Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.219.81.64 (talk) at 22:47, 19 July 2017 (→‎West Bengal Doctors Forum). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
Shortcuts
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

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

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]
@RDXelectric: I authored two initial articles on two different entrants to an industry. One is undergoing court martial; the other got speedy delete. The one that got speedy delete was better quality. I looked at the initial articles about two other competitors in the industry. If the same standard had been applied when they were posted, both would have been gone too. I am afraid I have to agree with you. My question for the Teahouse is whether contesting a speedy delete will put me on a list of troublemakers. That's not what I want at this early stage. I made the initial articles for two other topics. On the first CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump I got help I really appreciate. The second, ACLU v. Trump went very smoothly. Thanks for listening Rhadow (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aware of articles that do not meet our inclusion criteria, Rhadow, then please nominate them for deletion or list them here so that I can do so. There are plenty of poor-quality articles from the early days of the project, when quality control was less strict, and these often go unnoticed while new articles are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. As for your question, contesting a speedy deletion nomination is unlikely to see you branded as a troublemaker. Experience says that most attempts to contest fail, because experienced nominators know the criteria well and do their homework, but there is no harm in trying. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry:. If I see an article that doesn't measure up, I'll try to fix it first. The two I was talking about were about startup companies with no prospects, just the kind of flaw that others saw in my articles. In the last three years, they grew and got press coverage (still no products, though). I'm not sure that BAD articles are the problem, but rather articles that haven't been updated in donkey years. What marker do we put on them to ask people to update them? Thanks Rhadow (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can use {{Update}}, Rhadow. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. ^ 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]
@Techno-Trend, An individual user is most likely to use a single account, each user should have his personal account. Two or more users, like you and your son are doing, should not use single account. Sinner (talk) 01:26, 19 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]

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]

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. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:29, 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.) RivertorchFIREWATER 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]
See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, Suitecomm. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:23, 17 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]

For reference: James Lechay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]
@Daniel Lechay: It was moved, not removed. It's currently in draft space at Draft:James Lechay while it's being worked on. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Lechay, it is not your page. Having a sense of ownership of your work here is not a good idea. Read the legend right by the "save changes" button. "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." It will make your life much simpler. John from Idegon (talk) 07:08, 19 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. RivertorchFIREWATER 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. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Salander44: As a producer, you would have been better served to have a friend publish the article. Better to wait until the article has been on WP awhile before you add it to categories. There are people watching those lists. You might have added a line to the Richmond, Ohio page describing it as a movie location. That would have been the link in. The cast is a complete list, eh? If someone else wrote the article, your cast members wouldn't feel left out. I mean, how come you didn't list the Best Boy? Next time, include only two reviews, one good, one bad. Just my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with some of the above advice, Salander44. Waiting until someone else writes the article might be a good idea, but asking a friend is Meatpuppetry which is much worse than openly doing it yourself. In theory you could use requested articles but that is so backlogged I wouldn't bother. If you choose to create such articles yourself, please use the article wizard and create a draft under the Articles for creation project. Do not stop at two reviews, include 3-5, provided that they are all from solid, reliable, non-local sources. Put them in a "Critical response" section. Cast lists are neither here nor there, really, but if they are very long the unbalance an article. That is my advice, for what it is worth. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow (talk). I actually live and work in Richfield Township, Summit County, Ohio, but while I've had good coverage in the local newsmagazine, I'd really hesitate to add a line to the Richfield Township Wikipedia page, unless there was already a category for notable lawyers, authors, athletes, film directors, etc. I don't want to appear bashful, but think that *would be* over-the-top, self-promotion. I'm very much a loner, but I also like to be part of a group, so the thing to do, perhaps, would be to add a list to the Richfield Township article, captioned Notable Citizens, in which case (I suppose), I could be part of the group. I'm still a bit nervous about even that idea. I did add my film to the List of cult films, but it was reverted. As far as the cast goes, nobody gets paid, and I try to show appreciation any way I can -- but I didn't add crew. Salander44 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a list in a town article of notable people, then sources would need to be provided that demonstrate that all of the people do indeed meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, Salander44 - just as they would need to meet them to qualify for a standalone article. I don't say that as a judgement on your notability (I haven't checked), but just for information. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, but I have a further question. Notability in general (as I understand it now) requires more than just local references. Since in this case we would be talking about notability in a small town, Richfield Township, Summit County, Ohio, would the references also need to be regional or national? Or would solid references from Akron and Cleveland (as well as the local Richfield Times), be sufficient? Eg. Akron Beacon Journal and The Plain Dealer. I don't have any question about my own notability (I've been around a long time), but no way will I try to set up a stand-alone article about myself. Salander44 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sorts of lists tend to be of the "Notable people from town X" variety, rather than "Notable within town X", so I think the usual notability criteria would apply, Salander44. Wikipedia:Notability doesn't give strict guidance on this, though, so the criteria for inclusion would probably need to be discussed on the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DES (talk). I hope to get the film Userfied or Draftified, rather than get a straight Deletify (sorry for that, but I just have to laugh). If the film doesn't get more notable reviews, maybe it will die there. But in that case, it deserves to die. Salander44 (talk) 22:42, 18 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 ShihTalk 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]

