Is there a criteria for image replacement in an article?
Hello Teahouse.
I do some editing but most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been images and I am starting to get into video.
It has not become an issue yet but I have wondered if there is a criteria for replacing an existing User:image in an topic article with a better one?
I do not intend to offend but if I have a better image (better illustration of topic; sharper; better exposure; taken on a sunny day etc.), under what conditions and by what mechanism would I replace an existing image in an article?
With word editing, I would just wade in; make the edit and state my case for the change. If there is no protest after some time, my edit stands until someone changes it in the future.
Does image replacement work the same way as word replacement?
If you can provide a photo which is objectively better than the existing one - say the current one is out of focus/bad angle/obscured, it's probably best to be bold and change it. Also, depending on the article, instead of replacing the photo you may wish to add your photo in the prominent location and move an existing one elsewhere (if there is room and value in doing so). This is all contingent on there not being controversy about which image to use - in that case, you should discuss image options on the talk page. Chris857 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do this all the time, serving pictures both as a photographer and as a photo editor. Criteria are relevance first, picture quality second. Sometimes I snap a better picture and use it to replace the old picture. Sometimes, looking through Commons categories, I find a better picture than mine, whimper a minute, and replace mine with the one that does the job better. When a dispute arises over which picture will better serve the article, and one is mine, I fall silent and let other editors decide. And whimper again if they decide against me, and move on. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be polite about it and the difference is somewhat subjective, then you could look at who contributed the image on commons and whether they are one of the active editors on the article. Much of commons is mass uploads from the Geograph or our GLAM partners such as various Libraries and museums. If you think there is now a better image available than one from such a mass upload then no-one's ego is at stake. it is the nature of mass uploads that more relevant images will arrive over time, and the best image on commons for a specific article when there were only 5 million images on commons may not still be the best now we have 45 million images. But if user:foo took the photo now in use and user:foo is a major contributor to the article, then personally I'd only replace the image if I was pretty sure there was a big difference in quality. A simple way round that is to not bother checking who contributed the original image if you are replacing a blurry photo taken through a rain covered window with one that is well lit and in focus. ϢereSpielChequers10:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Help getting a page created
Hello! What is the best way to get a page created? I would like an unbiased third party editor to assist with page creation. I have submitted the page for creation under "Requested Articles" but am unsure on the best next steps.
@BritnyDPR: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you are asking for an "unbiased third party editor" I take that to mean that you are associated with the subject that you want to see an article created about(which seems to be "ClusterTruck Food Delivery"). That is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please read that link). If you work for the subject, you will need to read and comply with the paid editing policy; this is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid to edit.
If you are associated with this company, you are wise to have first posted at Requested Articles. It is, however, severely backlogged, and it may be some time before someone writes an article(Wikipedia users are largely volunteers). That is actually probably the best, less biased way to proceed(wait for someone to create it). However, it is possible for someone in your position to submit a draft for review by an independent editor, which (if accepted) can be made into an article. This can be done at Articles for Creation.
I would provide some words of caution in doing that, however. To successfully write a draft, you will need independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of your company that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines for companies. If you have that, then you will need to forget everything you know about your company and only write based on what the independent sources state. You cannot rely on press releases, the company website, transcripts of interviews with staff, or any other primary source. Only on what independent third parties write.(with some exceptions for indisputable factual information like staff numbers, location, etc) That is usually difficult for people with a COI to do- but it is possible. If your goal is to see a neutral encyclopedic article created, you can certainly use Articles for Creation. However, if your goal is just to tell the world about your company, that should be done in another forum like social media.
I would also suggest you read the page WP:PROUD; a Wikipedia article existing about your company is not necessarily a good thing. You cannot lock it to the text you or your company might prefer, prevent others from editing it, or keep negative information off the page; as long as something appears in an independent reliable source, it can be in a Wikipedia article, good or bad. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information! Yes, I am trying to avoid the Conflict of Interest by having the page created. I appreciate knowing that I could also create a drafted article using reliable sources.
@BritnyDPR: I would be interested in writing this article. I don't have a COI. Have checked sources on Google. The business model is very clever, not surprising, considering the CEO. Reliable sources look good and I think notability will be okay. Let me know if you want me to do this. If you would rather try it yourself, no problem. Regards, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tribe of Tiger: Yes, I would greatly appreciate you taking the first stab at creating the page since you do not have a COI. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need additional sources. :) BritnyDPR BritnyDPR (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Agreed...I waded through and discounted all of the Arts & Entertainment sources as "PR" based. My "offer" to @BritnyDPR:was based on three business/tech sources. Still, I planned to check with a friendly admin regarding the suitability of the sources. Since you commented, I will post on your talk page concerning the sources to use for a stub. Thanks for your advice and interest. Regards, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!08:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for double checking sources to see which ones are the best fit. How's it going so far? Please let me know if I can answer any questions! BritnyDPR (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading images to an edit page.
I started to write a suggested edit which required a couple of images.
As far as I am aware I followed the instructions but they wouldn't upload.
@Syncopator:To include images in an article which you are editing, you can use the following format. Begin with two square brackets, then input the image which you are attempting to include. It must be in the Wikimedia Commons library, and should be entered in the form File:example.jpg. Then, after the image name is complete, use | and then denote a location on the article, e.g. left or right hand side, by typing left or right. Finally, use | again and set the size of the image to x pixels by typing xpx, and close the square brackets. An example can be seen below. [[File:Skullclose.jpg|left|50px]] . Hope that this helps. If not, tell us what article you are attempting to edit and an editor will be able to do it for you. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Syncopator:, you mention "upload". Are you trying to upload the images to Wikipedia (using the Upload File link on the left side of this screen) or trying to upload it to Wikimedia Commons? Or are you just trying to post an image which is hosted online somewhere else (this doesn't work on Wikipedia for legal reasons)? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stormy clouds, and MatthewVanitas.
I am not trying to edit an article, I'm trying to point out a serious error using the article's Talk facility.
There is provision for uploading an image on the Talk page, so I don't understand why square brackets, or the Wikimedia Commons library is mentioned, or how I "input" the image.
I see no Upload File link on this page.
