ 04:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit for you, Joe ~~Paterno~~ Pastrana, if you would like. I'll do it below if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flynnlives (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn lives here, Flynnlives trying one more time. I would edit it accordingly:

La Bolefuego, or Candileja, is a legendary character belonging to Colombian and Venezuelan folklores. [? source? ]. According to these legends, it is an apparition similar to a genie, which appears on the South American plains. It is said that [??? idk man, that's all you]. §(2). The legend claims the spirit of a woman was burned alive in her own house, with his two sons. She attacks travellers, who (or whom, I'd have to look up the rule) should not prey (or pray?) in their presence, because, unlike other evil beings, the Candileja are attracted to prayers that annoy them.

I imagine if you rewrote this to the best of your ability, it would be sufficiently well-written. If anyone wants to fix this to make it better, feel free.

Best regards, Flynnlives (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Admins protecting their turf has been a recurring problem with Wkikpedia IMO. On numerous occasions I have submitted changes based on solid sources and amplifying the subject matter only to see my additions deleted without recourse. It is the primary reason I refuse to contribute money to this endeavor. When I know articles to be wrong I suspect there are many more about which I cannot be sure. Are we here to publish facts or to establish fiefdoms for the egos of censors?RDXelectric (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to publish well-sourced, relevant, encyclopedic facts. All too often what someone claims is turf protection is the reaction to an attempt to insert statements that are unsourced or poorly sourced, or not relevant to the article. I haven't interacted with you RDXelectric, so i can't say what was the case in any particular instances you were involved in. I won't say that editors, even admins, protecting turf does not happen. It does. But it is not without recourse. Mention a specific issue here, and it is likely to be looked into by uninvolved editors. Mention it to an uninvolved admin -- try me, i have no turf i am protecting. Try dispute resolution. Try the Reliable source noticed board if the issue is whether a source is reliable. If needed, post on WP:ANI. But do have your ducks in a row before going there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest are rather passive measures and put the burden of proof on a person rather than on a finder of fact, which makes more sense. I think a more proactive approach would vastly improve the quality of a great many articles. And the "well sourced" requirement is a red herring because facts stand on their own merit, not who said it. I have tried your systems of recourse and it always came back to the IP of an article to decide what changes to allow and that usually means little or nothing. Incorrect information is allowed to stand because it has a source. That's nuts. But by far the worst case I've seen was the removal of well sourced, highly accurate information because the IP didn't want that information included for purely political reasons. The bad taste I got from that makes me a critic of the system as a whole. RDXelectric (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RDXelectric: "And the 'well sourced' requirement is a red herring because facts stand on their own merit, not who said it."

Oh, they do, do they? Every crank, crackpot, and conspiracy theorist says "It's obvious, I don't need to prove it", or they point to something like the National Inquirer or a scripture or some work of imagination. If there's no WP:Reliable source, it doesn't go into Wikipedia. Fugeddaboudit. --Thnidu (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you Maproom (talk) for replying and saying it is nauseating. I agree fully with you that too much praise for Sheila Sri Prakash is something that many of us in this profession are unable to accept. I am also a woman and I graduated in 1974 from Mumbai JJ School before Sheila Sri Prakash but I only worked for a small office in Ahmedabad. I admit that certain things she has achieved is creditable and is good for the younger generation, especially for girls. But coverage about her in Indian media and even international outlets full of praise is just too much. May be she has very good connections or influence in media houses. I know some people will accuse me of professional jealousy but now that I have retired I am objective. Her work is also nothing compared to other architects from India. Why are there no images of completed projects like late Charles Correa or Doshi sir or Hafeez sir or Brinda Somaya? Who are all famous Mumbai or Ahmedabad based architects even common man knows. She has no project in Mumbai or Delhi to my knowledge. Only pictures are some old hut and her office building. I would be very very happy to see this article deleted and would request some other experienced editors to consider that this article to be removed. Entire profession will be grateful if you can help with this. How to make that happen? Kintomechanic (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that some other experienced editors have made improvements to the article. I've now mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kintomechanic (talk) Your accusations and defamation is even more pathetic than the audience walking out of A. R. Rahman's concert at the Wembley and asking for a refund BECAUSE the Oscar winning A. R. Rahman sang 12 tamil songs!^[1] You may claim to be a retired architect but clearly you do not understand that wikipedia is based on notability, as evidenced through primary and secondary references. I expect that you may have an issue with "media houses" such as The Hindu because it is Chennai based BUT Architect Prakash has been extensively covered in the Times of India and The Indian Express, as well. Please look through the references in the article. You will also see that she has been awarded by the Indian Institute of Architects, not to mention, a long list of international publications. Your request for deletion of such an article is inappropriate to say the least and to be more direct, it is a disgrace to Indian architects AND to women architects from around the world. Jai Ho! 210.18.162.167 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ar-rahman-performed-tamil-songs-and-the-shock-was-too-much-for-these-fans-1724751

Notability & sources

Must a subject have been cited in different kinds of sources to be considered notable, or is just one type sufficient if there are several? Uhtregorn (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uhtregorn that depends on what you mean by "different kinds". If a subject has only been discussed in one newspaper over a short period, it is probably not notable, particularly if the newspaper has only a local distribution area. An article can be based entirely on one type of source, as long as it's not only one paper, book, journal or website. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I meant different types of media (news articles, journals, books, etc), but I think this answers the question. Thanks! Uhtregorn (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... This is interesting to me, and I intend to come back to it at some point, whenever I find the time. More pressing matters to attend to currently. Flynnlives (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

References

^ me

proposed deletion-by a moderator on the correct posting on wikipedia on Prabhat (Paul ) jain

We have posted a true and correct article on Prabhat Paul Jain with the appropriate references. Please advise what we have to do to ensure that this article is not deleted. Thank you. Techno-Trend (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC) @Techno-Trend: Hello. The first issue is that you use "we" above; a username cannot be that of a group or business, and cannot be shared between individuals per the username policy. Your username must indicate that you and only you are using it. To change your username, please visit this page for instructions. I would further add that if you represent the person you are writing about, you will need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid relationship)[reply]

Regarding your quesiton, you may wish to contribute to the deletion discussion, but from what I see the concern seems to be that no independent reliable sources that indicate how the person is notable are given. Wikipedia does not deal in what is true, but what can be independently verified. The sources given must not be associated with the person in any way. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves, but what independent sources say about them. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Thankyou a lot for you valuable inputs. This is my individual account and I am doing it voluntarily and free of cost. A lot of content has been changed and I have cited a lot of references in support to my article.There are so many unsung heroes of old times that everyone should know. The biggest revolution of PC world was the invention of color, sound and video. Mr. Jain invented these technologies and mass marketed them. Unfortunately, Internet news media was not that active those days therefore you would not see most of the information about such important contributions.Let me put it this way, can you tell who invented these technologies?Techno-Trend (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-independent sources are acceptable for basic details such as the person's date of birth, but independent sources are needed to demonstrate notability. The tone of the article is all wrong, too. Wikipedia's guidelines will never allow unsourced commentary (in Wikipedia's voice) such as The story about "never giving up" follows him today after his paternal grandfather who stood at the gates of a British officer for 8 hours in 45°C, till the officer met him and gave him an engineering job in the Eastern Railway system. Simply, the officer did not know of anyone who wanted the job that badly. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC) A minor point, but the article claims that he has at spoken at a select committee of the English parliament. This would be difficult since there is no English parliament. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry I am very thankful to you for helping me improve on the content. A lot of content has been changed and I have cited a lot of references in support to my article. Please go through it and let me know, the scope of improvements.Techno-Trend (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Techno-Trend: Please don't change what you wrote before; if you wish to correct the record, please make a new comment. You will also need to address the fact that you seem like you represent a group. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Thankyou dear help, as I am new to the world of wikipedia article submission, please let me know how can I add a comment? No, I am not representing any group.Techno-Trend (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Techno-Trend:, please, we are not stupid children here. If you do not represent a group, why in your initial posting here did you use the pronoun "we", which unambiguously represents a group of people? --John from Idegon (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon, Thank you for Joining this discussion. Well, I am sorry for using We, in my question up there..Well the reason, 'We' have been used that too unintentionally, was that I and my son were working together on this article. This question was asked by my son and he used the word 'We' instead. Let me reiterate, I am an individual and do not represent any company or group of people and I know you are not a stupid child.Techno-Trend (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Techno-Trend: You add a new comment every time you post to this or any discussion. You do need to explain your use of "we"; when I google Techno-Trend I get many results for various companies or other things. You don't represent one of them? 331dot (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, I too tried to google with your account name but it just gave me weird results, does that means anything? Well, as in my other reply, I am an individual and do not represent any company or group of people and I know you are trying to help.Techno-Trend (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your advertorial has been deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the page I was creating deleted?