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. TigraanClick 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]
ChrisBennett, I would add that some of the content in Draft:Girls Inc. of the Island City appears to have been copied and pasted from another website (http://www.girlsinc.org/about/president-and-ceo.html), the text of which is protected by copyright. (Scroll down to the bottom of that website and you will see the copyright notice.) As such, that means that we cannot include the text wholesale in Wikipedia, and so I've gone ahead and removed that text. The correct thing to do is to paraphrase the text, retaining the essential ideas but rewriting them in one's own words. You can learn more about Wikipedia's policy on copyright here. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 15:47, 19 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:

  • 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]
Thank you for your help, DESiegel. I've uploaded the photos to:

Part of the story is related in Ms. Hepburn's letter (which you can see lying on the bed); the rest was told to me by a National Park Service ranger. I could possibly get the story in writing if I send an email to NPS. How do you think we should proceed?

Bayguy42 (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bayguy42. Sources for Wikipedia articles need to be published, so information sent to you in an e-mail is unlikely to be acceptable. If the Park Service can point you to somewhere where the story has been published, in print or online, then you could use that. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Definition of published. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CordlessLarry is correct, Bayguy42, an email would not do. If the letter is on permanent public display, then it might be considered published. But what would really help is if some secondary source has published the story. Then the letter could help confirm it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search reveals this, this and this as potential sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those ought to do the trick. I had offered to edit the actual article, do you still want me to do so, Bayguy42? Or would you rather, Cordless Larry since you found the sources? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @Cordless Larry: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested, DESiegel, so am happy for either of you to do it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's great research, Larry! The story isn't on the NPS website. Thank you for finding it.

DESiegel, I'm happy to let you edit the page and decide where the story and photos should go.

Bayguy42 (talk) 00:32, 19 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.) RivertorchFIREWATER 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 ShihTalk 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]

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]
I've dealt with this, Nazim Hussain Pak. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. How to deal with copyright violations is explained at Wikipedia:Copyright violations, but it can be quite complicated. In this case, as it was a clear violation, I replaced the offending material with the {{Copyvio}} template, which generates a message box on the page with code that I used to list the case and warn the editor who added it (found using the revision history search tool. If you're unsure, you can always just use {{Copypaste}} to bring an article to other editors' attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 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]
Yes, GreatCaesarsGhost for quotes from the book, or the fact that this book was written by this author and published on this date, the book itself is the best source, and should be cited in preference to any secondary source. it is cited with its publication info (title, author, publisher, date, ISBN or OCLC or LC number, and place of publication, etc. In a bibliography where all books are by the same author, the author can be omitted), and a link if an online version is available. A reliable secondary source is needed for any analysis, or to help establish the notability of the book. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:27, 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]
That is a function of google, not Wikipedia. Compare A google search for "Donald Trump" which shows his various social media links with Trump's WP article which doesn't to see what I mean. We don't promote his twitter account for example, despite him being one of the most notable users of Twitter currently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@204.72.144.1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it has nothing to do with social media sites, a wikipedia editor should not create links to social media sites like facebook and twitter on wikipedia, links to these sites have no use on wikipedia, they can not even stand as a reliable source for wikipedia articles. Sinner (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP Editor. In a biographical article, it is usual to link to the subject's web presence, if there is one. Best practice is to have only one such link. If the subject has a personal web site that links to the subject's facebook, linkedIn, etc, use that. But many people now have a facebook page as their primary form of web presence. In that case, we not only may, we should link to the subject's facebook page, just as we link to an organization's site in External links, or possibly in an infobox. MPants at work, Nazim Hussain Pak, do understand that a subject's own statements, on the subject's own web site or social media page, are considered reliable on the subject's article, for the subject's own statements. This is an exception to the general rule that social media are not considered reliable. Even on other articles this can apply. For a hypothetical example, in an article about a proposed new immigration bill, if President Trump used twitter to say that the bill was "Totally foolish. How sad." we could and should link to the twitter account to get the original statement, which is reliable for the fact that Trump wrote that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: the IP asked how to link it in such a way that it will appear in google searches: That is SEO, and is part of what WP is not. Your comments about a BLP's own words, while true, are irrelevant. No-one is asking whether a BLP's social media can be used to support their own statements. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MPants at work. I am also saying that we not only may, but should include one link to the subject's web presence in the external links section, whether it is used to cite anything or not. Partly this is because it can be used to find such cites in future, but partly because a subject's web presence is a significant fact about the subject, and should routinely be included in any Wikipedia article about the subject. That may or may not result in the link appearing when the subject is searched for on Google. Google routinely takes parts of a Wikipedia article, and puts them next to links and images from other sources about the same topic. We can't control that. But the external link should be in the articel, and that is at least part of what the IP editor asked about. It should, of course, be put in like any other External link or any "Official site" in any article that has one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, and for the most part; we already do things that way. But we do not format it such that it will appear in the snippets displayed by a google search, for example. So we're not going to be linking their twitter feed in the first paragraph. So long as any such link is either placed in the appropriate lines of an infobox, or in the external links section, they are generally acceptable unless a good reason to exclude them exists. The OP's question could be applied to an article that already contains such a link, in which case there is nothing to be done, and policies to explain why nothing should be done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but no one told the OP that. When an editor wrote above Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it has nothing to do with social media sites, a wikipedia editor should not create links to social media sites like facebook and twitter on wikipedia, links to these sites have no use on wikipedia,... That tells the OP that such links are not acceptable even in an External links section, which is incorrect. That sort of advice is what I was responding to. The OP's question was not clear, it suggests that the OP does not understand that the results of a google search can be a mix of things from and not from Wikipedia. I want to help the OP (and others who may read this) to understand that, and what should and should not go into an article, and where. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should mention WP:ELMINOFFICIAL "Normally, only one official link is included. .... Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites." - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but no one told the OP that. Um... That's exactly what I said in my first two comments. I posted a link to the policy and to our article on SEO, in addition to pointing out where the feature the editor noticed originated from and providing an example of a Wiki article vs a google search result. So "no-one told the OP that" just isn't true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 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]