The images I want to insert in the Talk page are on my computer Syncopator (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] @Syncopator: - are you the owner of the images, or are they in the public domain? If so, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons library yourself using the Wizard. Otherwise, as far as I know, you are out of luck, as the upload file link which you allude to is, indirectly, a way of uploading them to the library. Incidentally, what is the talk page which you wish to upload to, so that direct assistance can be provided? Stormy clouds (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Syncopator. What the other replies have hinted at, but not said explicitly, is that there is no concept of uploading an image to a page whether an article, a talk page, or anything else. You need to upload the image to Commons, and then you can include it in the page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having put a few thousand of my photos in articles, I say it is unfortunate that our complex and strange ways make such difficulties. Clearly the Upload link ought to lead to a simple way to upload a picture for the article we are reading. Server side software ought to take care of rough Wikipedia Commons categories and other complications. Ought to. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lidiia Kondratieva, the website appears to be a personal blog. It’s well done and indicates what it’s sources were. However it doesn’t seem to have an editorial policy or error correction process, both of which should be present in a reliable source. By the way, an excellent place to ask questions like yours would be the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where you can also search for any previous discussions of sources you are checking on. Gab4gab (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello anon. From the looks of things, your comments do appear to be ostensibly on topic, and per our guidance on editing others' comments, should generally not be edited or removed by others. I have restored them, and User:TheOldJacobite would be well advised to not remove comments that are not obvious vandalism, and if necessary, that it's usually better to hat off topic discussion, but most of the time better to leave well enough alone. GMGtalk01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let us hope that regardless how long this behavior may have been going on that there is a change. A spirit of cooperation is not encouraged by attempting to shut down another contributor and certainly not being erased from the record. Let me suggest that it also be emphasized that reverts, even by senior contributors of WP, are not of and unto themselves justification for those edits. That unless a proper justification is provided there is absolutely nothing to assist in understanding just what is needed to edit. And that edit justifications reflect the truths instead of aspirations. I am not here to power play otherwise i could have shined on all concerned long ago. If I do not have at least the talk page to air concerns then just where is it suppose to be the proper place for such fundamental activity? Like I said, I hope there is a change. Thank you all for your attention to this matter.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused and i can understand the inability. When someone wants to "win" a situation the attempt to discredit by characterizing something as irrelevant sparks of the point of the contrary participant having nothing better to explain. In time there will be changes. Why? Because some things becomes less relevant and the emotionalism that may be involved in plot content may change. As said in my explanations, the articles are not just for those that have seen the films and to serve only those that have is not in the best interest of WP. There is much to be explained by one's weltanschauung. The talk page is for discussion. If others feel so compelled to post something contrary then all the best for the discussion. Your views are well documented by the actions that have taken place and the resulting reprimand. If the plot is incorrect or misleads then there is something amiss. WP is not written in stone, especially for those articles rated "star".2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before this goes on much further, I attempted to clarify the points at hand by editing. They were repeated reverted sometimes without justification. The only recourse I had was to open up the discussion on the talk page, where such deliberations are, according to WP editing policy, suitable. Instead of letting the issue progress if it had any tractions, it was the intent to shut down the discussion by altering the record and erasing the action. That is not the purpose of the talk page; we all know that. Yet, that is what was the course at hand. A reprimand has been issued because of that action. So regardless as to the merits of the questions about the plot statements in question, the point of the talk page is for it to play its part in the process of consensus. You were denying that the process play itself through and going against the fundamental principle of WP--cooperation. Anyways, when was a clarification an expansion? If something is misleading then just how does that serve the purpose of WP. But I digress.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately,---The Old JacobiteThe '45 has began his actions with my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(film) that include material fact corrections. This time he says that I clearly do not understand WP Guidelines. A review of his edits are filled with reverts. Should he have such a right to unilaterally determine that what anyone suggests for the plot be reverted continually on such blanket statements that something does not improve a current plot? Like I said, some of these edits I proposed correct facts.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor reverted the contribution without justification and I asked on their talk page why. The editor eventually said that I did not site anything. I was not aware that a plot needed citations if the documentation is the film? At question is: the number of Africans imprisoned: The president said 54; they are feed mush not food that would produce crumbs; There were also Tenme in the group which is found by understanding the African languages used in the film; and the name of the ship should be translated just as we translate foriegn language films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are bestselling books not notable?
Are bestselling books not notable? Or is it that making the NY Times bestseller list is just not notable enough? I guess I don't understand what makes a book notable.
I tried to create a page for my teenage son's favorite book series "The Last Kid's on Earth" by Max Brallier. The series is well-known, very popular among young readers (a "notabl-y" tough demographic) and the current installment is both a NY Times Bestseller and a USA Today Bestseller. I would have that would be enough to pass muster.Tokaria (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tokaria. The book does in fact appear to be notable, and after a little bit of cleanup, I have accepted the draft at AfC. It may have been that the use of some sources, like Amazon reviews, which are pretty much universally unreliable, made it look like it wasn't as notable as it seems to be. For future reference, you really want to avoid using as a source anything that is user generated online. This includes blogs, user reviews, and things like IMDB or other Wikis, including Wikipedia itself.
But thanks for spotting this article that we were missing and helping us fill the gap. If you ever need any help in the future, feel free to drop back by the Teahouse or ask over at my talk page. GMGtalk02:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tokaria. GMG handled the specific situation with your draft quite well. I want to answer your more general question. Although best-selling books are often notable, the sales numbers are no guarantee of notability. The most common indicator of book notability is that the book has been widely reviewed by professional journalists or academics. Books that have been adapted into scripts of major films or plays, or are widely taught in college and university classes are also considered notable. Please read our notability guideline for books for a complete explanation. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just started 1st Userspace Draft. How to save while still work-in-progress?
Relatively new to Wikipedia, here.
I've worked in a Sandbox once before.
This is my 1st time working on a Userspace Draft.
As on ongoing work-in-progress, I plan to work on this article in phases within the Userpsace Draft, so when I'm at a point where I'd like to take a break and return to get back to working on it, all before submitting the draft for publication, I'm seeking help on how to just save my draft, so it's stays around for the time being as I'm working on it.
The info box says, "Finished? Save your work by pressing the 'Save page' button below," but it looks like there's 0 'Save page' button around.
Is it being saved automatically in real time as I'm working on it.
Please excuse me if any info related to this help I'm seeking is already posted somewhere.
Is the "Publish" button one and the same as the above-referenced "Save page" button?
Hi Tqiwiki! No, it doesn't have autosave - although I also wish that it was implemented for drafts. The button you want should be in blue, and perhaps "Publish changes" or similar. It will also time out of you spend too long on writing without a save, so I generally save fairly often just to be safe. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tqiwiki. A recent software upgrade changed the label on the blue button from "save page" to "publish changes". The functionality is the same, but much of the help page documentation has not yet been updated. There is nothing wrong with hitting the blue button frequently as you develop a draft. That ensures that you will not lose a big block of work. Unless you hit the blue button, your work in progress will not be saved. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Hit "Publish" and it's saved. This work-in-progress is good to go for now. Thank you. Appreciate it (and appreciate you helping out so fast).
@Tqiwiki: If you can supply a link to the instruction page you were following, I will see if we can update it. All our help pages should now use the correct term "Publish", except those where a graphic image still shows the old name. Both will then need correcting at the same time. I'm sorry this issue, not surprisingly, still causes such confusion. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This type of question keeps occurring, here and at the Help Desk. I have raised the question of confusing instructions at Template talk:Userspace_draft#Still refers to the "Save page" button, as I can't change the template, but can someone involved in the decision to implement the WMF's software change please tell us when the rest of the instructions will be changed to stop causing further confusion to editors, and particularly to new users? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this situation has gone on for far too long, David. The failure by WMF to ensure coordination with editors responsible for maintaining help pages across en.wiki has caused much confusion for many new editors. Pinging @Whatamidoing (WMF): again over this issue. BTW: I've just spent a couple of hours creating new screenshots, and will upload them shortly. I will also update the instructions for the Visual Editor Guide where I can today. Inevitably, for any protected templates this may result in a disparity between text and images. But something needs to be done to get this sorted. I have built a list of images and/or out of date instruction pages that still need correcting. Please add or remove links, as appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted an edit request for that template.