I was creating a page on author Rohini Chowdhury, when the page was deleted for 'unambiguous copyright infringement.' This was despite my questioning the deletion, and stating that I had permission from the author herself to use content from her websites, and that I would put in the necessary citations. But before I could make the additions, and without ANY response to my query and statement, the page was summarily deleted by one RHaworth. I had still not submitted my page for review, it was still very much a draft, and there was absolutely nothing there that was without permission or infringed copyright in any way. Most of it was copy I had received from the writer, or information i had received directly from her in conversation. Please tell me what I should do next. And for the record, I think this deletion was both highhanded and unjustified, especially since there was no attempt to even reply to my statement re: permission from the writer!VBansal (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VBansal: Hello. I'm sorry that this happened to you, but Wikipedia must take copyright violations seriously for legal reasons. It is not enough for you to say you have the author's permission(as anyone can claim that, for starters); the author must donate the materials to Wikipedia as described here. You can't do it because you don't own them. Leaving that aside, it is much better for an article to be written in your own words anyway. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VBansal - there is a section on your talk page explaining the use of copyright material and the requirements for doing so. If you simply rephrase the material in your own words, instead of the straight copy/paste, you should have a better chance of getting off the starting line. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the first point about the author's permission. However, I did not copy-paste, but wrote the article in my own words. There were perhaps two sentences that were not different enough - but before I had a chance to edit those, the article was removed. That was a bit drastic, was it not? I was given an hour at most between the warning and the deletion - surely some kind of time period should be allowed to make the changes?

VBansal (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, can I start again and put the article up once more? Or am I banned forever from writing this?VBansal (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is really bothering me is - how can a page be deleted before I have even submitted it for review?? I was working on it, it was a draft, and far from ready. This is five days' worth of research and writing and time wasted. This is really upsetting, and not expected at all. VBansal (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it can be upsetting. However, if a page is tagged for speedy deletion and an administrator determines that the tag is valid, it can be deleted without delay or discussion. That's not the case with other forms of deletion, just speedy deletions. As I indicated, copyright violations must be taken seriously. If you feel that the deletion was improper, you can ask the deleting administrator about it(who could explain their reasoning), or request a Deletion Review by an uninvolved party. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying this. I appreciate the emphasis on copyright violations and respect that - even though I was still working on the draft and in the process of cleaning up the article. I don't want to enter into a long discussion or controversy over this - so I will get back to putting the article back up. VBansal (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for Wikipedia is that even draft articles and user sandboxes are viewable by anyone, so if you need to copy copyright material before putting it into your own words, you need to use a word processor or text editor first, then the copyright material is not visible on the web until you have had a chance to edit it. I see that the article is back in main space, but needs more independent sources. Dbfirs 12:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add `{{Citation needed}}` for a whole paragraph

How can I add {{Citation needed}} to an entire paragraph?

X6wie72UelocEdjk (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello X6wie72UelocEdjk, and welcome to the Teahouse. Put the tag at the end of the paragraph, and put a note on the talk page explaining what actually needs citing. That is the best way, in my view. Or else place a tag after every sentence. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you might want to consider changing to a user name that is easier for other editors to recognize and copy. You can do that by following the instructions at WP:CHU. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X6wie72UelocEdjk An alternative is to use {{Refimprove section}} (placed above the text but below the section header). See the template documentation for parameters to include. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie.

Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. I wanna learn more about editing wikipedia. Have a nice day!. BrokenAnkler123 (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrokenAnkler123. You might find taking tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial one way to sharpen your Wikipedia skills. The page Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is also just loaded with information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia's most popular articles...by country

Is there a page where I can see the most often visited pages on the English Wikipedia by users with IPs originating in the Philippines? I want to post translations for pages which have the most demand for them by Filipinos for the Tagalog Wikipedia. I've posted translations of the leads of a view pages, such as w:tl:Kabalintunaang Fermi (Fermi paradox), but I'm not sure that pages like this, while interesting to me and probably some Filipinos, are the best use of resources. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

creating a page to link from another

Hi there. I want to write an article listing the historic uses of the term "tall ship." There is a page existing already called "Tall Ship" and a few brief remarks on the history of the term. I have spent a significant part of my life sailing on these ships and know a great deal about them and their history. There is much misunderstanding over the origin and use of the term "tall ship", oddly more so within the industry than in the general public, but confusion exists nonetheless. Many people believe mistakenly that this is a modern term, created by media-savvy journalists, and has no history before the 20th century. In fact, there are articles online that explicitly state this fallacy. I, however, have found literary references to the term "tall ship" going back centuries, and written by some of the brightest lights in literature whose names are known globally. And the references I have found are irrefutable proof that the term was in common use for centuries.

My hope is to write an article simply listing the quotations and where they came from, and link the article to the "Tall Ships" page. I am comfortable editing the "Tall Ships" page, but as regards the list of references on the new page, I am unsure of 1) how to start the new page (red link vs. blue link??) 2) the best page title to use, and 3) the best page format. To help with diagnosing my needs, I should note what I wish to do. I have a great number of historical quotations of the use "tall ship" and I want to create a table of possibly 4 columns: Year, Author, Citation, and Quotation. I wish the quotation to include a long enough selection of text to ensure that the quotation retains its literary context and is understandble to the reader. So in the end, the page would simply be like a Wiki list of television episodes: a set of 4 columns (author, year, citation, and quotation) and many rows, one for each entry. Do you have any advice?Ilovemuskoka (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemuskoka: I was dubious about your plan, as it involves creating an article about a phrase rather than a subject. But I read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and learned, from this section, that what you propose may be acceptable. I recommend that you read the page yourself, for guidance. Maproom (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there anyone else who has comments on the specifics I asked?Ilovemuskoka (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources are acceptable for notability?

I am trying to create an article on the writer Rohini Chowdhury. The warning on the article says that this may not be accepted for notability reasons. I am trying to gather more external links, and so far I have links from the translation journal Modern Poetry in Translation, and newspapers such a the Tribune India, and Telegraph India. I also a link to a blogpost on the Penguin blog. Will these be acceptable? I will be grateful for any guidance here. VBansal (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VBansal: a blog is not acceptable source, as it is not reliable: anyone can write whatever they like to it. As for the others, it depends what they say. To help establish notability, a source must include in-depth discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Some sources have been added to the page on Rohini Chowdhury. These include a review from the Religious Studies Review, as well a citation from a book Tellings and Text, by scholars Francesca Orsini and Katherine Schofield, that discusses one of her translations vis-a-vis other similar translations. Would these help towards establishing notability?

Also, the journal Modern Poetry in Translation carries three pages on one of the author's translations. The newspapers Tribune and Telegraph India carry reviews of her books. Would these be acceptable?

I apologise for these repeated questions, but I am just trying to get it right. VBansal (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: would giving ISBNs of published works help to establish notability? VBansal (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You establish notability by giving links to reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. A list of ISBNs does not qualify. By the way – when you're trying to encourage other editors to look at an article, it helps if you provide a link to it like this: Rohini Chowdhury.Maproom (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had a look at as many as I can of the sources you cite. 1, 5 and 12 have no discussion of the subject. 3, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14 (which is a duplicate of 7 6) are not independent of the subject. 11 is a blog, and so not reliable. 17 is base on an interview with her, and so not independent. 15 is about her work, not about her – so maybe some marginal contribution to establishing notability. 16 is the only one I've see which really helps. I suggest you look for more sources like 16 (The Tribune), and, preferably, remove the ones which add nothing to the article. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Your reply has really helped. Also, from now on, I will make sure to give a link to the article - that was remiss of me, not to do so. I will continue to look for more credible sources to establish notability. VBansal (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, VBansal, when and if you do have reason to give a citation to a book, please include the ISBN as part of the bibliographic data. If you are using {{cite book}} you can use |isbn= for this purpose. This will not affect notability, but will make it easier for readers to find the book. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodevening Sir. Can you please help me on how to create an article at my own wikipedia page ?