In my short time here, I've always had to scroll around to find what was changed on a page when it came up on my watchlist. I had no idea that there was a way to navigate directly to it. I realize that the Teahouse is typically for asking questions about editing, but I thought I'd at least share, and maybe it'd help someone else in the future.

From your watchlist, you'll see a list of entries, like below:

08:48, 11 July 2017 (diff | hist)..(+180)‎..Wikipedia:Teahouse (→‎Where to find editor rankings?: re2)

Instead of clicking on the Teahouse and scrolling the the bottom (*usual place for updates*) or using the Contents window, you can simply click on that arrow before the section name.

Is this info listed somewhere as a useful tip and I just missed it? - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a stupid question, but NsTaGaTr if you're interested in seeing the change, why don't you just look at the diff? TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I typically use the diff if I want to see what a specific user changed vs the original content. (*for pages that I've edited, etc*). For global pages, such as Teahouse, I just want to see the response to that inquiry. Previously I've either scrolled down the page to find that specific section (*which can take a bit of time*), or I've had to find it in the contents box on the right side. I'd always hoped that there was an easier way, and this morning I just so happened to notice that the arrow was actually a link... which would take me directly to the section... :D - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NsTaGaTr: Oh I see. I've never used it because I just abuse Page Up/Down on long discussion pages. Seems like it might be a good thing to add to the guidance at Help:Watchlist#How to read a watchlist (or Recent Changes). TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 18:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned in Help:Page history, Help:User contributions and Help:Edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft vs Sandbox

Hey guys! A newbie here. I would like to start creating articles but I am a little confused about the difference between Sandbox and a Draft. Which one should I start using when creating an article? Thank you!

Saravazq (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saravazq! Welcome to Teahouse. Using draft is optional but recommended. If you are unsure about layout or anything, you can experiment/or draft your article on sandbox first. Either way is fine. Let us know how it goes! Alex ShihTalk 17:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sandbox is generally a page for experimenting, testing and trying different things. Meanwhile, a draft is intended to be a work-in-progress of a proposed article. That being said, it really doesn't matter that much which namespace you use. You can start an article in draft namespace and experiment with it (the "Preview" button next to the save button when editing can spare you an edit history full of test edits, while letting you see the results of your attempts), or you can create an article draft in your sandbox. Few editors are going to hold it against you if you pick what they perceive to be the "wrong" namespace for your editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I take the view that a sandbox is private and a draft is public. I will rarely interfere with a sandbox without explicit permission from its owner, but I may correct what I see as errors in a draft. I am not aware that this behavior is supported by any official guidelines, but I'm sure I'm not the only editor who makes this distinction. Maproom (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Maproom. A sandbox is for experimentation, and is a type of user page. Like any user page, it belongs primarily to the user. There are some rules, but it belongs primarily to the user. A page in draft space, on the other hand, belongs to the community, not to any one user. You can submit either a sandbox draft or a page in draft space for AFC review. If you submit a page in user space, such as a sandbox, for AFC review, the reviewer is likely to move it to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to some extent. A draft invites anyone to edit in a cooperative way. A user sandbox, not so much. But a sandbox that is functioning as a draft, with what is obviously indented to be the start of an article, i will feel free to edit to help out, particularly when the user has asked (say here at the Teahouse) how to do something, i may edit to give an example. I might, for instance, format one or two cites properly. If the {{userspace draft}} template is in place, and the user clicks submit, the ACH volunteer who reviews it will normally move the page to draft space unless it is approved and moved to he main article space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys. I started an article using my sandbox since I am still learning and experimenting and it sounds like it is better to keep working on it there. I really appreciate your guidance. I'll probably be back here soon with more questions :)

Saravazq (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to improve a page

Hi,

I am trying to get this page approved:

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

I believe there is more than enough press and well written but for some reason it recently got declined.