David, this community's user documentation and message templates are controlled by this community. I personally started talking to the English Wikipedia about this change about two years ago, and I specifically recommended that editors make a list of all the pages that would need to be updated. I think that the main problem isn't that nobody knew about the change, but that there are zillions of templates and help pages and relatively few people interested in fixing all of them (rather than just fixing the ones that they personally care about). Moxy and Nick were among the heroes working on the big picture. I find that there are still several dozen templates that contain the words "Save page", a few more that say "Save changes". Some templates (and probably some help pages) have additional problems. For example, Template:Course page/editintro and a couple of others say to scroll down to the bottom of the page to find the button. If you're using the 2017 wikitext editor or the visual editor, then the button is at the top right of the screen, and you won't need to scroll down to find it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fatur Rahman Rizky: to edit an article, find an article with a mistake or omission in it, click the "Edit" link, make the correction, click "Show preview" to check that you've done it right, and click "Publish changes". I recommend starting with really simple things, like spelling mistakes. To add an image, either use an image already at Wikimedia Commons (there's over 30 million of them there), or upload one there with suitably unrestricted copyright; and then add it to the article as described at Help:Pictures. I would advise you against trying to create a new article – it's very difficult for inexperienced users, and those who try often end up disappointed an disillusioned. I believe GreenMeansGo is misguided in suggesting WP:YFA as a good place to start. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Well Maproom, I think YFA is a pretty good tutorial, even if someone isn't looking to immediately jump into creating a brand new article. It manages to cover all the highpoints, COPYVIO, NPOV, COI, sourcing, etc. and is much more concise than WP:TUTORIAL, which winds up being several pages longer overall. GMGtalk10:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that images are icing on the cake; write a good article and start worrying about images only then. Airport maps are exactly the sort of thing that experienced volunteers have their own system for, and I'm sure you'll get help getting one once the rest of the article is in order. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information about starting a new article can be found at Your First Article; however, I would encourage you to also use THe Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial in using Wikipedia. Successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and you will be much more successful if you read up some on how to go about it first, and even spend some time editing existing articles first in order to learn how Wikipedia works. As you have not registered a username, you cannot directly create a new article(if you do register, you can eventually do so after a brief time). so you must use Articles for Creation.
When you say you want to "start a Wikipedia page for a person", are you saying that you represent the person you want to write about? Please note that Wikipedia is not social media for people to "have pages", this is an encyclopedia which has articles about subjects shown to be notable, supported with independent reliable sources. You should also read the notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Itsquietuptown: Your menu currently looks like this. Change link=Special:Prefixindex/User:fltyingpig|Special:Prefixindex/User:fltyingpig to link=User:Itsquietuptown|User Page Replace all other instances of fltyingpig with Itsquietuptown. That ought to do it. SamSailor15:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
uploading images
We have a wikipedia entry up and running and approved. This was done in November. We just tried to upload an accompanying picture and got the message that our account is not yet confirmed. Yet it is much more thatn 4 days old and we have done more than 10 edits. Can anyone help us? DamesnetB (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamesnetB (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DamesnetB: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm curious as to why you say "we" and "our" in your post above; please note that usernames can only be used by a single individual and not represent a group per the username policy. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the edit history for this article, I suspect "we" may have simply been used to reflect the collaborative nature of this and many other articles produced under the encouragement and guidance of the Women In Red project. We attract quite a lot of new editors, and I see my parter-in-crime, Victuallers was quite involved with it. Point of interest: we've now reached 17.4% of all biographies on Wikipedia being about women. Yay! #gettingthere. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, Its now 17.48% and WE are very proud of this achievement. Users are allowed to represent groups (see the policy) its just that an account cannot be shared (represent) a group. Pleased to see your helping. thanks. Victuallers (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Roger. That figure is rapidly rising! I did leave this note on the Talk page of that user, reminding them of our username policy. Regards from, errm, well, just up the road, I guess. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser request
Hi, a deletion discussion has gathered a relatively large number of keep votes with the same rationale in a short span of time. No other AfD's preceding or succeeding this entry (or delsort groups) have gathered more than one vote. A few accounts are even editing after a relatively long time, which makes me suspicious of socks being active. Is it possible for me to request a CU investigation? Thanks, MT TrainDiscuss17:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vorhandene Seite - neu erstellen in englischer Sprache.
Liebe Kollegen,
ich habe 2013 über den Künstler Ekkeland Götze eine Seite erstellt.
Nun hat der Künstler mir die englischen Texte für die Seite übergeben, mit der Bitte, eine englische Seite dazu anzulegen-
Wie muss ich da vorgehen? Wo finde ich eine Anleitung.
(edit conflict) @Eberhardklaus: Welcome to Wikipedia. At English Wikipedia, we need to use English for communication purposes (and my German is a little too rusty...) so I'll respond in English. To create an article here, you need sources that are independent of the subject, so anything the artist asks you to write here is probably not going to be useful. To find help on how to write an article you can read Wikipedia:Your first article, and you also have to read this information as you have a conflict of interest here. Than you, --bonadeacontributionstalk18:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, Eberhardklaus, that you may be closely connected with Ekkeland Götze, so if you plan to create an article yourself, you will need to follow this policy on Conflict of Interest (Interessenkonflikt). Having looked at the article on de.wiki, I think you will also need to provide more references to prove notability than are currently used there. Viel Glück! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Date format
Should dates on Wikipedia pages have a particular format? BCE vs BC and CE vs AD
When citing sources and no distinct author's name is given, but just "Associated Press", does that need to be included or may it be omitted? Uhtregorn (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Syncopator: I am a little dubious about whether that is an appropriate use of a talk page. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources say: they mustn't advance arguments or reach conclusions unless they are reporting the argument or conclusioninf a particular source. If you are discussing the way that the sources are selected or used in the article, that is entirely appropriate for the Talk page; but if you are advancing an argument that goes beyond what the reliable sources say, I don't see how that can be appropriate. (I have not looked at the issue, so I may be misunderstanding you). --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine.
I thought that was exactly what a talk page was for. If that is incorrect, what IS it for? And, where or how can I make the author of the article aware of the error and explain why it is an error? Syncopator (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article that is written like a travel brochure
I found an article that is written in a NPOV manner. It sounds like it is written by members of the community as an ad or travel brochure. I have no idea how to fix it. I thought I would at least throw this out.
Some quotes.
"It was founded and led by Norman Paulsen, one of the direct disciples of Paramahansa Yogananda. As a child, Norman repeatedly experienced visions of a long-haired man with lustrous dark eyes. When he met the yogi, he felt that here was the man of his visions."
"Tucked away in the beautiful central coast hills, exists a place where people of common thread gather regularly. The Sanctuary's large meditation/prayer lodge on Sunday morning is usually filled with music generated by percussion, strings, and voice; thoughtful message; a vibrating stillness."
It has not been published because it has not yet been submitted for review. A WMF software change altered the label on the button "Save changes" to "Publish changes" (without changing many of the instructions which refer to it by its previous name), but it does not publish it as an article. To submit it for review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft, but it would be pointless to do so at present because there are no independent references. All the references come from the company. You need to read Wikipedia's definition of notability, and it would also be wise for you to read the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Biddulph: I believe I've now managed to update every single main help page and screenshot. Please advise if you encounter any I've missed, or where the distinction between "Publish changes" and "publish" to mainspace remains unclear. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How to be an efficient wiki contributor?