Non-Article Post

Own Words on how to learn information technology J.L. Dayawon (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business Advantage and Disadvantage J.L. Dayawon (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously expect the text now at User:J.L. Dayawon, to become a valid Wikipedia article? There are a number of problems.

I doubt if the subject is notable. If you are notable, this text does not show it. See notability, the general notability guideline, our guideline on the notability of biographies, and Wikipedia's Golden Rule.
Wikipedia articles can never be used as sources for other articles. All footnotes to Wikipedia articles should be removed (which is currently all of them).
There is far too much detail here, even were this a valid article. The table of individual games played is over the top, for example.
This is apparently an autobiography which is strongly discouraged.
This does not belong at your main user page. If it is a good-faith attempt at drafting an article, it should go in a subpage such as User:J.L. Dayawon/drafts/J.L. Dayawon. If it is a WP:FAKEARTICLE it should be deleted (and by bringing it to notice here, that is more likely).

I am not clear on exactly what you wanted to ask, but that page has serious problems. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i have a question

when do we need to edit Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrgr2156 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC) '[reply]

Whenever something is wrong or missing. Which is always.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change request

Can the link on the page of the of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Members (Foreign) to my name "Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz" be changed to the link "Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz"Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you provide a source showing that "Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz" is the correct spelling of the name of the member of the Academy? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz is the same person as Zbyszek Darzynkiewoicz. His link to the Wikipedia page is Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks. 64.118.223.196 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Moved to correct section. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Academy of Sciences does not seem to list "Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz" or "Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz" at the moment. Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz says that he is a member, however, so we should be able to get this cleared up pretty quickly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the source on Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz was the Wikipedia article Polish Academy of Sciences . I have removed that and put a "cite needed" ({{cn}}) tag in both articles. Can we please have an actual source for his membership, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz? Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A proper citation is now in place on both articles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your help. By-the-way, I am impressed how productive you are and knowledgeable in so many topics. This makes me embarrassed when I am asking simple question. This time: how I can attach the image (photo of the subject - me)?

Relationship of Wikipedia to Wikidocs

I am editing the prolotherapy Wikipedia page and there is a wikidocs topic that is the same. I am listed as an associate editor for that but have n not modified it.

How closely are these two associated? Same syntax, same rules, same editors?

Copy and paste thus feasible?

More detail in general since a medical based site?

Thanks for filling me in. Dr Reeves (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Reeves. WikiDoc is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia, except insofar as WikiDoc makes use of wiki software, that has been developed by the Wikimedia Foundation – the parent, nonprofit organization owning Wikipedia. (See here for a complete list of Wikimedia projects.) You can use Wikipedia content there, but must comply with the free copyright license borne by Wikipedia content. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic statistics missing

Hi, For some years now I've had a link under my 'tools' which shows traffic statistics for pages. (I'd originally added a piece of code to my page somewhere, but I don't remember the details.) Anyway, the link has now disappeared. Any ideas? Cheers. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hogyn Lleol. I don't know why your script's gone dead but go to the history of any page and you will see a link at the top of the page next to "External tools:" for "Page view statistics". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogyn Lleol: In User:Hogyn Lleol/vector.js you import a script at User:Smith609/toolbox.js but it has been blanked. It included a "Traffic stats" link. You could use User:PrimeHunter/Pageviews.js instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Thanks, guys. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit a new article

I have an article to submit, written in 'Word'. Do not understand how to submit it. Would also like it to be linked to 'Notable Burials' found in the Greyfriars Kirkyard, Wiki page. 82.10.39.141 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there can be problems in copying text from Word to Wikipedia. The safest way is to use Wiki markup and just copy as plain text. If you create the article in draft space (Draft:Your article name), then you can check to see if it displays correctly, and we can help you with formatting if it doesn't. Please let us know the draft article name if you want us to check it before you submit it for review. Is it a category that you want to put the article in, or do you just want to add the name here? There is some advice at WP:Your first article. Dbfirs 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

View users with certain service awards

Is there a way to view users with certain service awards?

For example, how can I see which users have the Vanguard Editor service award?

X6wie72UelocEdjk (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X6wie72UelocEdjk. If the users display a template then you can use "What links here" on the template. Wikipedia:Service awards mentions {{Vanguard Editor}} which gives Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vanguard Editor. Users have to add service awards on their own and it's optional. Most users don't do it. If they do then it's not checked whether they satisfy the requirements. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit content

I am affiliated with VentureOutsource.com and have been editing industry-related content on Wikipedia to include our fact-based industry content as viable resources for related pages on Wikipedia, always being thoughtful about positive contributions and not biased. I am now aware of the guidelines for Wikipedia and will stop editing content on the Website. Thank you for notifying me I should no longer post/edit.Zebrajumpsthemoon (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

submit a article

Do you add the photos when submitting for approval and if so how? Thank you Masterchefs (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masterchefs, and welcome to the Teahouse. Different editors go about developing articles in different ways, but I would generally advise getting at least the main structure of an article created before worrying about images. Using too many images is not a good idea, although that is a matter of judgement. When working on a draft no non-free images (images uses under a claim of fiar-use) may be present until after the draft is approved and becomes an article.

I presume this is in regards to Draft:Master Chef Edward G Leonard, CMC. There are several problems with that draft.

First of all, it is at presnt quite promotional in tone. Phrases such as is a top recognized global chef, He trained and traveled learning and sharing at a high level,..., Chef Leonard received his masters in cookery in 1996 being the third youngest to accomplish this. and others have a very promotional flavor.
Secondly, while there are sources cited, they are not cited inline, so it is not easy to tell which source supports which statement(s). This is not strictly required for most content, but it is the best practice. Please read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to construct inline citations
Thirdly, this is an autobiography. As you will see on the linked page, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies, and this draft is a prime example of why. It is almost impossible for anyone to remain neutral when writing about his or her own work or life. It is only natural, but Wikipedia articles must remain objective. Opinions and value judgements should only appear in them if directly attributed to a named person or entity, and supported directly by an inline citation to a reliable source.
Fourthly, Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics and people. That is a term which Wikipedia uses a bit oddly, here it means "having been written about by multiple published independent sources". Please read our guideline on the notability of people
Finally, back to images. You uploaded some (or all?) of the images now in the draft, and marked them as "own work". But you appear in the images, if I have understood correctly, and they do not look like "selfies". The copyright for an image is normally with the photographer, the person who actually clicks the shutter, unless it is transferred in writing. If you do not own the copyright, you must not mark the image as "own work". Instead the person who took the picture must release it, if that person is willing to do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major vandalism

On January 21, an IP editor made numerous unhelpful edits to one article, then to another. Numerous other edits have happened since then, so a simple revert would not work. I have attempted to correct some of them, but there are many more, and beyond my ability to correct. I made an entry on the talk page. Am I going about this the correct way? Should I notify anyone? Are there any tools to help automate this process? I will watch this spot for a reply. Thanks. Comfr (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Comfr. From a technical standpoint, it's challenging to undo multiple unconstructive edits when there have been multiple constructive edits in the interim. You can manually remove the offending changes or you can revert to the last version before the first of the problem edits, then add the good edits back in. Either way, it's tedious and often confusing. If the constructive edits interspersed along the way aren't essential, you could revert and then restore them in stages; you don't need to finish the job in one go. If you let other editors know what you're up to by posting on the talk page, as you did with the first of the two articles you're working on, you might even get help with that task. Please note: vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and it's best to avoid using the word unless there's evidence of unconstructive intent. Lots of people mess up articles without really meaning to. (These two articles are pretty far outside my comfort zone, so I'm probably not competent to judge if it's vandalism or not.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the edits were done by a person who knew the subject matter well enough to make subtle changes that would damage the article. For example, changing "public" to "private." When I read the article I suspected the word was wrong and I corrected it. Then to verify my work, I looked back in history to see what other edits had been made to that section. I finally found one massive edit containing many subtle and damaging changes. For example, inserting or removing the word "not." I also saw the same editor had contributed similar nonsense to a second article. Fortunately, another editor reverted those edits right away. This is the first time I have ever come upon un-reverted damage to Wikipedia. Wikipedia continues to be reliable, despite numerous attempts to disrupt or damage it. Thanks Rivertorch for your response to my questions. Comfr (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your pointer to vandalism. I have since learned that I have been dealing with WP:SNEAKY. Comfr (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What should a user do