If someone could please advise it would be much appreciated Ricardomatip98 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricardomatip98:When a draft is declined, there is usually a reason given. This particular draft has been declined several times, usually for notability reasons, but in the most recent case, the explanation given was as follows:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
I would suggest you review that reason and check out the links provided within it. To summarize, the article basically reads like an advertisement for the subject and should be re-written in a more neutral tone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting draft for review

Hello! I was wondering if someone could answer this question for me. If I have a draft in the draft space currently and click the "submit for review" button, if my draft is not approved will it be deleted? Or will it just be returned to the draft space for me to continue editing. Thanks! Taylorlaties (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Taylorlaties, and welcome to the Teahouse. if a draft is submitted and not approved, the reviewer will provide a reason or reasons why it was not approved. The reviewer may also provide additional comments on what could be done to improve the draft and make it more likely to be approved another time. Sometimes the reviewer will edit the draft to make some improvement directly. The the draft, with those comments and edits (if any) will remain in draft space, at the same page name as it was before, and you (or anyone who wants to help) can keep editing to try to improve the draft and make it more likely to be approved. Some drafts are submitted several times before they are approved. Drafts are not deleted for being declined. A draft that sits untouched, no edits at all, for 6 months or more can be deleted. Drafts that contain copyright violations can be deleted, or drafts that are blatant advertisements or promotional pieces. But not just ones that do not pass review. However, if a previous review pointed out an issue, and nothing at all is done to address that issue, but another review is requested, it can be seen as wasting the next reviewer's freely given time, which is impolite. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saving a Draft for Offline Work

Hi. I am going to be away from my computer for a while and would like to work on the draft while I am.

How do I save the (draft) file for offline use?

Thanks!

ObadiahKatz (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ObadiahKatz. If you are like me and have a smartphone you can edit using it. If you don't or that's not an option, you can print the draft out and then manually write on the paper. The addition would then have to be typed in and saved to Wikipedia, but it might work. Or you can copy-paste the draft to your offline word processor and work on it there, then put the finished version on Wikipedia. There might also be some kind of script for what you want, but I'm not aware of one. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, ObadiahKatz. While you can save a copy of the wiki-text, and work on that offline, you can also work on the draft right here on Wikipedia from any computer or device that can access a web page on the internet. (Although editing from mobile devices can be awkward.) Also, note that it may be the draft you created, but it isn't your draft. Others can and may choose to work on it. See WP:OWN. People are not as likely to edit drafts they did not create as they are to edit articles they did not create, but some people do. I am one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you have access to. When you say "save the (draft) file" I suspect you mean you will be away from the Internet but still have access to some computer. Use the source editor. If you start out in VisualEditor then click the pencil icon at the top right. If possible, copy-paste the source code of the page to a text editor on your computer and save it as a text file. You can edit that offline with a text editor but not VisualEditor and you cannot see how it will render with our wiki software. Only edit it as pure text and don't use any formatting features of a word processor. When you are online, copy-paste the text back to the source editor. If you are used to VisualEditor then it may be difficult to do anything other than writing pure text when you are offline. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Question ?