I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to hear from the experienced contributors on how to become an effective editor asap. Would like to hear some personal insights preferably.
Jefinjo (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is built on consensus, and any article will be built faster and better by a team of editors than an individual. I would suggest joining WikiProjects which interest you, and working as part of a unit on those, as a gateway to efficiency. This will also give you the practice with editing necessary to become effective. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hey Jefinjo. I see you've already found the Wikipedia Adventure, which is a good start as far as a general familiarization goes. Other than that, honestly, the most effective way that I've found to learn about Wikipedia is to be publicly and spectacularly wrong (see also WP:BEBOLD). Trust me, there will seldom if ever be any shortage of people lining up to correct you, and all you have to do is be willing to listen and learn from them. Don't be afraid to make a robust argument, because that how you tell whether you've happened upon someone else who is also publicly and spectacularly wrong, but if their argument winds up being better in the end, then it usually means you've managed to learn something new. GMGtalk08:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jefinjo, and welcome. I suspect each of us has a very different story to tell about how we first got involved with Wikipedia. What makes some of us stay here (and gain that experience) is the realisation that we're helping create or maintain an amazing world-wide, free resource of knowledge. It's so often the first port of call for many people seeking information, and being able to contribute to that is reward enough. For a minority, its a place to mess around and vandalise, but these people soon get blocked from editing. If you're interested, I've put an old video at the top of my UserPage which tells my own story of how I got involved with Wikipedia, and some of the lessons I quickly learned along the way. (Pooor sound quality, though). I've just looked back at my very first edits in 2010, and I evidently chose to visit articles I had an interest and knowledge in, and simply made very small efforts to improve some of them. The hardest bit, for me, was adding references to support the facts I was inserting, because I'd not realised our editing tools contained easy-to-use "Cite" templates to capture and insert all the information. I was doing it all by hand, and it took an age! It was 12 months before I felt confident to create my first article, but it's now available on 17 different language Wikis, which is quite rewarding to see.
Sharing knowledge with others has always been my driver in life, as has learning new skills. Wikipedia fulfils both for me. Later, I got into little routine jobs, like using special tools to automatically spot and correct spelling errors during my lunch breaks. This then led me towards more of the behind-the-scenes maintenance tasks that keep Wikipedia running smoothly. And here I now am, still learning, but also sharing and guiding where I can. We have tons and tons of guidance pages on how to do stuff well, though do not let yourself be overwhelmed by any of them. Just be bold! I put this "next steps" handout together a few days ago for brand new editors who attend Wikipedia gatherings in person. It's not been tested yet, but do let me know if you find it of use to you, or would like to make any suggestions to better meet your needs (or fears!) as a new editor. Good luck on your journey. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do?
Hi! Now my article Draft:Long Yang is already pending for review. There is a problem about this draft. The problem is, the subject is quite notable, but there isn't enough sources that meets WP:42 to show her notability. So, although the subject is notable, my draft might be rejected by the reason of notability because there isn't enough good sources. In this case, what should I do? And it's best to review my draft before March, because I will not be able to edit from March to June.
Give me some suggestions, please!
Omega68537 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Omega68537. I'm afraid you are confusing two meanings of "notable": the usual one and the Wikipedia one. Wikipedia uses the word in a special way, and it means precisely "there [are] enough sources that meet[s] WP:42 to show her notability". If there are not enough such sources, then by definition she is not currently notable by Wikipedia's standards, and it is not possible to write an article about her that will be accepted. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gagariniew. Anybody is welcome to edit Wikipedia, including creating a new article. But please be aware that creating an article is on of the harder tasks on Wikipedia: I suggest you spend some time working on existing articles first, andthen read your first article and see if you can find enough indepdendent published sources about the museum to ground an article. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs)
@Gagariniew:: ColinFine is right to advise you to learn to make simple edits first. I'd also suggest you take the interactive tour at The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a great introduction to the basics. As an ex-museum person myself, I'd welcome seeing good article on any notable museum. The key is in the word Notable, so do check that word I've just hyperlinked. Some so-called 'museums' are little more than an amateur collection of bits and pieces, whilst others will be important (and notable) repositories of local artefacts, specimens, documents or data. You might well like to check out one of our so called "WikiProjects" which coordinates a lot of themed work. (See: WikiProject Museums) One final point - nobody here makes their "own page". Everyone shares and collaborates. Those who think they own their own page are usually the ones who represent an organisation, and that can be an awkward for them when they discover that we're an encylcopaedia, assembling facts in a subject in a neutral manner, rather than giving free promotion or advertising. Do come back if you need any further advice on anything. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitting article
Hi,
I've re-edited an article about David Williams-Ellis that was rejected. I'm a bit stuck as to how to resubmit it or speak to the person who rejected it to see if the changes I've made will allow it to be published. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.
I have a request on improving taxobox. On a taxobox for a taxa; it should be explicitely mentioned; which system of classification has been used. If a mixture of system has been done (although that is highly unrecommended). It is important because classification systems change; where not only the taxa fusion and splits; but ranks of the taxa sometimes changes; and although quite rarely; rank names too changed. So whenever publish a taxobox; please mention which system of classification is followed. Best if a taxobox contain 2 or 3 columns for the hierarchies according to separate classification systems. This not only improve correctness of the articles; but also will work as better reference and would help literature search.
RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm confused -- I had an article declined b/c it already exists, except it was only created a few days ago and my original one was submitted last month (and it seemed like the reviewer was unsure about its notability). I guess I'm just confused about how it already exists *after* the one I started? I'm referring to A Few 'Gurt Men and Draft:A Few 'Gurt Men (the one I tried submitting) ohmyerica (talk)18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I now realize that the original redirect was made last February (because I don't even know the current date apparently!) and that article was apparently written a few days ago. I guess the question is still sort-of standing though. Is this just what happens when a draft is submitted, since there might be duplicate drafts? ohmyerica (talk)18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a good idea to check whether an article already exists before you spend time creating a new draft, but you probably did that and saw that it was only a redirect. I can see that your draft was written before Sasha Leiva666's version. Perhaps you could work together to create a good article? Your additions and references might help to establish WP:Notability. I'm not sure whether there is any other process available. An admin might be able to advise? Dbfirs20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Title for a new page with a common name
Hello, I wanted to create a profile for an individual with a somewhat common name. There are already several Jeff Smith articles out there. Do you just create the title with the parenthetical in it already and that suffices? Uhtregorn (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As there are multiple Jeff Smith articles, there is a disambiguation page. If you are creating a new article, title it with the profession of the subject in parentheses. e.g. if he were a golfer, the title would be Jeff Smith (golfer). Hope that this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But unless you are very experienced in creating new articles, Uhtregorn, I strongly advise you to use the WP:Article Wizard and create a draft, in any case. If you do so, then when you submit it for review and a reviewer accepts it, they will sort out the naming of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do i create a humorous wikipedia essay?
I really like the ones i've seen so far, and would like to create one, is it like simply creating a normal wikipedia article, or are there any special requirements/steps, i ask because i don't wish to disturb the community if i screw it up, thanks!