What should a experienced user do if a new and inexperienced user is asking useless questions frequently from him Sinner (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Nazim Hussain Pak. In my opinion, experienced editors should do their best to assist new editors, and a friendly answer to a question perceived as useless may turn out to be very useful to someone trying to learn the complexities of editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Sinner (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article with offline sources

There is a small castle in France (Berry) called Buranlure, very famous in the neighborhood and fairly old. It is mentionned in various pages, and classified as part of the french national heritage (highest degree of national classification for historical buildings), but has very few articles online about it. The only sources are its official website and some amateur pages. I would like to create an article about it, based on reliable facts from the various books written about it I have at home, but don't know if it will work as it cannot be checked so easily. How could this be done? thank you very much in advance Berrybur (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Berrybur:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Reliable offline sources are perfectly fine but you should add as many bibliographic details as possible for such sources (for all sources actually), so other interested editors have a reasonable chance to find the sources themselves in a library or somewhere else. The castle's official website should be used sparingly and only for uncontroversial basic claims, and other amateur sites are generally not usable at all. As this seems to be your first article, I'd recommend to check WP:Your first article and to create a draft following this step-by-step guide. Experienced editors will review such a draft when you submit it, and will be able to offer additional advice. I'll also post some standard links on your user talkpage. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berrybur, I don't see any problem here. Notability is pretty much guaranteed by the monument listing. Without doing any prolonged searching, you have basic factual data in this source, a full but not modern description here, and a shorter but more modern bit ~~here~~ here. I'm sure that plenty more will turn up. Oh, and there are public-domain historic images in the 1875 source, which can freely be uploaded to Commons to be used in the article. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: It seems like you accidentally used the same URL twice for your last 2 links. And I probably should have mentioned: while English-language sources are preferred, non-English reliable sources are OK as well, and also establish notability for a topic just like English-language sources. GermanJoe (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GermanJoe, I've changed that second link – which happens to be to an English-language book. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect thank you very much! I'll do that.

Very grateful for all your responsive help.

Berrybur (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need guidance in creating an archive of my talk page

I am looking for help archiving my talk page as Fnlayson did on his (talk) page. Quebec99 (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the help pages, such as Help:Archiving a talk page as a start. --Finlayson (talk)

Done. Thanks! Quebec99 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to get an article peer reviewed?

I apologize for the dumb question, but I seem to be stuck in a loop.

As a new member of Wikipedia, I created my account and wrote an initial draft in my User Sandbox.

In order to get that draft peer-reviewed, I copied the article contents and pasted them in a draft article at my user account root, saved, and then in the "Talk" tab, I added the { { subst : PR } } tag at the top and signed it using the four tildes.

However, when I subsequently saved this, { { subst : PR } } was substituted by a sentence in bold red: "This template should be substituted on the article talk page."

I thought I was on the article talk page. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks in advance for your help! Suitecomm (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your {{subst:PR}} did not work because you were not on an article talk page, but in a talk page in your user space. This template will not work there.

If you wish to create a new article, the best course of action for a new user is to use the new article wizard which can be found here. There are a set of checks to get you to the appropriate place. Once you have sufficient article to submit for inclusion, there is a button at the top labelled 'Submit this article' (or something similar). This submits the article for review and will draw either acceptance or suggestions for improvement.

Having looked at your article in your user space, my opinion is that your proposed article reads much closer to an advertisement than an article and would be unlikely to be accepted. This does not necessarily mean that an article on that subject would, of itself, be unacceptable. It just needs to be factual, notable and written from a neutral point of view. It also needs to be backed up by reliable sources.

One other important point: if you have a close or paid connection with Qwest TV, you must disclose this, on your account user page and at the head of the article. A review of WP:COI and WP:DISCLOSE will show you the way, if this is the case. Good luck. 86.149.141.8 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rapid and clear reply and for pointing me in the right direction. I was subsequently able to locate where I would create and submit the article thanks to the Article Wizard.

However, as you correctly point out, at this point the subject of my article is still in the development stages. I've decided to leave the article as a draft for the foreseeable future, until the subject gains in breadth and visibility and is the subject of articles written in independent, well-known, and reliable publications.

In any case, my first foray into the world of editing Wikipedia—a source of information I have long revered—was edifying. Thanks again for the welcome and the well-wishes. Best of luck to you, too. Suitecomm (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One other point, Suitecomm: in general, copy-pasting within Wikipedia is not a good idea, for various reasons (see WP:CUTPASTE for some of the problems it leaves behind). In this case, since you were copying only your own work, no harm is done; but in future, it's better to move a page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Without Explanation

Can someone please explain why this edit (in its entirety) was rejected? I reached out to the editor, but have been ignored. Thx Justbean (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justbean: ~~as tbe edit summary suggests the issue seems to be whether this content is a copyright violation or not. Is it written entirely in your own words or copy-pasted from elsewhere?~~ Strike that, just seen the lengthy discussion at your talk page which seems to answer the question. Nthep (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: thank you for your reply. This edit is not copy-pasted. I paraphrased or rewrote every sentence in my own words in order to avoid copyvio. I literally went through it sentence by sentence. This was a second edit I wrote in order to avoid copyvio issues that appeared in the first edit. In fact, the 1st editor (who's kindly posted about this below) came to my defense on the Talk page and expressed, to the 2nd editor, that my new edit was fine and that he/she thought it should be "restored to the page." Regardless...I'm at a loss as for why the ENTIRE edit was rejected. Thanks Justbean (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello Justbean, and welcome to the teahouse. What article did you attempt to insert this into, and exactly which edit wasw it? was it your edit of 12:46, 15 July 2017 to Cowboy? That edit was reverted because you have to write this in your own words, in encyclopedic language. this is copied from a magazine. I haven't verified the copying myself, but I fully trust White Arabian Filly to have done so. You may not insert text copied from an outside source, unless it is properly marked and attributed as a quote, and is relatively short (normally no more than 1-3 sentences). Such copying violates copyright. Any edit that inserts such copied text will be reverted regardless of any other merits of the edit. This is one of the most strictly enforced policies here on Wikipedia. Thre is no give to it at all.

If I have mis-indentified this edit, and it came form somewhere else, please indicate where.

IN future please do not post long sections of article text to the Teahouse. Just indicate the article and timestamp, or better, link to a diff. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DES thanks for your reply. As mentioned to Nthep above, this was a second edit, on which Justlettersandnumbers has been kind enough to vouch for me. My first edit (8:39, July 15, 2017) did contain copyvio, though it was due to a misunderstanding of the way other information had been presented/cited on the page. However, Justlettersandnumbers gave me some great help/guidance, and I went through the edit made sentence-by-sentence edits, so as not to have any copyvio. It was not "copied from a magazine." I submitted this edit (12:46, July 15, 2017). This is the edit White Arabian Filly rejected...in its entirety. Justbean (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nthep, there's fairly extended discussion of this at User talk:Justbean. I believe the editor's second attempt was very close to being perfectly OK; you with your X-ray vision will be able to see that the first try had its problems. I invited Justbean here because he/she must be fed up with hearing my voice. The editor who reverted the second attempt (who has had enough pings from me today) has not edited since yesterday; it might perhaps be an idea to sit back a bit and wait for her/him to do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: diff of Justbean's second version. I asked for this to be unhidden from the history this morning. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, thank you, and thanks again for the invite! Very helpful. And am far from tired of your voice ;) Justbean (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Justbean. You made a massive edit to an article that presented several problems. The first and by far the most important was that much of the content violated copyright, and Wikipedia is extremely strict about copyright violations. If the content you posted here at the Teahouse violates copyright, please remove it immediately from here and from anywhere else on Wikipedia where you may have posted it. Copyright violations will be removed on sight when detected and this is firm policy and is not negotiable. This has all been discussed on your talk page.