I have what may be a stupid question. Occasionally (not very often, which is good), an editor who either wants a draft approved or wants a new page in article space kept will forward me, the reviewer, additional information, such as a long set of references, and will ask me to approve the draft or to agree that the page is appropriate to be kept, based on my having seen the references and other information. Why does an editor think that I or another reviewer can approve a draft or an article based on information that isn’t in the article? Is this a stupid question, or am I asking about a good-faith but completely mistaken outlook, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I have seen the same sort of thing. I think it is mostly a good faith effort by soemoen who really doesn't well understand how Wikipedia works. I think that often such people believe that if I or some other perceived "important" editor, can be convinced that the topic is valid, we can wave some magic wand and the article will be approved, or kept from deletion if it is at an AfD. Actually, in the latter case, posting a list of sources in the AfD discussion will sometimes convince people that a topic is notable. If it is an editor with a declared COI (but not a PR firm employee) who should not edit directly and the sources are online, i will sometimes choose to verify them myself and then add them to the article. I suppose you could do that when a draft creator sends you a stack of sources, but few reviewers would, and I wouldn't expect it.
I think that most people who do this truly don't understand that the sources must be used and cited in the draft to do any good here. Sometimes I have been able to explain it so that they get it. Sometimes not. Sometimes they never respond, so who knows. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think DESiegel hit the nail on the head. I'd like to add to that that there is a lot that goes on here which relies on how an article could look if edited just so, as opposed to how the article actually looks (consider AfD's, where the lack of inline citations is often given as a rationale for deletion, only to fail in the face of a slew of editors pointing out that plenty of RSes exist for a very similar example). With no policy or guideline pages explaining when the existence of something -as opposed to the presence in the article of something- is applicable, I think a lot of new editors get confused. In the example I gave, of course, there's the fact that the "slew" of editors often adds in those sources as they find them, which is, I believe, the rub for the editors you mentioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Actually, the case that made me ask this is an employee editor. I had proposed for deletion an article on a company. The PROD template then showed that there had been a previous deletion discussion. The conclusion had been Delete. So I then tagged the article for speedy deletion as G4, previously deleted. I then explained that if they wanted a new version of the article approved, they would have to go to requests for undeletion to get a temporary copy of the deleted article or deletion review. The article was then in fact deleted as G4. I was then asked to look at a lot of sources. I said that any conversation could be here, with other experienced editors, and that if they want the deleted article restored, just follow the procedures for the purpose. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN says it, but in a sort of negative way, by saying when sources in the article are required. So does Wikipedia:Citing sources. WP:BLUE is quite relevant, particularly its section "Citing everything". Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission particularly points 1 & 2 are obscure (in the sense of not widely read) but are highly relevant. So is WP:ATD and WP:ARTN which says: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. That is really the one to quote in AfD discussions, i think. It is the converse of WP:OVERCOME. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As to burden, I am seeing that there are at least two types of articles where the AFD community will keep an article based on the knowledge that the sources are out there, even if they aren't in the article. Articles on secondary schools, and on films that are in production, are likely to be kept at AFD even if the sources are not in the article. Film notability guidelines say that a film that is in production is only notable if there has been coverage of the production itself. However, the AFD editors, for a film that is in production, are likely to say that the sources about the production are out there, and that one should have looked for them before taking the film to AFD. Films in production are just a case, it seems to me, where the notability guideline is interpreted inclusively. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen articles on artists, bands, musicians, and companies kept on such grounds. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTEX Industries (2nd nomination) comes to mind as a recent example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AceProject (3rd nomination) is focusing more on the sources already in the article, but wouldn't really differ much if they weren't. Come to think of it I should have included WP:BEFORE in my list above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and WP:NEXIST is relevant too. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Dates in Wikipedia

I saw Dates in Wikipedia by User:Jroehl on New Page Patrol. It didn’t have references, which I know are always required in article space, and it appeared to be of more interest to Wikipedia editors than to general readers. I moved it to Wikipedia space as WP:Dates in Wikipedia. Will other editors please look at it and see if they think that was a reasonable quick decision? I thought it was likely to be deleted, and ought to be deleted, in article space, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting (although not surprising) piece of work by Jroehl in my opinion, although I would like to know better how he identifies a date as such in running text. Had this been reliably published elsewhere, it could make a valid article here. As it is, it would be WP:OR in article space, but seems perfectly valid to me in project space, Robert McClenon. Thanks for moving it.
Just to be pedantic, if an article is not a BLP, does not use any quotations, nor make any statements that are contentious or likely to be challenged, it need not have any sources, or can rely solely on general sources with no inline cites. Some of the mathematics articles fit that description, for example. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:DESiegel - Well, about sources, if a new article on a technical topic has no sources, I will tag it as having no sources. A general source may be fine, but any article should have at least one source. If a BLP has no sources, then I will normally propose it for deletion, with a few exceptions. If a BLP says that someone plays in a first-tier soccer league or is an African senator, I will tag it as having no sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only time that I can recall on New Page Patrol that I have seen something that seemed out of place in article space and appropriate in Wikipedia space. I have from time to time seen pages that were obviously meant to be in user space, and, in those cases, I have moved them to user space. Since this is the first time I made a judgment call to move something to Wikipedia space, I thought that I would ask for another opinion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel,

We collect all dates with the following formats. Substitute MONTH with a month name and the number sign (#) with numbers. It takes a fast computer about 3 weeks to collect 38 million dates from 5 million articles. This is serious data processing. We know there must be historians out there that will be interested in our data, we just don't know how to let them know we have this comprehensive and gigantic resource.