Da_dilo_dude (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fell free to make an essay on any Wikipedia related topic. Pls see WP:PRJCRE.. just need to put it in the Wikipedia namespace.....like Wikipedia:Tim Hortons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)
I amd trying to add some information to articles and I can't get the hyperlink to copy, I had to paste the entire link into the article, AND what if I find a section that is just wrong and without reference to a reliable findable source, do I just delete it? Do I need to somehow write and publish a reason? Thomas-Robert (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your first issue, I formatted and sourced it for you. On the second problem, where you find a section which is entirely unsourced, raise this issue on the article's talk page to get the view point of other editors. If it is blatantly and demonstrably incorrect, remove it and state so in your edit summary. However, avoid violating the policy regarding reverts to other editors' edits, as doing so constitutes edit warring. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thomas-Robert, welcome to the Teahouse. Click the "View history" tab to see what Stormy clouds did, but I would actually have done it differently and written ''[[Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.]]'' to produce Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. See Help:Link for more details. The double apostrophes produce italics. What do you mean by "findable" in "without reference to a reliable findable source"? If there is a source in the article then others may be able to find it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Prime Hunter: - thanks, as what I had originally done was unorthodox. I had intended to link to the article above with different text, but reneged on this idea and forgot to change it. Streamlined now. Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By findable I am talking about something that may not be on the web, such as the hard copy of a Supreme Court Case. Noting that I have two different versions of the same case obtained from what I would consider reliable sources; and that the official version is the hard-copy in Supreme Court Reports. For the record one of the versions is from lexus nexus, which I do not think is linkable anyway. Looks like I need to make a trip to a well stocked law library. Thomas-Robert (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas-Robert, good news/bad news. First, the good. There is no requirement for sources to be online. Bad news is, a court case is a primary source. Primary sources have very little use in an encyclopedia. See WP:PRIMARY for further details. Generally secondary sources (Examples of which would be case reviews in a journal or textbook) which discuss the case are far superior sources. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Joy Bus is a 501(c)3 nonprofit in Phoenix, AZ and we would like to create a Wikipedia page for our organization. We have been featured in many Arizona media sources, as well as the national Costco Connection. Are these sources appropriate and sufficient for us to create an article? TheJoyBusOrg (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoyBusOrg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to do some things beforehand; first you will need to change your username as usernames cannot be that of an organization. This can be done at WP:CHU. Second you will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(If you are paid to edit) and make the appropriate declarations. If you have reviewed the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG and truly feel that you can write a neutral article indicating how your organization is notable, please use Articles for creation. Please understand that in order to be successful(writing a Wikipedia article is very difficult even for uninvolved editors) you will need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on what independent sources state. This is usually difficult though not impossible for people in your situation to do. 331dot (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User Essay
I know I am an experienced editor but I have a question. Can I make a user essay called User:Thegooduser/WhyeditWikipedia? or something similar to that under the userspace? Thegoodusertalk02:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently noticed some odd editing on the Olivia Palermo page, from an account with a (to me) name suspiciously sounding like a PR rep or something. Having reverted some of their edits and getting some of the copyright violating images deleted, I left a message on their talk page. Today I got this reply back, and although I could quote wp:paid and wp:coi at them, I'm not sure I'm experienced enough to address this properly! Any help would be much appreciated. In cases like this is it better to try and engage or to report to a relevant place? Beevil (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: Thanks, I've responded to their message and posted the template on their talk page, I hope everything I've said is correct and reasonable. The mention of legal counsel is what made me slightly wary to start with. Beevil (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interesting article! I am sending it to friends who liked when I served some slices of it in the afternoon tea yesterday.
There is a correction that can be made in the text. When it is said that is a tradition in Argentina for Christmas, and that it is enjoyed wih HOT CHOCOLATE or LIQUOR.... This is wrong. Christmas is in the summer time in South America! and we eat PANETTONE with vold cider! that is the tradition. You can correct it. Thanks for all your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.234.33 (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Even if you don't wish to make such a correction yourself(which is OK), the best place to ask others to do so is the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article). 331dot (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello anonymous IP. We;re glad you liked the article in Panettone - just one of over 5.5 million now on Wikipedia. If you'd like to make suggestions to improve any article, the best place to do it is at the Talk Page for that topic, namely: Talk:Panettone. It is important that you make your suggestion and also supply a reference to support any additional fact that you want to have someone add. For example, whilst you may know something in your country is a local tradition, it's not acceptable just to add it - Wikipedia must have "proof" in the form of a published article that refers to that tradition. Without that, everyone would starts to look at those 5 million articles and just wonder whether they're just full of opinions of individual editors rather than reported facts. I like the sound of Pannettone and cold cider - so maybe someone has published an article on the Christmas traditions in Argentina which mentions this? If so, feel free to add it yourself, if you wish. If not, it's sensible to leave it out. It's also best to register for a free account, but you can just edit as an IP, as you've done here. Regards from a wintery UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Advice around a 'band' page appreciated....
Hello Teahouse.
Let me begin by pointing out I’m well aware of the dialogue around ‘band’ pages and as a Wiki reader I too have no interest in reading sensationalised or self-promotional accounts of those seeking exposure.
I have however created a band page myself (for good reasons, see below) with the aim that it is factual and objective; it quotes reputable third party sources. I appreciate the self-creation of the page represents a conflict of interest and can only offer that, as an independent artist without the traditional machinery of record label/management company, the self-authoring of the contribution is pragmatism; there is no-one else to do it. I assure you my interests in Wiki are practical and educational only as there are many other avenues through which one can promote. The page has been submitted with the title of Talk-Show (the hyphen is important as it disambiguates from another act of the same name).
The educational need arises as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are giving the acts’ output broadcasting rotation, which comes with a profile page on the BBC website.
The BBC are unable – due to their own limited resources – to populate artist profile pages on their own website. As the artist however I am able to request from the BBC an auto-import of artist profile data from Wiki. Without a Wiki page my artist profile page remains empty, leaving BBC audiences with an impression that the act is uninterested in offering any helpful information to listeners. I’m aware this is my problem alone, nonetheless I appeal to your public spirit for advice.62.232.40.98 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't stated what article or draft this is about, and I have failed to find it – but some editors here have near-psychic powers, and may be able to help. You question is unclear, but the gist seems to be that you want to use Wikipedia to further your career with the BBC. That is not what Wikipedia is for. My advice is: don't do it. Maproom (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it either and it is difficult to evaluate the article otherwise. I would second what Maproom said. You might meet the notability criteria which specifically state "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". However, it isn't Wikipedia's job to make up for the BBC. That's something you should do on a website of your own or social media. If no third party sources write about you, there cannot be an article about you at this time, even if you meet the notability criteria. Please review the autobiography policy; autobiographical articles are highly discouraged. Your best bet is to just allow others to write about you when the sources are there. You cannot use Wikipedia to advance your career in any way. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both Maproom and 331dot for your responses. Yes, fully understand the conflict of interest in writing autobiographical content, and as I've explained I've aimed not to fall into usual traps in doing so - that said neither of your are able to view the article and so can't evaluate. It has been published as Talk-Show, though I can't see it yet either. Perhaps it has not been moderated/approved for publication yet. I appreciate both of your time in responding.62.232.40.98 (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could view it if you could link to the article. It is not under your IPs edit history so I assume you either created it under a different one or under a username. While you don't have to tell us if you have reasons for not doing so, it is difficult to help you if you don't. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be that I have incorrectly created the page, hence it's not appearing. Hopefully you may advise. Your comments are very much appreciated.Dylanpops (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dylanpops, ok, you shouldn´t have it exactly there, the userpage is for saying something like "This is me, this is what I do on WP" or whatever. I suggest you go here: Wikipedia:Drafts, scroll down to "Create a new draft" and copy your text to the new draft, then you can work on it there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grabergs Graa Sang, 331dot and jimfbleak for your time, trouble and insights. I have taken your comments on board and had another attempt at a page, which I hope will meet Wiki's criteria. I'd be grateful if any of you would review it:
Creation of a Wikipedia page for Luxexcel (company)
Hello Teahouse,
I am a new user looking to contribute to Wikipedia content. To start with, I would like to create a page for Luxexcel, a Dutch-Belgian company that invented a 3D printing technology to produce optical lenses. Currently the company does not have a page on Wikipedia. Could you please advice me how to proceed?