Cullen³²⁸, thank you for the kind welcome. Am wondering if you can you please tell me, specifically, what violated copyright? Also, I didn't realize there was any problem with the scope of my edit. This is the first I'm hearing of that. Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justbean, it seems that you copied content from Smithsonian magazine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸...the thing is...what specifically did I copyvio? In this edit, no one has provided me with any specifics. Furthermore, my first editor wrote, in my defense, that my new edit was fine and that he/she thought it should be "restored to the page." So, if you can provide me with specifics...not just what White Arabian Filly logged as a basis for rejecting the edit, I would sincerely appreciate it. And if I have done any copyvio, can you show me how it differs from any other edit on the page, just so I understand for future edits? Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem that I see is that you are trying to add significant new content that unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys. Black cowboys would end up appearing far more important than Mexican cowboys, for example. I think that a better solution is to create a new article on Black cowboys linked from the main Cowboy article, and to add a brief summary of the new content to that article.

Cullen³²⁸ I don't see how it unbalances the coverage. The entire article was unbalanced to begin, given its default that cowboys are white. It's unclear why "cowboys" can't include all cowboys, or why black, Mexican, etc. should have their own pages. I thought the page is about American cowboys. If that's true, then, as of now...white cowboys are appearing far more important than all others...which is inaccurate, given that others accounted for 40-60 percent (per census) of all cowboys. It seems that including cowboys of color others shouldn't necessitate the need for them to be separate. That's akin to saying white cowboys are the "default"...and others are subcategories. So, while I see no harm in cowboys of color having a separate page...I also don't see why they have to be relegated on this page (as Cowgirls have their own sizable section), or re-directed to other pages. As for Mexican cowboys...I simply didn't do that edit. But, I also don't see why I need to do the edit on Mexican cowboys, et al. in order for the edit on Black cowboys to be accepted? Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article had a section describing the regional ethnic variations among cowboys and I see no default assumption in the article before you began editing that cowboys were white. I am not arguing that anything be "relegated" and agree that you are working to add useful content. But all additions need to take into account the full article and often it is better to create more detailed sub articles rather than to allow the original article to evolve in a sprawling, disorganized fashion. As for cowgirls, I would support a separate article for them as well. In my opinion, Black cowboys and cowgirls are discrete topics covered in detail in many books that, in my view, deserve separate articles. This is a matter of editorial judgment to be decided by consensus, and I am expressing my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ that's my point. You don't have to say cowboys are white...the default is that they just are. It's a given. Look at all the artwork on the page, or the section that talks about the Cowboy image. This is why it has to be explained that there were non-white cowboys. It's the same if/when reading a story. If a character is not white, it has to be pointed out...otherwise people assume/default that the character is white. But...back to the article, there are, in fact, other references in the Cowboy article where cowboys are mentioned as, or alluded to being, white:

American cowboys were drawn from multiple sources. By the late 1860s, following the American Civil War and the expansion of the cattle industry, former soldiers from both the Union and Confederacy came west, seeking work, as did large numbers of restless white men in general.

In the 19th century, most tribes in the area were dispossessed of their land and cattle and pushed south or west by white settlers and the United States government.

By the middle of the 19th century white ranchers were running large herds of cattle on the extensive open range of central and southern Florida.Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it is far better to expand an article by making a series of smaller, easily digestible additions, describing each in an edit summary. If another editor perceives a problem with one chunk of content, they can revert and discuss while leaving most of the new content intact. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸, again, I wasn't aware that I had to account for scope. Will take into consideration. However, I also didn't see my edit as being any bigger than the edit on Cowgirls. But, if I have to do something differently, I'll keep trying. Thanks for your willingness to communicate with me and to try to help me out :) Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justbean, was the cowgirl content added in a single edit, or was it added gradually in a series of edits? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ I honestly don't know when/how the cowgirl edit was added. But, if an edit is accurate, why should its size matter? In addition, no one has mentioned that the size of my edit is issue. All I've heard is copyvio, although I have yet to receive any specifics. If the size/scope of my edit was an issue (btw, is that an actual reason an edit can be rejected?), then White Arabian Filly should have done one of two things: 1) either accept SOME of the edit and tell me to resubmit the rest in portions or 2) give me an opportunity to shorten the edit. However, I was afforded neither of those things. My ENTIRE edit was just rejected. Without ANY explanation/message to me. And the idea that the entire edit would be rejected, regardless of accuracy, for being "too big"... well, that just doesn't make sense. Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justbean an edit should not be rejected for being "too big" and I don't think yours was. But when there is perceived to be a problem with an edit (correctly or incorrectly) and the edit is large, it is common for it to be reverted as a whole, giving the original editor the chance to reinsert the parts with no problems, or to start a discussion on the article talk page. Perhaps this isn't the best possible practice, but it is common here, regardless of the subject matter.

When an edit is believed to be a copyright infringement (again, correctly or not) it is normal for it to be reverted in toto and at once. It is not normal to wait for the original editor to revise or correct the edit (in fact it is pretty much unheard of). Nor is it usual to provide any more explanation than "copyright infringement of <name of source>", although it is usual to indicate the source being infringed. Nor is it usual for the reverting editor to try to pick though the edit and remove only the infringements. Once an editor determines than an edit is in significant part infringing, it is usually removed root and branch, leaving to the original editor the task of reinserting the information in a way free of infringements. It is also usual to indicate the infringement in a log entry (when a page is deleted totally) or in an edit summery (when an edit is reverted), and only sometimes are these supplemented by a personal message to the initial editor. The edit summery was an explanation. Now it may be that White Arabian Filly made an error in this case. And i apologize for implying that your statement was of no value. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, any further discussion of the article content should take place at the best place, which is Talk:Cowboy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article waiting for approval since February 2017

Greetings. I created an article on an important Southern California outdoor sculpture in February 2017. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Spanish_Music ) Since then, it has had a note at the top saying that the article will be reviewed by "someone other than the author". It seems like five (5) months is too long to wait for this kind of review. Am I wrong? Did I do something incorrect in creating or posting the article? (I am a very new and inexperienced contributor to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.) I posted a note on my "Talk" page about this several weeks ago (3 July 2017), and even that has been ignored. Please let me know what I should do, or if I just need to wait. Thanks. --Seauton

Seauton (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Unless you have user talk page followers it's unlikely anyone will see that message. I don't know why it has taken so long, there may be a reason, but we are all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and wondered if the issue might be notability see: WP:N. I did not see any secondary sources in the references that attested to the sculptures importance. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seauton: I agree with Ariconte's concerns above. Articles usually need to fulfill general notability guidelines, and in this case, it seems like most of what is written about the sculpture is published by Pomona College. These sources are not sufficiently independent of the topic. Would you consider moving some of this content to the main article on the sculptor? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Seauton. I just reviewed the article, tagged it for possible notability issues, and left a detailed analysis of the sources and what they lack on Talk:Spirit of Spanish Music. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, searching for reliable sources gives me nothing. I'm considering AFDing the article. Jdcomix (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcomix, I think a redirect – for which there already seems to be consensus here – to Burt Johnson might be simpler. Not that he is particularly notable either; in fact that page could be an AfD candidate, too. Being brother-in-law to Augustus Saint-Gaudens's brother is not a great claim to fame. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Box

New user here, and I don' t have any idea how to add comments to the Teahouse or any other page. I understand facebook and twitter, but wikipedia is a puzzle to me. So the only way I can post is to go into edit. All of the comments already posted do have a "join this discussion" prompt, but I don't see a "post a comment" or "post a question" box. What am I missing? Salander44 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're already doing the correct thing, there's no "comment" button on Wikipedia. Jdcomix (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Salander44 there is a large blue box/button at the top of this page that says "ask a question". But all that does is create a new section and put you in edit mode. Other talk pages generally require you to enter edit mode on your own to post a comment or start a new thread (section). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! I can't defend myself except to say it was in an unexpected location. I see it now. Apologies! Salander44 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry or apologize, Salander44. You've learned where the comment box is on this page, and how to add comments to any discussion page on Wikipedia. And asking questions is what this page is for, and answering them is what I and others come here for. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How can I get images that i can use on Wikipedia (Uneaseyoutube (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best way is to take photos or create drawings yourself, Uneaseyoutube. Then you can upload them, releasing them under a free license. There are many images already available on Wikimedia Commons, and any of them should be free to use. Most images on the web are not freely available, and generally cannot be used on Wikipedia. Some have been released under a free license, such as the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. Those can be used, with proper attribution, if the license was actually issued by the proper copyright holder. You could search for such images. In a few rare cases, an image can be used under fair use, provided that it meets all of the criteria. Some older images will be in the public domain, mostly images published in 1923 and earlier. And that is about it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a deadline for correcting problems the editors have flagged?