List of expressions to match
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. and # MONTH ####
  1. and ## MONTH ####
  1. MONTH
  1. MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### - # MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### - ## MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### and # MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### and ## MONTH ####
  1. MONTH #### until # MONTH
  1. MONTH #### until ## MONTH
    1. and # MONTH ####
    1. and ## MONTH ####
    1. MONTH
    1. MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### - # MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### - ## MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### and # MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### and ## MONTH ####
    1. MONTH #### until # MONTH
    1. MONTH #### until ## MONTH
        1. - # MONTH ####
        1. - ## MONTH ####
        1. - ####
        1. - MONTH ####
        1. - MONTH ##, ####
        1. - MONTH #, ####
        1. account
        1. and ####
        1. decision
        1. or ####
        1. plan
        1. saw
        1. through ####
        1. to ####
        1. -# MONTH
        1. -# MONTH ####
        1. -##
        1. -## MONTH
        1. -####
        1. -MONTH #
        1. -MONTH ##
        1. -MONTH ####
        1. -MONTH #, ####
    1. -# MONTH ####
    1. -## MONTH ####
  1. -# MONTH ####
  1. -## MONTH ####

's ####

's #### - ####

's ####-####

(#### - ####)

(####)

(####-####)

(####-##)

(b. ####)

(c. ####)

(d. ####)

(r. #### - ####)

(r. ####-####)

A ####

a ####

About ####

about ####

About #### - ####

about #### - ####

About ####-####

about ####-####

Act ####

After ####

after ####

After MONTH

after MONTH

An ####

an ####

any MONTH

Approaching ####

approaching ####

Around ####

around ####

Around MONTH

around MONTH

As ####

as ####

As early as MONTH

as early as MONTH

As MONTH

as MONTH progressed

As Of ####

As of ####

as of ####

As of MONTH

as of MONTH

At ####

at ####

At Least ####

at least ####

Autumn ####

autumn ####

Before ####

before ####

Before MONTH

before MONTH

Between #### and ####

between #### and ####

Born ####

born ####

By ####

by ####

By MONTH

by MONTH

C. ####

c. ####

c. #### - ####

ca. #### - # MONTH ####

ca. #### - ## MONTH ####

Celebrated ####

celebrated ####

Day ####

day ####

days of MONTH

Died ####

died ####

During ####

during ####

During MONTH

during MONTH

During MONTH and MONTH

during MONTH and MONTH

Early ####

early ####

early MONTH

early MONTH ####

election, ####

end of MONTH

Fall ####

fall ####

following ####

For ####

for ####

for a MONTH

for MONTH

From ####

from ####

From MONTH

from MONTH

From MONTH #### to MONTH ####

from MONTH #### to MONTH ####

From MONTH #### until MONTH ####

from MONTH #### until MONTH ####

From MONTH through MONTH ####

from MONTH through MONTH ####

From MONTH to MONTH

from MONTH to MONTH

From MONTH until MONTH

from MONTH until MONTH

From MONTH until MONTH ####

from MONTH until MONTH ####

Her ####

her ####

Her MONTH

her MONTH

His ####

his ####

His MONTH

his MONTH

In ####

in ####

In #### and ####

in #### and ####

In a MONTH

in a MONTH

In MONTH

in MONTH

in MONTH or MONTH

Into MONTH

into MONTH

Its ####

its ####

Late ####

late ####

late as MONTH

Late MONTH

late MONTH

Late-####

late-####

Late-MONTH

late-MONTH

Later ####

later ####

Mid ####

mid ####

mid MONTH

Mid-####

mid-####

mid-MONTH

MONTH #

MONTH # #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH # #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH # - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH # - MONTH #, ####

MONTH # and #

MONTH # and ##

MONTH ##

MONTH ## #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ## #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH ## - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ## - MONTH #, ####

MONTH ## and #

MONTH ####

MONTH #### - MONTH ####

MONTH #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH #### and MONTH ####

MONTH #### to ####

MONTH ##, #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ##, #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ##, #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH ##, #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH ##-##, ####

MONTH ##-#, ####

MONTH #, #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH #, #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH #, ####

MONTH #, #### - MONTH ##, ####

MONTH #, #### - MONTH #, ####

MONTH #-##, ####

MONTH #-#, ####

MONTH and MONTH

MONTH and MONTH ####

MONTH day

MONTH or MONTH

MONTH or MONTH ####

MONTH to MONTH

MONTH visit

MONTH, ####

MONTH-MONTH ####

months of MONTH-MONTH

Of ####

of ####

of #### - ####

of ####-####

of MONTH

On ####

on ####

Pre ####

pre ####

Pre-####

pre-####

Preceding ####

preceding ####

previous MONTH

Since ####

since ####

Since MONTH

since MONTH

Spent ####

spent ####

Spring ####

spring ####

start of MONTH

subsequent ####

Successful ####

successful ####

Summer ####

summer ####

That MONTH

that MONTH

The ####

the ####

The #### - ####

the #### - ####

The ####-####

the ####-####

The following MONTH

the following MONTH

The MONTH

the MONTH

Their ####

their ####

Through ####

through ####

through MONTH

Throughout ####

throughout ####

Throughout MONTH

throughout MONTH

Throughout MONTH and MONTH

throughout MONTH and MONTH

Till ####

till ####

To ####

to ####

Until ####

until ####

Until MONTH

until MONTH

Until MONTH #

until MONTH #

upcoming MONTH

Winter ####

winter ####

With ####

with ####

Year ####

year ####

year, ####

Jroehl (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jroehl a link to another page might have been better. But no major problem.
I think this is interesting and original research, in a quite positive sense. It should really be published somewhere, is some appropriate academic journal. I have no idea which one, however. But it is not approapriate for a wikipedia article while it is new and unpublished, as per WP:OR. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, it isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article in article space. That is why I moved it to Wikipedia project space. The Notability policy only applies in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before we can get published we need to get noticed. It really is a catch 22. Nobody will notice we have this, because nobody knows we have this. It is pretty frustrating, actually.

Jroehl (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether a journal would publish this, Jroehl, but the way to get it noticed by a journal would be to submit it to that journal. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jroehl: Another consideration might be writing up a short article for the Signpost, specifically pointing out that this data set would be available for anyone who wishes to use it in research. The Signpost does cover this kind of wiki-analysis stuff (best check with the people there, naturally :), and it is part of the public face of Wikipedia, so you might get a good amount of dissemination that way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page. Raman singh badshah 97 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you trying to edit the page for the Welcoming committee? If you explain what you are trying to do, we will try to help you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Regesta

I was just looking through the articles created by User:Regesta. It seems like almost all of the articles are X Ambassador to Y ,here is the list. A few of these have already been deleted. They all seem to be a WP:DIRECTORY of red-linked names, probably something that should be deleted. I was wondering if anyone feels the same way as me, and if any action should be taken? NikolaiHo☎️ 03:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An additional complication is that many of the titles refer ambiguously to "China", but in some cases they apply to Taipei, and in others to the Peoples Republic of China. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a company page

I am new to Wikipedia and intend to create a company profile page. I tried using the sandbox but somehow was unable to hyperlink certain texts to pages within Wikipedia, only a single word was getting hyperlinked instead of the selected two or three words. Please guide.124.153.81.170 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. First, Wikipedia does not have "profiles", but articles about subjects. This is not social media, but an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guidelines, in this case those for businesses. Please review those guidelines before attempting to create an article. Please understand that not every business merits an article here; as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is more selective about its content.
Second, while you don't say one way or the other, if you are associated with the company, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy and possibly the paid editing policy(which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid by the company).

:I'm not certain but I believe you must be logged into a username before being permitted to link to other pages. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Wikipedia is not interested in what a business says about itself, but what independent sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood your question; to link to other Wikipedia articles, simply place the target page's title in double brackets like this: [[Page name here]]. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even to add external links, links to pages outside Wikipedia, one does not have to be logged in. However in that case one does have to respond to a CAPTCHA to avoid bulk scripted addition of spam links. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may well find it helpful to register for a free account, and log in when editing. This has several benefits, although it is not required. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-orphaning my article

My article Whiteplains British School has been accepted as an orphan. Can anyone help to de-orphan it? Or what can be done to de-orphan it, I mean the template to use since I have included related articles in the category section? Thanks.--Nwachinazo (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nwachinazo. An orphan is an article that has no other articles that link to it. To remedy that you would find other Wikipedia articles that mention the subject and then link that mention to the article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Navbox effectively de-orphans it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been trying to be more thorough in my checking of policy before making editorial decisions as I've come to realize just how much policy there is, and something that's been bugging me is the usage is of Template:Interlanguage link vs Template:Interlanguage Link [en] (pardon if formatting is messy I can't preview bc the teahouse is weird). The Interlanguage links help page says that "It is sometimes possible to combine the two approaches" of leaving the English redlink with the parenthetical ILL after it, but I can't imagine a reason why this approach would ever be impossible. I mostly just want to know what the preferred option is, because up till now I've been trying to avoid redlinks and hence linking to people like Pierpaolo Vargiu in such a way that the redlink isn't visible but now that I'm seeing ILL templates left and right I'm not sure if this is right. Should I be using Pierpaolo Vargiu [it] in such situations? Mehmuffin (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to Rename Page for St. Paul's Episcopal Church (Augusta, Georgia)

Hi, my name is Susan Yarborough, but my login is Lady Serif. I am editing the above referenced page and am a definite newbie.

The original charter of St. Paul's Episcopal Church (Augusta, Georgia) states that its name is Saint Paul's Church. That is the name that has been used for the church historically in the city of Augusta since its founding in 1750. The name "St. Paul's" in the National Register Information Database is unhistorical and steps are being taken to change it there. How can I change the name in the page heading and if necessary have the page moved to reflect the church's historic name?

Many thanks.

Susan Yarborough, Lady Serif Lady Serif (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Serif,  Done Seems to check out with the church's website. I have moved the article to Saint Paul's Church (Augusta, Georgia). TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Timothyjosephwood, Many thanks for the quick response. Lady SerifLady Serif (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Bengal Doctors Forum

Why my page is not published?? ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim1464 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, it would help us answer your questions if you 1.) signed your posts with four tilde's (~~~~) and 2.) posted a link to the article in question. Thanks in advance. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Karim1464: the article you started, West Bengal Doctors Forum, is still there and despite what you have (mis)posted elsewhere there has been no proposal to delete it as yet. Nthep (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Karim1464: I suspect Karim1464 is wondering why a search on Google (or another such engine) is not finding the article. This is because the article was only created 2 days ago 17 july 2017). New articles are not exposed to Google's (etc) indexing web crawlers until either 90 days after creation, or after the New pages patrol process has reviewed them as acceptable, whichever is sooner.
As the article currently stands, it is unlikely to be passed, and likely to be proposed for deletion, because apart from other considerations it only has 2 attempted references, and neither has been entered correctly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.81.64 (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit my Article

Hi there, would please be able to walk me through why my article does not conform to wikipedia guidelines? It would be greatly appreciated.

Leslie16 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Global_RESP_Corporation - at a quick glance, it sounds like an advertisement for a company (*in fact, this is taken from the company's own website*) and has no sources linked. It also doesn't list anything that would lend itself to WP:Notability. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leslie16: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome. The first thing I immediately noticed about your article is that it does not have independent reliable sources to support its content(no sources at all, for that matter). Those independent sources must indicate how the company meets the company notability guidelines. Being independent means that the sources must not be related to this company in any way. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, but what others say about it.
I also noticed that the article reads as if it was from the company's website or is an advertisement. It uses very promotional language("With nearly 20 years of experience, GRESP has become one of the fastest-growing companies in the Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) industry") and even attempts to persuade potential customers("Both of the plans allow you to save for your child’s post-secondary education") both of which are promotional purposes and not permitted. The article needs to have a neutral point of view.
Lastly, if you work for this company, it is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest. If that is the case, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy; and you will also need to read and comply with the paid editing policy, which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid relationship with an article subject. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sniping at new articles and new editors

I understand the goal of articles on notable topics, well documented, without stolen copyrighted content. It seems though, that new articles and new editors are the target of well aimed sniping. The techniques are manifold.

  • speedy delete by an admin who doesn't respond to subsequent posts
  • bots that look for certain characteristics and to whom you cannot respond
  • editors who make value judgements on the topic, not on the form, format, and citations "The company raised only $4700 on kickstarter? Not a player. Delete."
  • editors who quote obscure rules WP:aBcDe. When you read them, you discover the application was a stretch, like a prosecutor who wants an indictment.

The speedy delete is the worst. The admin using it gets to play detective, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. It seems a power trip in the Star Chamber. I don't think the admins even recognize what they are doing.

A comparison of new submissions with existing articles tells me that this emphasis on discipline is new. Giving the benefit of the doubt is oft repeated and seldom heeded.

"Thank you for submitting XXXXXXX. I am nominating it for speedy deletion." Watch your boilerplate. It may be hypocritical. Rhadow (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean Arrivo, I can undelete it if you really want, but the likelihood of it being kept at a Articles for deletion discussion is close to zero. Because of our long-term problems with spammers the criteria for notability for corporations are intentionally high, and an article on a startup with no product is very unlikely to be accepted unless you can demonstrate coverage well above the usual reprinted press releases and "according to a spokesman" fluff. Just for the record, The admin using it gets to play detective, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is flat-out untrue—the process always involves at least two people (the tagger and the deleter) precisely to avoid this problem. ‑ Iridescent 21:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

我該問什麼問題

我不在意文字上的論述，給我答案 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.217.178.53 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC) 沒有答案，沒有釐清，沒有當事者，文字上說了我的論述處在於有異異的發表，試問文字回覆的方式是否有相當的正當性,我訴求就是知道真相，文字上所提及引用的，我所遭遇的如果是可以以文字的提及引用來恢復，那麼我的自身認知在矛盾混淆的情況該立於何處。[reply]

Limits to tagging articles to be under WikiProjects?

Hello! Sometimes I see articles that don't have a WikiProject tag listed on their talk page, or are lacking an obvious, appropriate one (like an article on something related to Egypt with no WikiProject Egypt tag). Are only members within those projects allowed to place project tags on articles? Do WikiProject members care if some nobody is tagging bunches of pages to be within their scope? And in the end, does it matter? Is this something I should care about at all, or is it not very important? I'm sorry if any of this is clearly spelled out elsewhere; there is a ton of help content on Wikipedia and it's a bit difficult to sift through. Thanks :) --Undead Shambles (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Undead Shambles. The principle purpose of WikiProject templates are to organize articles, and make them conveniently available to interested editors, so that they can readily find the types of articles they are interested in working to improve. If an article easily falls into the purview of a particular WikiProject, you're actually doing them a favor by adding it to their list of things to do. TimothyJosephWood 21:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good to know. Thank you for the response! —Undead Shambles (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Team Page

Hello,

I've been requested to increase publicity for a British American Football team. Unfortunately the first page I did was tagged for speedy deletion. Many other similar teams have pages and justbwondering how to have a page stay rather than deleted.

Any help would be great.

Thanks in advance, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingm74 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=791385591"