@Sridharashok: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you need to do is review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID, the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors. Those pages will tell you to make a formal declaration of your conflict of interest and employment on your user page(click your username either here or at the top of the screen).
Please understand that creating a new article is very difficult, even for editors not associated with a subject. The subject must be written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject is notable(as Wikipedia defines it). In your case, it is harder (though not impossible) due to your COI. You must forget everything you know about your company and write only based on what independent sources state about it. That's usually difficult for people in your situation to do, though it is possible. Please understand that not every company merits an article here. If you truly feel that you can write an article about your company with the proper neutral point of view, you should use Articles for Creation to submit a draft. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed some helpful links on your user talk page as well. I would close by informing you that a page about your company is not necessarily a good thing(see WP:PROUD). You cannot lock it to the text your company might prefer to see, cannot prevent others from editing it, and cannot keep "bad" information out. As long as information appears in an independent reliable source, it can generally be in a Wikipedia article, good or bad. Please keep that in mind. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response @331dot - really appreciate it! I will read the guidelines thoroughly before proceeding. I do understand the consequences of writing a Wikipedia article about the company I work for. My sole intention to provide a connection between 3D printing (the technology) and the inventor of a specific category of 3D printing, which is Luxexcel. Additionally, I would also like to write an article about the technology in question.
Am new to this forum, so naturally, i am having a bit of a hard time creating and uploading a biography of someone. However, since am keen and eager to learn the ropes, I will appreciate any help that I can get. My challenge right now is "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." The challenge is that most of the information is from the subject of the Biography, so I could use some guidance on how to come up with footnotes. Thanks. Ndiwulira (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ndiwulira: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject. You will need sources not affiliated with this person in order to have an article about them on Wikipedia. If no independent sources write about them, it will not be possible to have an article about them at this time. If you do have such sources, you should review WP:CITE for information on citing those sources.
I've recently created a draft page for the upcoming animated film, Foster. The title of the draft is Draft:Foster (film). Right after creating the page, I learned that an article with a topic unrelated to my draft page has the same title: Foster (film). I want to change the title for my draft page, but I don't want to move it to a different page and create a redirect out of the old page. I just want to have the article renamed without creating any more pages in the process. What can I do? Superchunk22 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Superchunk22: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Renames are accomplished through a page move; however, since your page is a draft, I wouldn't worry about the exact title right now. If the page is accepted, the reviewer will put it at an appropriate title. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had an article that was proposed for deletion by some person I dont know. I wasnt completed the article so should I worry about it being deletedMystery Bros (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mystery Bros: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The method of deletion they have used allows for a week before it is deleted, and if the reviewing admin feels deletion is not warranted, they will remove the tag at that time. You are also permitted to remove that particular deletion tag yourself, although the nominator could pursue other methods of deletion such as a deletion discussion. I would encourage you to review Your First Article to learn what is being looked for in articles. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone ! As I mainly contribute to French Wikipedia, I do not know every aspect of contribution here. Yesterday, I created an article about . I have just found a translation in English created shortly after (Andrew Parsons (Sports Leader)). Great. But this is a word-by-word translation, but there is no credits or mention translated from as we usually do on fr:. Is that normal ? Thank you for your answer. VateGV◦ Discuss? ◦ Discuter ? ◦18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not the way things should be done. Your work should be attributed. Unfortunately, I see that the person who did the translation does this for every article they create, so they have some work ahead of them to fix this. We will have attribution for your work added to the article history and to the article the talk page. Thanks for your contributions, and sorry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kylam2002: - If you edit something which is factually incorrect, and do not provide references from reliable sources to support your edit, it will more than likely be reverted by another user. If you edited something which you know is incorrect, this is an unconstructive edit and possibly vandalism, and you should remove the edit yourself manually. However, if it is an accidental error, fear not, as another editor will likely fix it and reference with a helpful source. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GB fan: thanks. That is a very weird edit, in that it is clearly detrimental to article quality, but not the extreme and overt vandalism which we so often see on en.wiki. Anyhow, thanks for handling that, and my notes regarding the original question stand. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vat 19 Article
Would a vat 19 article make it out? Also, I'm sure I won't finish by today so will I receive a message saying this could be deleted or something like that? Mystery Bros (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Essays in your userspace can be about whatever you want them to be (subject to certain Wikipedia policies and some modicum of common sense; i.e. no copyvios, no attacks on others, no polemical or abusive writing), and do not need references. If it goes too far afield from Wikipedia's core purpose, it may be deleted, of course, but if you have something to write you think may be helpful to others at Wikipedia, go at it. Wikipedia:Essays has more information. --Jayron3202:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the issue: from what I've spot-checked, most of your references either don't mention Letheo, or are written/spoken by her. Neither of which help her meet WP:Notability (athletes).
I understand that there's a lot of politics involved re African women athletes and the South African government, but if there simply isn't information out there about her in WP:Reliable sources, we just don't have much to work with.
If African women mountaineers are under-covered in the media, that's the media's fault, not Wikipedia's fault. If that is the case, I agree it's lamentable, but basing Letheo's article on unreliable or absent sources does nothing to fix that media bias, it would just result in her having a weak article of low-credibility, which wouldn't solve anything.
Dear, you are doing a great job developing local content on sports women. But you have to do this ethically and follow the guidelines. Find sources to cite other than your own understanding or knowledge. You would also have to remove the social media links in the external links section. Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing WikipediaDanidamiobi (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think once she actually achieves the seven summits challenge she will definitely receive significant media coverage as the first black African woman to reach the highest peaks on all seven continents, and will then meet our notability criteria as a result. (One of my ex-climbing partners had that ambition, too, though she never achieved them all.) But, for the moment, I think this is simply a case of being WP:TOOSOON, though well worth keeping in your sandbox for later use. (Remember that untouched Draft Articles are liable to be deleted after 6 months of inactivity) It looks like she might be aiming for Everest again in 2018. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do I (1) upload a photo and (2) makes reference links
Hello, joined today and wish to add a photo, a further description and a couple of book references to a Grevillea reference already here on Wikipedia.
- I have read the instructions and tried and go totally confused.
- I have read the questions and answers below and got totally confused.
- What is the picture library and where do I find that which someone mentioned in an answer below - can I upload a photo directly to the article?
- What size picture is accepted?