Hello - For an article on James Lechay, several issues have been identified. We hope to address them as soon as time is available. Is there a deadline for meeting these various objections? Thank you.Daniel Lechay (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Daniel Lechay there is no specific deadline to address any of these issues. For some kinds of issues, an editor might nominate the article for deletion if they were not fixed in a timely way, although there is no fixed standard for "timely". But the issues currently identified for James Lechay do not seem to me likely to lead to a nomination for deletion.

Perhaps more importantly, who is "we" that "hope to address" the issues? Wikipedia accounts should be for individual people, and should never be shared.

Your name is the same as the name of the subject. Are you a family member, perhaps? If so you have a conflict of interest, and should read the linked page and follow its advice in editign the article only with care. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited no references at all. I have moved it to Draft:James Lechay. When the referencing has been addressed (and any other issues) you can submit it for acceptance as an article. This way, there's no danger of it being nominated for deletion – though it will vanish automatically if no edits are made to it for six months. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to DESiegel and to Pink Ampersand for your responses. Now I am wondering how I can get the notice "Promotes the subject in a subjective manner" deleted as speedily as possible. I believe it is no longer true (if it ever was?) and it could discourage readers. Thanks again.Daniel Lechay (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lechay, those maintenance tags are inserted manually, by specific editotrs. Any editor may remove them if s/he thinks that the the problem has been fixed. In this case, I think there there may still be a bit of promotional tone. Specifically, the lead section. This currently consists of a series of stitched together quotations, followed by a parenthetical citation, but without any in-text attribution. This might belong in a "Critical response" section, it does not belong in the lead sectuon, which should summerize the article as a whole.

There are other problems with quotes in the draft. All quotes should have three things: an in-text atribution ({xt|According to Marcus Jones...}}; the actual quote, clearly marked with quotation marks or formatted as a block quote; and an inline citation that allows a reader to find and verify the source of the quotation. (Please see Wikipedia:Quotations, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations, and When and why to cite sources.) Some of the quotes in the draft are missing the attribution, some the citation. And consider a citaton such as Barbara Lloyd, Provincetown Arts, 1990. Is "Provincetown Arts" the name of a book, an article, a publication containing an article, or what? Where was it published? Who published it? Is it Provincetown Arts Magazine? If so, what page did the quote appear on? How is the reader to find and verify this quotation?

Text such as The Iowa art department was a highly unusual place - an outpost of modernism in the conservative heartland. It was not surprising, then, that a commissioned portrait of J.W. Maucker, president of the University of Northern Iowa (UNI), catapulted Lechay to brief statewide fame in March 1966. (from the Iowa City years section) presents several opinions/judgements in Wikipedia's voice. This is not acceptable. Who says the art department was unusual? Who thinks that the fame was unsurprising? Such opinions and judgements must be directly attributed to a named person or entity, in an indirect or direct quote, and supported by a direct inline citation. Text such as These are discussed in the book Cape Cod Modern by Peter McMahon. is not a sufficient citation, page or at least chapter info is needed for the reader to have any chance to use the info. As it is it does feel somewhat promotional to me.

I understand that this is still a draft, and under development. I also understand that you are new to Wikipedia editing. Part of the point of putting this into draft mode was to relax such standards while this is under development. But the aim must be to bring nit up to mainspace standards and then move it back to mainspace. Citations do not have to be formatted as footnotes with <ref>...</ref> tags, although that is the most common system on Wikipedia. Parenthetical cies are fine. But one way or anther, ther must be enough info for a reader to verify the facts, and particularly to verify any and all quotes.

I will be happy to help on specific point if my assistance is wanted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was helpful - changes are coming. Thanks.2620:0:E50:1016:784A:D411:B68B:C1A5 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my page removed??Daniel Lechay (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Issues

I created a movie last year and had a premiere screening on New Years Eve in Akron, Ohio. I had a full house, SRO audience who loved the film. The film has gone on to be reviewed broadly and enjoy further screenings made. Saturday I created a wikipedia page for the film and have encountered numerous objections: puffery, self-aggrandizement, lack of notability, inappropriate advertising and conflict of interest. Please look at my page Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot and also the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot, and join the discussion. Salander44 (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Salander44. I'm glad you created something that has brought joy to the world. You say that sometimes it doesn't pay—but what does that have to do with Wikipedia? Your feeling of satisfaction about the movie you made shouldn't depend on its having a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't about social media or blogging or publicizing works of art, however worthy—it is an encyclopedia. If the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica declined to include an entry for your film, would you be upset by that? It's really very much the same thing. In looking over the article now, I'd have to say that the objections you mentioned above are apt. That's no reflection on you. The existence of a Wikipedia article won't validate your movie, and the absence of an article won't negate it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rivertorch. This was a silly post as a result of frustration. I intended to delete it in favor of something more sensible, but your reply precludes that now. I did try to post something more appropriate, but it disappeared as soon as I hit the "Ask My Question" button. Maybe I hit my limit on Questions, or perhaps it will appear later. I have no idea. But I can say this: wikipedia is not a forum to validate anyone or anything. To say it is equivalent to the Encyclopaedia Britannica of our digital age does say something to me about the attitude of some of the editors. I had thought that wikipedia sought to democratize knowledge, and make that knowledge available to a broader range of people. I personally use it a lot for background research, but not as a dispositive source of knowledge. For that, I still resort to the original sources. Salander44 (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits appear as soon as your submit them, Salander44, and there is no technical limit on the number of questions you ask, so I'm afraid something must have gone wrong with your second question. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you were thinking about the question you asked at Wikipedia:Help desk#Adding Film Poster; Resolving Page Issues? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salander44: if you want to retract what you wrote above, you could "strike" it: put a <s> tag at the beginning and </s> at the end. This would make it clear to readers that you've withdrawn what you wrote. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I closed down my computer and rebooted. I tried a third time. Still no result. If you see the same question three times tomorrow, it may be because of a glitch in the wikipedia servers tonight. Otherwise my Questions have been blocked. Salander44 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salander44 there is no mechanism to intentionally block posts, so if it happens it's either a software glitch or an error by the poster. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roger (Dodger67). I was able to post the substance of my comment relating to notability on the Deletion Page, so perhaps there's a server or software glitch on this page. The comment is available here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot Salander44 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salander44: Just to clarify, I didn't mean to precisely equate Wikipedia and Britannica; each has its respective strengths and weaknesses. I simply meant that they both are encyclopedias. People forget that about Wikipedia all too often. Incidentally, I experienced a similar glitch while editing a few days ago. It happened only on one page, and it eventually resolved itself after some hours. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Question on Citation

I recently submitted a DRAFT which was rejected on the grounds that some of the refs are not credible like youtube, I will like to ask, how then can you reference a line in an article that refers to a video, and how does wikipedia determine credible sources, if a credible source is a localised source, for example certain mainstream news are credible but localised and also how can I reference a Newspaper article.Goziextech (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in AdvanceGoziextech (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think you might be interested in reading about reliable sources. For ways to cite, the article wizard is quite helpful I think, but you can also read the document here. Before you do any of this though, I think you ought to read about conflict of interest here in Wikipedia, based on the draft article you have submitted recently. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 05:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an editor!

Hi guys, I joined wikipedia in order to write an article about my company - which I now realise I can't do! Can I request that an article about it be written? I make vegan cosmetics, and I've seen an article listing vegan companies, and I'd like mine to be in there! Fairypantsuk (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fairypantsuk: Hello and welcome. Please note that not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even companies in the same field; it must receive in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicate how it meets the company notability guidelines. If you believe that is the case, your company may merit an article. You can post to the appropriate section of Requested Articles, but the backlog is so massive that it may never get written.

It is correct that you should not directly create an article about your company, you can indirectly create one by visiting Articles for Creation to submit a draft for an independent review and feedback. However, before you even attempt to do that, you should review Your First Article, the notability guidelines that I link to above, and make the appropriate declarations of a conflict of interest and paid editing(the latter of which is required by the Terms of Use if you have a paid relationship). I would again stress the need for in depth coverage of your company in independent sources; Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, but what independent sources not affiliated with the company say. If you just want to post that your company exists, such an article will not be accepted. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that an article about your company here is not necessarily a good thing (that link refers to biographies but the principle is the same); you cannot keep others from editing it, you cannot lock it to the text you would like it to be, and information (good or bad) can be added to it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. You can't keep bad information out, if it exists(or will exist) 331dot (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are "WikiProjects" and how do they work? And how do you join them?

Hello. So I've been here for a while now and I have noticed "WikiProjects", how do they work? And do you need to request if you want to join them? Thanks! HouseGecko (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HouseGecko, most WikiProjects are quite informal these days, to the point where officially "joining" is not at all necessary. All that you need to is to put the Project and its talkpage on your watch list, and then either start a conversation there, or look and see what may need doing, or contact an existing member on their usertalk page or via WP:PING and ask them the best way to participate. Some WikiProjects have grown stale over the years, but many still have style guidelines or peer-review projects for articles, and most talk pages are still watched by at least a few people. It depends upon the project (and how large of an area it covers). Just dive in and participate or start a conversation on a talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, HouseGecko. Does Wikipedia:WikiProject answer your questions? The registration procedure varies among projects but it is usually as simple as adding your name to a list of participants at the project's page. Come back if you have any further questions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unconstructive edit?

Hello,

I would like to (substiantially) edit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87a_plane_pour_moi in order to put it in accordance with the original French version of it (here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87a_plane_pour_moi) - basically, the new version would be a translation to English of the French version.

Whenever I try however, I am blocked because "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed".

Can someone please help me with this change?

Many thanks in advance.

Lexmind (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lexmind - Looking at your "Abuse filter log" you have had five edits disallowed for "Addition of bad words or other vandalism" I don't know what your additions include, but you are not going to get the text you are currently trying to add past the abuse filter. Try making several incremental edits, rather than one large one, and you should be able to work out what is causing the alarm bells to go off. - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexmind: Wikipedia languages are edited independently and articles don't have to be "in accordance" with eachother. The current English version looks fine to me. The translated version you are trying to make has poor English and many things we don't do here, already in the second sentence:

Since its released, the song meets a worldwide success (15 “Disques d'or” and 5 Platinum [[Ça plane pour moi#cite note-7|<sup>7</sup>]]), it will be one of the few francophone songs to enter the [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard Hot 100'']][[Ça plane pour moi#cite note-8|<sup>8</sup>]],[[Ça plane pour moi#cite note-LS2001-6|<sup>6</sup>]].

You can use the "Sandbox" link at top of any page, save a version there and suggest replacing the article, but I doubt it will get support. I suggest you learn more about the English Wikipedia before trying to replace a whole article. It may have been the mention of Armageddon Dildos which triggered the filter. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All administrators must consider it

We are here to improve wikipedia. I suggest a wikipedia project with the name Wikipedia:Articles for Improvement (WW:AfI). I have developed a draft, but it is my suggestion, admins will proceed with what they feel better. Admins must read this draft and inform me what they think about this suggestion. Sinner (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nazim Hussain Pak: A pro-tip, saying the words "must consider"/"must read" normally causes a negative reaction. If you'd like some feedback, asking nicely is the best way to go

-- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the special addition of the red font to the header. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say a wikipedia project like Wikipedia:Discussions for Redirect and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion should be established in which Users will edit pages and improve wikipedia. For more information read this. I don't want feedback but simply want quick improvement in wikipedia.

Here for single call Sinner (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be aware of this page. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly what I want 331dot, Once again Sinner (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if you want to modify the processes there, you should address those on that page by posting to that page's talk page. That said, I would participate some there first before suggesting changes. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combating paid editing

Why can't we have a process, say a G14 CSD where we can tag all pages created by a sockpuppet or any other paid editor, for deletion. Most of the paid editors are usually identified by their sockfarms, and blocked by the keen eyes at SPI. If the pages are deleted on being identified as an obvious sockpuppet, the tribe of undeclared paid editors will decrease, as people will not be willing to pay for articles that are deleted soon. Siddhant Behl, Sujayath Ali, Karnesh Sharma and Voonik are articles created by extensive sockfarms, some of whose creators where blocked by SPIs initiated by me. However most of them cannot be ordinarily deleted by proper means as sometimes well meaning inclusionists jump at their defence, citing the references presented. If they are speedily deleted on being identified as an SPA creation, we can bypass that issue, and if they are indeed notable, we can always have the inclusionists re-creating the article. I have presented this here to vet any very obvious fallacy in the idea, and to hear from experienced editors to see if this was proposed earlier. If I get the go-ahead, this can go to the Village Pump Proposal lab. Jupitus Smart 17:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me a good proposal. Maproom (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be a specific WP:G5 extension to allow the deletion of articles created before the block (but not long before, and relevant to the causes of the block). I doubt you would get either your proposal or a G5 extension to pass though, unless very tightly worded. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Variations of this have been proposed before on WT:CSD and have not gained consensus. Indeed there was recently considerable support for totally repealing WP:CSD#G5 which permits speedy deletion of articles created in violation of a block or ban. I would oppose any such change as you suggest very strongly. If you want to propose it, WT:CSD is the place. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the opinion so far is to thread cautiously. There has also been a failed attempt at something similar at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 61. Let me think it over. Jupitus Smart 04:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an editor to look at a draft page please?

My teen students have been working hard on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Girls_Inc._of_the_Island_City and would love if an editor could give us some feedback on whether it is real to go live.

We have been using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Incorporated_of_Southwestern_Connecticut as a template of a local Girls Inc. group and trying to go beyond that.

Thanks!ChrisBennett (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisBennett: Thank you for requesting feedback. My concern is that this local group has not met the hurdle of being notable per WP:ORG. As a rule, most local affiliates of a national organization aren't. While Island City is sourced more extensively than SWCT, it looks like a lot of the sources discuss individual people and the national organization rather than the local group. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that is great feedback. We will continue working on this.ChrisBennett (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChrisBennett. I suggest you review the link C.Fred gave before working further on the draft, because if the subject does not in fact meet the criteria for notability, any work you put into the draft will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I verify that I am authorized to use certain text.

My name is Sam Rutan, and I am new to creating articles on Wikipedia. I just finished creating an article for an upcoming Netflix series called Daughters of Destiny (2017). My boss, the director, told me to use a description that she wrote for the series as the article body. However, it just so happens that this text was also used in press releases across the internet. So, in other words, the director wrote the text but since it is in articles on the internet Wikipedia is trying to delete my page on the grounds of copyright infringement. How do I reconcile this? Srutan21 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srutan21: Hello and welcome. First, I would ask you to please review the conflict of interest policy as well as the paid editing policy since you state you are editing at the request of your boss; compliance with the latter policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid relationship. Regarding your question, I believe you will need to visit this page on donating copyright materials for more information. I think your director will need to be the one to actually donate the materials since you don't own them yourself. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot: the text you have used appears on this page with the copyright notice "© 2017 - Copyright Wisdom Digital Media, all rights reserved." If your boss does release this text for use in Wikipedia, it will also become available for re-use, including commercial re-use, by anyone who acknowledges its source. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material written for a press release is unlikely to be suitable for use in an encyclopedia article in any case, Srutan21 - apart from the odd selective quote, perhaps (which is allowable within copyright rules). You should write the material in your own words, or, better still given your conflict of interest, wait for someone else to write the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. In this case, would my best course of action be to declare my COI and request the creation of an article? Srutan21 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srutan21: You could put in a request at Requested Articles but it is severely backlogged to the point where it might not get written. You could contact a relevant WikiProject to see if someone could help you there, perhaps one of the ones listed at the top of Talk: List of original programs distributed by Netflix. (probably the Film one) 331dot (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When is it okay to remove or delete edits?

I noticed the removal of edits by another user. The odd thing is, they reported their removal to an admin. Nothing in the removed material seemed to violate rules, but the editor suspected them of being a SOCK. I can provide diffs, but before I do, I just would like some second opinions. Is this normal? I am familiar with WP:TALKNO, so I'm feeling a bit confused by this, since it seems to be sanctioned by an admin, but I could be wrong about that. DN (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darknipples, the editor who reverted is likely familiar with the editing patterns of a sockpuppet master and believed the reverted edits were made by a sock of that user. The admin was involved because socks must be blocked. If the reverted editor turns out to be innocent, they will be unblocked and their changes may be added back. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Darknipples, that only edits made by socks who are actually evading blocks should be reverted on sight. Socking users who have yet to be detected, may be blocked when they are first detected, but their previous edits are not automatically reverted or removed. Under ordinary circumstances, one does not remove the talk page comments of others, although personal attacks can sometimes be an exception. Unless you are sure you know what you are doing, do not revert or alter anyone else's talk page comments. If you think there is a problem, draw attention to it in a comment of your own. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be an appropriate addition?

I recently visited the Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site in California and took two photos that I think would be a fun addition to the page. They go with a story about Katherine Hepburn convincing a San Francisco department store to sell back the Chinese teak bed that O'Neill used to have in the house, so that the historic site would be more like it was when he and his wife lived there.

Two questions:

Would this be an appropriate addition to the site's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_O%27Neill_National_Historic_Site)? If so, should it go in History, or some other existing section, or a new section?

I've done minor editing of Wikipedia articles but don't want to attempt adding an inline photo (which would need to be linked from Wikimedia Commons, I presume) with wraparound text. If I were to provide the text and photos, would someone else be willing to upload them and format them on that page correctly?

Thanks! Bayguy42 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bayguy42 and welcome to the Teahouse. As you took the photos, you would need to upload them to Commons and release them under a proper free license. That should present no problems. As to including them in the article, can this story be supported by a relaible source? If so, it could probably go in the article, and the images or one of them along with it. If not, the story could not go in, and there would then be nothing for the images to illustrate. Ehre did you encounter the story, please?

The editing involved is quite simple, if the source is available. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. But if you still don't feel comfortable, I would be willing to insert the text and images, if the source is good. But I can't upload the images for you. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard to start the upload process. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a photo

I am wondering how to add a photo of a public person that is not a press photo.

For example, can I add a photo where the photographer has given permission for the photo to be on Wikipedia? 99.96.49.194 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)The copy[reply]

Hello IP user. It would require that the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer, but might be someone else, for example if the photographer's contract said otherwise) explicitly release the work under a compatible licence (such as CC-BY-SA), which would allow anybody to reuse the image for any purpose. The copyright holder would have to do this either publicly (eg on a a web page that they control), on the fly when uploading the image to Wikimedia Commons (but only if they uploaded it themselves) or by email to the Wikimedia Foundation. See donating copyright materials, --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-registered user removing WP:CSD templates

Hey,

Just a quick question. Who do we go to about a non-registered user (although shown as an IP address) removing multiple WP:CSD templates without any discussion, i.e. accept, deny, etc.

I know per the rules we're not supposed to re-add it to candidacy, to my knowledge, but I didn't know what to do since it wasn't validly considered.

The autotag left behind was as follows: "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits, speedy deletion template removed" Which made no sense to me.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Snickers2686 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were the CSD templates valid, Snickers2686. Un like prod, there is no ban on reinstating a CSD tag unless it is decliend by an admin or an experienced reviewing editor. On the other hand, IP editors have as much right to remove tags they consider incorrectly placed as any other editor. Did this seem to be vandalism, or incompetent editing, or quick but correct action? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: It looks like they were reinstated by another user. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to go back to draft?

So while browsing the Recent Changes I came across this William Weinbach, am I right in thinking this page has been published? If so I think should go back to the @Willweinbach: draft to be tidied up and actually to see if it meets WP:PERSON NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article and IMO, there isn't even a valid assertion of notability. I nominated it for speedy deletion per A7 and G11. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Malta

Hi fellow Wikipedians!

Malta's parliament has recently approved same-sex marriage, 66-1. I would like to change the article name from recognition of same-sex unions in Malta to "same-sex marriage in Malta". I would like to post a request on the talk page for others to comment if they would approve the change, but I have no idea how to ask the community to approve such a change. Any help would be appreciated. Andrew1444 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew1444 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew1444} See Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, where it suggests using {{Requested move}} on the talk page of the article to start a talk page discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Andrew1444. Has the law gone into effect yet? If not, the page move might be premature. (See the short discussion at a related page.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking Rivertorch, the answer to that is, no; however, Malta has recognized same-sex marriage since 2014 [[1]]|recognition of same-sex partnerships in Malta|. In any case "registered partnership in Germany" has already been replaced by Same-sex marriage in Germany despite that the German President hasn't signed this bill into law. As I mentioned above, unlike Germany there is miniscule doubt this bill will ride. Andrew1444 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need insight: Article declined: Reason given: Not adequately supported by reliable sources

Hey People,

I created a submission "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Transfer_school" it was declined with notes - "Not adequately supported by reliable sources." I have linked the doc. with the NYC DoE. NYC DoE should have been considered as reliable. Could you please suggest, what better & reliable source should I use? I did not check with the US DoE website, coz Transfer school ain't an universal US concept. Not all states have 'em. I do can add the references of the DoE of other states; but, the article ain't that large. If I do that would the article get accepted? And, could it not be dealt with separately?

One more thing, this is my second article only. Please lend me a hand here :)

Fatnred 05:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatnred (talk • contribs)

Hi Fatnred! Welcome to Teahouse. I would suggest shortening the article to make it more concise, and be more clear about how this system only exists in certain regions of the US. For reliable sources, there appears to be quite a few available, like this New York Times article or this academic book. DoE might not be the best sources as they can appear to be self-referential. If you need my help with the article, let me know. Happy editing! Alex Shih ^Talk 06:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DoE source is a primary one. It would be best to make sure that all the major points of the article are covered in secondary sources, as these have the added advantage of being interpreted and often fact-checked by reliable third-parties. It's okay to use primary sources, but basing an article on them is generally frowned upon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copyright problem

I inform users that article Nanha has copyright violation problem because a lot of its content is copied from [2]. Sinner (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nazim Hussain Pak: if you can identify what the copyright violations are then you can resolve this yourself. You can either rewrite the content in your own words using that page as a reference for the rewritten content or if you think you cannot rewrite the content them simply remove it with and appropriate edit summary. Nthep (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to find reliable sources?

Hi, I am a new editor and just started making minor changes. Can you suggest me how to find reliable sources to do citation? V.Sai Pradeep (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, V.Sai Pradeep and welcome to Wikipedia. Finding reliable sources is one of the major tasks we all engage in here, and to be honest, it's a bit of an art in that it absolutely requires you to exercise your own judgement. That being said, there's still quite a bit of science to it to help you get started.

For starters, you can compile a list of sources by doing a google search, then comparing those sources to the Reliable sources checklist.

Also, if you know of a few outlets that you think are clearly reliable (NPR, for example) you can find specific sources by doing a google search with that source's website included with a site: prefix. So, following my example, you can search for [search term] site:npr.org to make sure that your results come from NPR's website.

If you're ever unsure whether a source is reliable or not, you can start a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, where other editors will weigh in. There are lots of experienced editors there, so it can also be a great learning experience.

Also, did you know that our search for reliable sources isn't particularly unique? It's a process used in history, psychology and many other academic subjects. It's called Source criticism, and our article on it, and that article's sources can themselves be a valuable resource for general practices and principles.

FInally, you can check out {{Notability}}, a template that includes some useful google search presets. Simply edit a page that you want to search for sources on, add that template, hit Preview (or if you think it should be left on the page, hit Save) and use the links that appear in the template to get started. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing books

How do you cite the existence of a book? When you are citing something drawn from a book, it seems that existence of the book is assumed. Such and such is drawn from "The Cat in the Hat by Dr Seuss, pg 3-5, published by MacMillian 1953." But in Dr Seuss bibliography, how do you cite that he wrote "The Cat in the Hat?" GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GreatCaesarsGhost. In cases like the Cat in the Hat, where the book itself is clearly notable, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a secondary source talking about the subject as the author of the book, such as here. In other cases, where the author is notable but the book isn't, and such secondary sources are not available, the book itself may suffice as a citation that they are the author of the book, since the book itself serves to verify the information that the person is the author of it. TimothyJosephWood 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social media

How can I link a social media account on a Wikipedia page as an external link so that it appears under the person's profile when googled? 204.72.144.1 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@204.72.144.1:, see Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Editor's shouldn't be using WP for Search engine optimization, even if it's for a notable person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, However, many people have their social media accounts as a profile on Wikipedia and it shows up when googled. 204.72.144.1 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk page

My talk page is becoming too big. What I should do to automatically archive 15 days old threads from it? Sinner (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nazim Hussain Pak:, check out Help:Archiving a talk page which addresses your exact question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ar-rahman-performed-tamil-songs-and-the-shock-was-too-much-for-these-fans-1724751

[2] ^ me

[1]

[1]