Thank you
Kalaryder (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kalaryder welcome to our friendly Teahouse. It's great to see someone wanting to improve botanical articles, though you have chosen two quite hard tasks on your first day of editing. Maybe take one step at a time and do some minor rewording or grammar enhancement to get a feel of the tool wouldn't be a bad idea. First of all, have you already found the photo on Wikimedia Commons that you want to insert, or is it a new photograph which you own the rights to that you want to upload? If you can answer that one, we'll know the best advice to then give you. Here is the category of images for the taxon. There's a search bar at the top right of the page.
Meanwhile, may I suggest you read this advice sheet which should assist you: Help:Referencing for beginners. In essence, either of our editing tools has a "cite" template which you find by looking for the "cite" button. You'll then see a template with fields which you fill in for title, author, date, publisher, etc. Don't worry if you make a mistake when editing. So long as you realise it, you can quickly go to the View History tab, look for your last edit at the top, and click "undo". That'll return the article to how it was before you tried to work on it. We all make mistakes from time to time, so it's a nice option to be able to fall back on. Nobody can break Wikipedia like that! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above answer is better than a canned reply, but I will still give the canned reply with barebones instructions for image upload:
To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:
Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.
the photos I intend to use will all be my own. I spend a lot of time photographing wildflowers in Western Australia.
No the flower I intend to use is not showing beside the article I wish to add it too.
Yes willing to release it - thank you I will add to the Upload Wizard.
I will struggle through the reading again for referencing - it's a pity I need to do that as I can describe the plants much better through my personal viewing of them. Can I describe the plants such a way without having find someone else's description and paraphrasing?
Thanks
Kalaryder (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia newbie - need your opinion on the article
Hello, dear Wikipedia community!
I'm a newbie here and I have never wrote any articles on Wikipedia, so I need your opinion on the article I'm working on. I'll really appreciate any advice you can give. I try to stick to the rules, but there's still a chance that I've missed something important while editing the article.
According to the article, ESforce is a holding company, now owned and controlled by a bigger company. So it's not an independent business, and it doesn't actually do anything, it just owns other business. It sounds like something of interest only to accountants. Maproom (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome. I haven't fully examined all the sources, but they seem to be press-release type announcements of routine business transactions, which the notability guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG specifically state are not acceptable to establish notability. What is needed is in depth coverage of this company in independent reliable sources, which does not include press releases or routine business announcements. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of the article of my company from French to English
Dear Teahouse,
I am Asdesas4, nice to meet you!
I am a new contributor in the English version of Wikipedia, but already experimented in the French version.
Actually, I wrote an article in French for my company : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragone.
so I am a paid contributor. My article has been improved and validated from many French Wikipedia collaborators.
I am convinced that as Dragone is an international company that produces shows all over the world (just as the Cirque du Soleil do), this article may have an interest in the English version of Wikipedia.
Could I create here the English version of this article? It should have the same references as there are articles from international media and newspapers.
Fortunately for me I have colleagues that speak a better English than me,
so the English version would be perfect.
What do you think of my project ? Can I start to work on it? Or who should I ask?
@Asdesas4: - Given your conflict of interest, policy would indicate that you probably should not write the article yourself. However, if you are proposing a direct translation, this should be fine, and your focus should primarily be on ensuring that the article scans properly in English, given the differences between English and French in terms of terminology, grammar and syntax. Si vous voulez commencer ce project, je pourrais t'aider avec votre traduction, et corriger les erreurs. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting for review?
Hi guys - I've spent a fair bit of time editing my article and I think I'm at the point where I should submit it for review. However, it still has some minor issues in it (I can't figure out how to format the See Also section correctly) and am not sure if a few places need additional references. Ideally, I'd like to be able to submit it for review so I can at least get feedback on what I currently have written.
Can anyone tell me what happens after you submit an article for review? Will I get feedback and have a chance to implement changes? Or is there a risk of it getting completely rejected?
Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed some light on this. (Article: Draft:Scrap Arts Music)
I edited your draft to make the See also section look more standard, but two of those entries should be removed and the targets wikilinked in the body of the article where they are mentioned.
I don't see any reason why you could not submit this draft for review. One of the things you'll get feedback about is whether you've shown that the group is notable and you may get comments or help on formatting your citations. You can continue to work on the article while waiting for a more formal review and, even if the article is declined, you can continue to improve the article until you've addressed the deficiencies. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)15:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome. Your edits indicate that you are a company representative, and as such you should not directly edit the article about your company as you have a conflict of interest. You have been given information about this on your user talk page. We all want articles here to be accurate; if there is incorrect information in the article, please describe it on the article talk page.
I would further add that the company has no say as to whether an article exists about it or not(you attempted to blank the article with that as a justification). Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources about an article subject, and the subject itself has no more say than anyone else about the article. We welcome input, especially if there are errors, but it needs to be done in the correct manner. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate declarations. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that, I've been trying to change FACTUAL information only has you all have clearly told me many times. Please look at my last edits and tell me how that is promoting at all? I'm changing the incorrect information to correct information...70.36.63.2 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should not directly edit the article due to your conflict of interest. Before you do anything else, you need to read the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID; the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are a paid editor. You should then formally declare your COI and/or paid editing relationship on your user talk page. Then, please visit the article talk page to explain what changes you feel are needed, and why. I also see that you have asked a user who reverted you about their reversion, I might also wait for a response from them. Your edits were likely seen as promotional because you simply listed projects your company is involved with. The article can only contain information discussed in independent reliable sources, it is not a place for you or your company to just list its projects. Again, if there are errors such as the location of your offices being incorrect, please make a request on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the creator made the project lists with inaccurate projects and me listing the proper ones is promotion? Why leave a project list there if you don't want the proper ones listed?
People who don't have a COI have tried editing the page and it's still getting flagged. Seems like anyone who tries to do anything immediately gets reverted. So the inaccurate projects that the creator listed isn't promotion, and the updated ones are promotion?
Currently, the only projects listed are those that are described in independent sources(it appears this was just done). That is all that should be in the article. If you have other independent sources describing your projects, please offer them on the article talk page. I've explained how you should proceed, which will give you the best chance of success in what you would like to see. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So when a person adds projects to the page that isn't related to the company is that an independent source? This information isn't secret or hidden, can easily be found online by anyone. If the creator actually wanted accurate information on the page its pretty easy to be found ie. the edits I'm trying to make. Looking forward to wasting more time trying to get the right information here. 70.36.63.2 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel your time is wasted, you don't need to spend it here. No one forces you to be here if you have better things to do, as we all do at some point in our lives. A project can be in the article if it is described in an independent reliable source. Please read WP:RS for more on what such sources are. You are probably right that such information is online and easy to find, it just takes someone willing to do it to get it done. This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can do it. No article on Wikipedia is ever "finished" or 100% complete. That doesn't change your need to comply with the policies I've outlined and suggest changes as I've described. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes someone that is "willing to do it" has been trying to many times and every time it's getting reverted. When the information we're trying to put on the page is so readily available online and keeps getting considered as "promotion" just doesn't make sense.
Refusing to comply with the requirement on WP:Paid editing, trying to delete an article just because your company president doesn't like it, and removing explanations from your talk page after complaining that you don't understand the system will not encourage volunteers here in their efforts to help you. If there is inaccurate information in the article, then we want to correct it, but corrections need to be backed up with references to independent WP:Reliable sources. It would be best if you discuss these on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, we wanted to originally delete it. If you actually looked at the last edits I tried to make, it was changing INACCURATE information on the page into FACTUAL & ACCURATE information, that is directly on the company website. But now this is considered promotion? What's a more reliable source about a company, a company website or some creator who has no idea anything about the page he made?
As you have been told, Wikipedia is not interested in what any of us want to say about a company, only in what independent sources write. The company itself is not an independent source. It isn't a matter of the creator "having no idea", unless you claim they are making stuff up. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, i'll keep watching the "independent sources" get denied
How about this: A company website is NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER going to be accepted as a source of other than the most basic information, for example name and address of the company. Find published articles about the company by independent sources and propose those in Talk. Someone else will decide to put into article. Likewise, if stuff wrong in the article, describe what is wrong in Talk. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright infringement
In my page Swati Maliwal Jaihind, I have written about her achievements as have been specified in a govt. website upon her request. I have written it in my words but I still seem to be doing something wrong. Should I delete the website link? Or is there some way I can incorporate that information without violating copyrights? Womenempowerment (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Womenempowerment welcome to our Teahouse, and thanks for your question. I think we might need you to provide a link to the page you're referring to. I seem unable to find it, either in your contributions, in draft or in mainspace. I note from your talk page you have had your sandbox deleted on the grounds that you had copy/pasted content from a website, so was that it? (Not being an admin I cannot check those pages to see what they contained). Even if you changed a few words from another website, this 'close paraphrasing' is still going to be interpreted as copyright, so content gets very swiftly deleted when you do so, and warnings issued. If you do want to work with text that has been copied from another source so that you can completely rewrite it, my suggestion is to do what I do and undertake that task in a normal wordprocesssor. Everything - even the contents of your sandbox - is published and available online, so copyright content does need to be kept clear of all pages. If you are working at the request of the subject, you do need to declare your involvement, by following our conflict of interest policy. And if you are being paid, we have another one for you to read, too! See: WP:PAID. Sorry I can't help much more. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article rejected for not adequately showing the subject's notability.
Could somebody please help me with this? I submitted an article about a Norwegian singer, the page name is ZIALAND, it was rejected for not adequately showing the subject's notability. What can I do about it? I have some links from online articles and reviews of her music, could that work maybe? thank in advance.
Your draft Draft:Zialand has no sources at all. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Zialand in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc. Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could also delete the section on Influences. There has been no independent music reviewer say that. As a matter of form, delete all the red-links. Best of luck Rhadow (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sock Puppetry Accusation
What can be done about an accusation that I am a sock puppet. Someone is accusing me of being a sock puppet because my IP address changes when I go onto the site yet they are all with the same beingging sets of numbers. I thought the issue of sock puppetry had been resolved long before and yet here goes another accusation of sock puppetry. The purson that is accusing me is insistent that an IP address would not show up if I logged into WP with a user name. I have no registered user name therefore do not have an registered account. Yet this person after explanation after explanation goes back to saying that I am not addressing his statement because I have noit logged onto a registered username account. What can be done.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can solve the problem by creating an account, though there is no obligation to do so. IP addresses change for some users, so there is no way to track which edits are yours if you don't use an account. Dbfirs19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was the conflict. It is obvious to me which IP addresses are assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles, and you have not tried to hide your change of IP address, so I cannot see any justification for accusations of sock puppetry unless you also edit under an account name. Where there is disagreement over edits, the best policy is to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted my concerns about facts and omission on the Amistade talk page and have directed the accuser to the Tea House to better understand what is going on. I do not have a registered username therefore I cannot avoid using one. I just do not understand how someone can accuse someone and continues to believe their incorrect perception despite repeated explanations.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello IP user: I can understand why you are irritated. But might I politely add that, whilst you are indeed quite at liberty to edit from an IP address, many editors get suspicious when they see content subtly being changed without any citations, irrespective of whether that person has registered for a free account or not. Your actions in changing and then re-inserting those small changes without any evidence to support them was, I'm afraid, typical of what I personally often interpret as subtle vandalism. That's not to say that you were in this case. But just because you "happen to know something for a fact" doesn't entitle you to change article content without evidence to support your beliefs. I've only spent a few moments looking, but believe you were quite wrong to change "53 African people" to "54 African people" without proof. Just read this Times article to see why other editors are suspicious of unsubstantiated changes. Maybe you have other sources to prove "54" is correct. if so, you need to cite them. I've no idea I've not seen the film or know the story in detail. The fact that you are an anonymous IPv6 editor is unfortunate, and I hope you understand why, if you go around making changes like these, other people may jump to conclusions about you that are not necessarily correct. If this makes you uncomfortable, then there is one option and one requirement for you: Create an account for free and sign in with it; don't make changes without supporting them with sources. You decide which is which. I hope this explains how others might see those edits. You did right to raise those concerns afterwarss on the article Talk page. If the film got the numbers wrong, then that could be a legitimate issue to raise in the article, using sources, of course. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that remark. If any statement is contested, just insert a citation to support it, or leave it well alone. That includes the Plot as far as I'm concerned. Note: The evidence (using Intersect) does not lead me to support the suggestion expressed below. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if the IPv4 address 104.35.236.49 might also be you, and this increases the unease felt by registered editors. I endorse Nick Moyes' recommendation to create a free account on Wikipedia. You don't need to use your real name. I prefer not to have my name anywhere on the internet, so if you feel the same, just make up a pseudonym. If you have references, then you need to cite them. Dbfirs21:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my responsibility to make certain that WP's system functions properly and I will not establish a registered account in order to edit. I just noticed that other number because I was wondering where some of my edits went. Evidently it changed while I was editing under the usual 26.... went to 104 then reestablished back to 26..... Again, it is not my responsibility for the functioning if WP's system.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings There is an erroneous link for a Canon of Westminster Abbey, named Rev. Sebastian Charles He was a Canon there (in charge of the treasury) from 1978 to 1989, when he died. He is linked fromt he Westminster Abbey page listing all the former Canons, to a TV show because one of the actors had the same name.
Rev. Sebastian Charles was a talented churchman who worked with leper colonies, the black community in London, with the parole board there, and in many other ways. He was Born in Burma and was of Tamil extraction. He was also very funny, very astute, a loving father and husband. He does not deserve this sullied treatment, nor this error in linkage. I know nothing about disconnecting a link. I hope someone else can show mercy to his legacy.
Here is the false entry:
There is a page named "Sebastian Charles" on Wikipedia
Half Moon Investigations (TV series) (redirect from Sebastian Charles)
the nickname "Half Moon" because of his small height. Red Sharkey (Sebastian Charles) is one of the main characters of the show. It is shown in many episodes
4 KB (384 words) - 20:10, 5 July 2017
I'm planning to upload this image (which is from Google Books) of Jim Bakker's "I Was Wrong" book (it's mentioned in the article) and I'm just curious: If I go to here and upload it as a book cover, do you think it will be accepted on Wikipedia? I'm just curious. LovelyGirl7talk23:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. LovelyGirl7. As a general rule, a non-free image of a book cover is acceptable only in an article about the book, rather than the biography of its author. If a book was published before 1923, copyright has expired, and you can use an image of such a book cover anywhere. Please read our policy on non-free images for more information. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Working One moment. GMGtalk 01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps: