Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Tigraan, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

Help with template

Moved to User:Xinbenlv/Help with template

Dear friendly editors.

Can anyone help me edit this Template:Inconsistent Birthday? Basically, the purpose is to allow pass in multiple (ideally, indefinite number of) entries of InterWikiLinks and Birthdays as variables of the template, and use it on Talk page.

It looks like this right now

{{Inconsistent Birthday}} Xinbenlv (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xinbenlv. Because templates can affect lots of pages (sometimes in not so obvious ways) and the syntax involved can be a bit complicated, you might get better feedback from experienced template editors by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates or even Wikipedia:Village Pump/Technical instead. Moreover, you should be aware that templates which have little encyclopedic value or are redundant to exisiting template can end up being nominated for deletion at WP:TFD if they don't comply with Wikipedia:Template namespace for some reason. I'm not saying that's the case here, but just pointing it out in case you weren't aware of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that's very helpful. I will ask over there. Xinbenlv (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Why my edited page is removed

I have edited the page related to Zafar Sareshwala many times, but every time the edited details are being removed by . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafar_Sareshwala why the deatils are being removed watever i added was all correct information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venusthelovegoddess (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Venusthelovegoddess: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were removed because they were not sourced; all edits must be sourced to independent reliable sources. This is especially true about people who are alive; if content about a living person is not sourced, it cannot be in the article. Please read the Biographies of Living Persons policy. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Venusthelovegoddess Look at Zafar Sareshwala: Revision history, the editors who reverted you have written WP:EDITSUMMARIES. If you disagree with their reasons, start a discussion with them. What you are doing now is WP:EDITWARRING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång thnks for the reply

Could you pleez tell me how to add sources to the edited information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venusthelovegoddess (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nemenhah page appears to be mostly PR

So this page here seems very off to me. Seems like a few users are trying very hard to keep certain newsworthy facts out of the public eye while disparaging attempts to fix the page as "bias." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doopwii123 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doopwii123: You can discuss it on the talk page, and if that ends up as "two editors disagree very widely" you can ask for a WP:3O third opinion: Minimal rough consensus is 2:1. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Best way to start new article?

Hello. I joined so that I can write a new article. Is it better to just start the article with one sentence, and keep adding to it, or should I write the whole article in Word or something and then publish it when I feel it's done? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteamboatPhilly (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteamboatPhilly (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION

Hello, I am requesting for someone to clarify between citing and linking, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pktrisha (talk • contribs) 22:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Pktrish, welcome to the Teahouse. 'Citing' is an American term for 'adding a reference' to an external reliable source, such as a book, newspaper, journal or reliable website. This is an absolute requirement when you add a new 'fact' to an article here. If you add a fact without supporting it with a 'citation' it's quite likely that your edit will be reverted (removed). Put simply, we don't allow personal opinions here, so citing reliable published sources is absolutely essential. When you are editing an article or a sandbox page, your editing tool has a button called 'Cite' which allows you to add details of these external sources (see Help:Referencing for beginners).

By 'Link' I think you probably mean an internal connection (called a 'wikilink') from one Wikipedia page to another. So when I mention Delhi, I could link to Delhi to help users find out more information the city (see WP:MOSLINK for full details). Please let us know if this hasn't answered your question, and we'll try again for you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk)

LLGH (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Hi Pktrisha. By using linking or citing, you'll see that a link is when you clic on a word (usualy in blue) to access to another internet page ; but when you cite, you are giving a reference, more information : in Wikipedia pages, you'll see numbers that are explained at the end of the page. In brief : linking = word-link ; citing = giving external additional information.

Snippet view of a source

Is there anyone who can tell me what "denver+d.+ferguson"+chicago&dq="denver+d.+ferguson"+chicago&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip47GbpOfgAhVjnuAKHW8UBAoQ6AEISzAI this book source says on page 29? I'm working on Draft:Denver Ferguson, and additional info and sourcing eould be very useful. Thanks. Looks like a death notice from snippet view.. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, FloridaArmy. The maximum I've been able to extract is part of a weekly news item stating that Denver D. Ferguson, aged 62, had died that week. (no date given). It says he was formerly a night club impresario in Indianapolis and was also the owner and publisher of the first weekly newspaper in Edmundson County, Ky. Apparently he died in his own home in Indianapolis after being ill for some time. There was more, but even via a proxy server I couldn't see more than a snippet either. However, you do appear to have missed this incredibly detailed obituary (which continues on page 7 of the Indianapolis Recorder, for 18 May 1957), which should give you much of what you need to complete your draft! And if you're still stuck, there's 158 pages of entries for Denver Ferguson in that newspaper's online archive search tool. (see here) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, when you need access to more-or-less esoteric sources, the go-to place is WP:RX. The kind folks there have access to many newspapers archives, scientific journals, libraries etc. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Election maps

Nigeria presidential election 2015 - blue and green

Hello, I was intrested in formating File:Nigeria location map.svg for the article 2019 Nigerian general election, as was done for the previous election in the country (see here) which has its own map (see here). Any idea how to do this if it is possible? Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Inter&anthro. Welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst there might be a better way, my approach would be to download the highest resolution version of the 2015 election map (shown), not File:Nigeria location map.svg. The latter contains too much spurious detail you would need to edit out. I would open the image in simple graphics-editing software capable of 'flooding' one selected area of colour and changing it to another. That seems likely to work OK as every blue and green area is surrounded by a white border which means you can flood each area one at a time. I would convert, say, all the green areas back to the same shade of blue (or whatever political colour is most dominant in 2019) and then, based upon a published list of election results, I would re-flood the relevant areas with a different colour to reflect the results of the minority party(s).

I would then reupload the image to Wiki Commons as my own work, but making it clear it is a 'derivative work' based upon the other image. Thus, the history of changes can be traced back. In addition (and because this is a personal gripe of mine) I would include in the image description a hyperlink or reference to the published election results. I personally don't feel that anywhere near enough effort is expended at Commons to ensure the accuracy of image content, or allow others to challenge it. We rightly fuss about the words and references we use on Wikipedia, but we let anyone create and upload almost any image containing data or named content without requiring it to be sourced or challenged for accuracy of content. This is a really serious weakness in my view. Anyway, I hope this suggestion helps. Let me know if you find a better way, although you could always seek assistance from the experts over at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: Yep - I've just tested this method for you using the 'flood' tool in MS Paint - the free graphics editor that comes with Microsoft Windows. It works perfectly, and is so quick to do. The only issue I foresee is if the election regions areas have altered since the earlier map was created. You'll have to check that for yourself, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor objection, in theory "we" prefer SVG for cases like this. I looked at the source (ctrl-U in most browsers), there are various fill=none (irrelevant), some fill=#87beeb (blue?), and some fill=#00aa00 (greenish): Fixing that for a new SVG map in a text editor should be simple enough, toggle one fill color to, say, red, to figure out which provice it is. Then toggle it to, say, black or silver to tag it as done, and finally toggle all black to #00aa00 and all silver to #87beeb as it was on the old map, even notepad should be good enough for this exercise. Nothing against mspaint.exe and bitmaps, but SVGs have various advantages. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank for that steer, 84.46.53.245. I'd not seen that my 'svg' file had been saved as 'svg.png'. I suspect it might be hard to work through and change the correct units in svg format in a browser. (Though I could probably do it in MapInfo) I can find the hex colours in Chrome and IE, but can't see how to edit, toggle and then save them. Can you advise so that the OP can then try? Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so mcuh @Nick Moyes: for your advice, I've tried uploading it at File:Nigeria presidential election 2019 - blue and green.jpg. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, Inter&anthro. It obviously doesn't have the quality of the original .svg file, but it should work OK. I think I would have been unable to retain it in the original format, too, as it seemed extremely complex to find and change the relevant elements without having the specialised software. The one thing I would ask is that you add the source of your information to the wikimedia file - I think that sets a good example for others to follow. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I added the source of the original file in the description, is it not showing up? Inter&anthro (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Works for me, but you can't have two mutually exclusive licenses on this file (public domain vs. CC-BY-SA.) Based on the source sticking to CC-BY-SA should be okay. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Armed with Chrome as browser, but it would be the same procedure with IE11 or Firefox: On c:File:Nigeria presidential election 2015 - blue and green.svg I clicked on the Original file link, if you don't see it disable the media viewer and reload the SVG. Your browser then displays this SVG as image. On the tab with the displayed SVG press [Ctrl]+[U] (mnemonic for Un-decode) to see the source (SVG is in essence plain text), or right click and pick "save as" (= download to a local file on your box with file extension SVG.) If your text editor refuses to open the SVG rename it to map.TXT, edit it, rename it back to map.SVG, etc. (your browser won't display map.TXT, but can handle map.SVG, unless it's syntactically broken.) CAVEAT: If your text editor splits extremely long lines you need a better text editor or an idea where inserted line breaks won't cause havoc for the SVG syntax. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Texts of Famous Poem/Speeches

I was curious why pages regarding poems in the public domain or famous speeches cannot have the text of said poems or speeches. I added a few at one point, but they were all removed, and it seems strange for a Wikipedia page about a short famous work that's in the public domain to not appear in the page itself, especially with how often these pages come up in search results of people looking for the text. Or maybe there is some way to do this correctly so the text isn't removed? Thank you Zammitj1 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zammitj1:

Welcome to the Teahouse

It's great to read your post

I thought I'd try to answer it

as I'm a Teahouse host.

The problem is an article

on a poem or a speech

can only talk about it

- The text stays out of reach.

- Out of reach to readers

who log on day and night.

They might want to read the wording

but the darned thing's copyright

Even if it's published

and in the public domain

unless it's been properly licenced

there it must remain.

I'm sure they'd love to read it here

at least, that's what methinks

but all that we can offer them

are a few External Links.

Of course, this particular amazing poem has been published under a Creative Commons licence, so you're free to re-publish it wherever you wish! I hope this nevertheless answers your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bravo from the IPs, I recently tested <poem>...</poem> on a dewiki talk page, it works like <pre>...</pre>. Reverted, the poem was not strictly on topic on this talk page. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Major kudos for that answer. Zammitj1 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Where poems and songs are in the public domain, Zammitj1, the preferred course is to upload them to Wikisource: they can be Wikilinked from there (or, even better, linked with the {{wikisource}} template). --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Company Template

I came a across a wiki page about a company that talks quite a bit about its progress. It's also been labeled as an page that "contains content like an advertisement". I'm not entirely sure how to properly edit the company page so that it doesn't look an advertisement while showing what it contains and what achievements it has made. Is there a template that I can adhere to or a guide (other than WP:PROMOTION)? YouGottaChill (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, YouGottaChill. If a reliable published source completely unconnected with the company has chosen to talk about an "achievement" of the company, then the Wikipedia article can summarise what the unconnected source said about it, preferably citing the source. (And note that anything based on a press release or interview with the company is not "completely unconnected"). If no source unconnected with the company has talked about the "achievement" then no mention of it belongs in the article. Period. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the company says, or wants to say, about itself, only what independent commentators have said about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This page might be of some help, especially in the section about structure. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

How to make an edit to Barbra Streisand (semi-protected)

Just wondering what to do about making a constructive edit to one part of the Barbra Streisand entry, which is a semi-protected entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbra_Streisand#Nightclub_shows_and_Broadway_stage

I propose a couple of sentences in the above section (2.2), probably a new third para along the following lines:

In early 1962 she went into the Columbia Records studio for the cast recording of I Can Get it for You Wholesale. Also that spring she participated in a twenty-fifth anniversary studio recording of Pins and Needles, the classic popular front musical originated in 1937 by the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. Reviews of both albums highlighted Streisand’s perfomances.

The source for this is a standard recent biography: William J. Mann, Hello Gorgeous: Becoming Barbra Streisand (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012), pp. 213-214, 245

Ami du peuple (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• You should make an edit request. ^{[Username Needed]} 17:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ami du peuple: Are you not autoconfirmed? You should be able to do it yourself. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Using Photos that are approved by a person but not licensed

Hello, I have very little experience using Wikipedia and I am trying to create a page but I am being denied every step of the way. The references are not good enough but getting them from the persons website is about all I can find. To make it even more difficult many articles that may have information published are in Japanese and I don't read or speak Japanese. I have contacted the person the page features and have been given approval to make the page and post photos that are available on their website or social media accounts. When I try to Upload the photo to wiki commons I get a message saying it must be licensed. I thought getting approval from the owner would be enough. Any help to get my page fixed and acceptable would be very much appreciated. Here is a link to the draft if you need to see what I have done so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keisandeath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumu-Metal (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Akumu-Metal. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and qualify for an article, a subject needs to have sustained in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources, usually things like newspapers magazines and books, and excluding things like social media, official websites, and press releases. If this person has not yet received this type of coverage, and the only source available is their official website, then they do not yet qualify for an article.

As to uploading images on Wikimedia Commons, it is not enough that someone give permission to use the images on Wikipedia. Content on Commons must be released under a free license. If they are not willing to do so, then the content is not appropriate for upload. GMG^talk 18:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact, Akumu-Metal, a person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article has almost no role to play in connection with that article. Their permission, or disapproval, is of no relevance. Most materials supplied by them will not be usable unless these are copies of reliably published independent work about them. Pictures they supply will usually not be usable unless the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer rather than the subject) agrees to license the picture freely, as GMG referred to. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before there are articles that were put into magazines and newspapers about the subject but they are all in Japanese. I have requested that the subject of the Wiki assist me in finding the relevant information and give me the links. My question is< if the articles are in Japanese will they be accepted? If the person who took the photos gives the OK is that good enough? Also the album cover photos are owned by the subject and they said I could use them. Is that acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumu-Metal (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note the last part of this thread appears to have resubmitted below (see #Are references in Japanese acceptable on English Wikipedia.) as a separate question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

What should I do about instances of COI editing that I find?

I found a user (Bostonjfilm) who is editing a page Boston Jewish Film Festival and, based on their username, it seems to be a conflict of interest. They are also adding language which makes the article seem more like an advertisement. What should I do? I already put a {{subst:Uw-coi-username|Article}} on their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin04atschool (talk • contribs)

 Already Reported - Violation of WP:UPOL so in this case WP:UAA is the best venue. If it's not a username policy violation the WP:COI/N would be the correct place in future. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Merlin04atschool: The article certainly read like an advertisement. Also, some of the content added by the WP:COI user was a WP:COPYVIO of the organisation's website. I've removed the copyvio text and copy-edited the rest to make it a bit less advertorial, but more work is needed on this aspect. Additionally, the article probably needs renaming because it's more about the festival's organising body than the festival itself. Neiltonks (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

help submitting first article

Can someone help me with my first article? tried to follow all the rules and regs and use the correct procedure. Can someone take a look for me?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LandonCharles1 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Article in question is User:LandonCharles1/sandbox. Also, at end of comments here at Teahouse or Talk pages of articles or editors, sign your User name by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've tidied up the section headings, removed bolding of text contrary to MOS:BOLD, & added a Reference section heading with {{reflist}} template. You ought to read WP:REFB, & particularly the part about refs used more than once. Also read WP:REFPUNC. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@LandonCharles1: Grr! I was just doing exactly the same thing for you as David Biddulph has, but he finished first, and so I've wasted my time! Not to worry. Anyway, I've just added a couple of flags to key sections that would definitely need citations for every personal statement, as they relate to a living person, and we need evidence for things like education, marriage, divorce and so on. If you can't cite it, just leave those bits out until later. Or add them and then remove the "unreferenced section" template I popped in just to flag up the bits to work up further. Apart from the issue of learning how to use one reference multiple times (by means of ref name=Jetset, for example) rather than repeating the citation again and again, I think you've not done at all badly with this. You should be pleased with yourself. I've not looked at 'notability', but suspect she'll meet it OK. There's no WP:COPYVIO although I don't really think you need to quote the aims of the Charity she supports - I think that goess off topic a bit too much. But it's not a big issue; others might disagree with me. When you've got a few more references in place and you're close to finishing it, just let us know and someone here can add a 'Submit' button for you and perhaps move it over into the 'Drafts' section, too. Meanwhile, you're free to work on it in your sandbox for as long as you wish. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC) 

Helping out new editors

Lately, I have been reverting vandalism thanks to my trainer Operator873 and helping other editors at the Teahouse. I would like to know other ways I can help out and welcome new editors here on Wikipedia. Mstrojny (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:Help desk or the WP:Village pump might interest you; until you feel confident enough to join WP:AFC. You can also join any WikiProject with a topic interesting you, but make sure that it's no (in essence) dead project, it could be quite overwhelming if you are alone "responsible" (NOT) for thousands of pages allegedly covered by a defunct project. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answering this question. I would like to use the thanks notification, however, there is no thank button next to your edit to this page. Why is that? Mstrojny (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mstrojny: We don't have the "thank" option available for people editing as an IP address. I've been frustrated by that several times myself. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's also frustrating for IPs, and oddly the one feature I missed most (not counting the unavailable upload feature for IPs, that happened only once in three years.) –84.46.53.245 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mstrojny: You can look at the list of edit requests at CAT:ESP, for semi-protected pages that can't be edited by new editors. RudolfRed (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Help With Declined Article Due to Multiple Entires

Hello, I am trying to get an article posted that one of your editors declined due to multiple entires when I submitted it back in December. I have added the code to have my original entry so it would be deleted and I have re-published the page and submitted it for review.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Filthy_Apes_and_Lions_(Album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly.juneredford (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Carly.juneredford: You asked this question just 15 minutes earlier at AFC Helpdesk (see here). It is wasteful of time and resources to expect two different sets of volunteers to answer your same question. Please await an answer there. And please sign all your talk page posts with four tildes in future, (like this: ~~~~). Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Previous attempt a page creation and new creations

HI. I have not been logged in since 2016. I was desperately trying to record a time in history when I created my first page, and expected to go back and edit it, but I was not in a position to and then totally forgot it was done. I would like to discuss the changes that were made and work through what was viewed or referred to as vandalism since the story was true. I also want to create a page about my parents who I've recently discovered are descendants of very significant royalty in history. How to begin this page and create a family history of my parents is my interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodiRae63 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@JodiRae63: Unless your parents are notable (See WP:NBIO), then this is not possible. RudolfRed (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have discovered my mother is a descendant of multiple kings and queens and has been recognized by citizens in her community and their acknowlegement would influence the House of Windsor. How do I proceed to document this through Wikitree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodiRae63 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JodiRae63. Wikitree is nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia. We cannot help you in any way here about doing things in Wikitree. If you are talking about using information from Wikitree in a Wikipedia article, the answer is no: all information in Wikipedia articles must come from reliably published sources, which automatically excludes almost all wikis. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I wrote that wrong, Wikitree versus Wikipedia. I am familiar with Wikipedia and the difference of it from Wikitree. I was working on a page that I was citing sources and they were Geni sources. Why did you delete my page in Sandbox and accuse me of malicious intent. Or that I was using it for business. This page had nothing to do with a licensed corporation or Limited Liability environment. What on it made you think you could make such a claim as that? I was not solicitating nor was a falsely making claims of who the person is. It is my mother. What is the problem here with me working on a simple Wikipedia page?Jodi Rae (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

What does de-redlink mean?

On Wikiproject Iowa de-redlinking is mentioned, but what does de-redlinking mean? Removing the links? Only deleting everything that doesn't have its own article? Creating the articles?Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blanked my attempt because the following answer was far better. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Helloimahumanbeing, welcome to the Teahouse. It could actually mean any of those things - it depends on the context. A quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa shows a link on their main page to three List-type pages (such as List of unincorporated communities in Iowa) in which a large number of communities are listed, but where there are, as yet, no articles about them by that name. So the links show up as REDLINKS. So, in this context de-redlinking clearly means encouraging the creation of articles about these ostensibly notable communities so that the entries turn blue and take people to the relevant new page. You wouldn't remove these red links as, being geographical features, they almost certainly would meet our Notability criteria - in this case: Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), and so they serve as a prompt for editors to get to work! However, had it been a 'list of people from Iowa', we would then probably wish to remove the actual red-linked entries themselves, as we require people named in lists to already have an article about them.

The interpretation of 'de-redlinking' might in other circumstances mean the removal of the coding (double square brackets) around the word or phrase which is creating the unnecessary redlinked hyperlink in articles where it is reasonable to assume that no page on that topic is likely to be created anytime soon, if ever, because it simply is not notable enough. In those circumstances the red links don't act as a prompt to editors to get to work to create pages - they simply interfere with the user's ability to easily read the page without distractions. We leave the content, but remove the internal hyperlink (known as a wikilink). You might like to read this short essay called: Wikipedia:Redlinks within reason, Bluelinks within context So judgement and experience is required on whether to leave it alone, remove a just the red hyperlink, or remove the complete entry. But if you can set to work to create the relevant article - brilliant. If in doubt, leave it to someone else to worry about, or raise your concerns or suggestions for editing on the relevant article's talk page. Does this make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

adding two former residents of East Harlem who are performers

How do I add tow former residents of East Harlem who are performers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.139.7.10 (talk • contribs)

Hello IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. It would have helped if you had linked to the Wikipedia pages for the people you want to add as residents to the article on East Harlem. You may only add to the section on 'Notable people' if they already have an article about them here, and supply a citation (reference) if there's nothing in their articles stating they once lived there. The names of people who don't yet have pages should not be added to the article. To learn how to edit Wikipedia pages, may I refer you to the first five, very short sections at the top of the page called Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

How do you make underlined Text on the editor?

Just how do you do that in the first place I’m not experienced with coding so yeah I’m out of luck can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frygarfan (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Frygarfan: Welcome to the Teahouse. Our Visual Editor has a tools menu where you can selected basic formatting - just like in any word procesor. But in source editor you type the letter 'u' between two chevron brackets, add the text to be underlined, then close it with '/u' between two more chevrons. like this: <u>text to be underlined</u>. It renders like this: text to be underlined. See also the page called Help:Cheatsheet for a few other useful tips, like how to sign your talk page posts, which I'd ask you to check out and remember to use in future posts. Do check our The Wikipedia Adventure for our interactive tour of how things work around here. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Frygarfan: Underlining should rarely be used in articles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#How not to apply emphasis. If you mean links which become underlined when you hover the mouse over them then it happens automatically when you make a link. See Help:Link. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I am beginning to put the information together for a page describing the Mongolian Order of the Polar Star, the main decoration Mongolia offers for foreign citizens (see an article from the Mongolian official news agency https://montsame.mn/en/read/130768 as a suggestion that the Order actually exists). However, there is a page for the Swedish Order of the Polar Star already, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Polar_Star. Once I have the information for the Mongolian order compiled, how do I create a page for the Mongolian order by (more or less) the same name?

I've read the disambiguation instructions and given the relative prominence of the Swedish order and the fact that there is also an Order of the Polar Star (Norway) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Polar_Star_(Norway)) that is noted at the topic of the page about the Swedish order, should I create Order of the Polar Star (Mongolia) and add it to the note at the top of the Sweden and Norway page?

Thank you for suggestions!

Julian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdierkes (talk • contribs) 00:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of two possible solutions, (1) a separate disambiguation page "Order of the Polar Star" with links to the Swedish order + Mongolian order + whatever exists for this topic, in that case the Swedish page would have to be renamed first, e.g., "Order of the Polar Bear (Sweden)". Discuss it on the talk page first if you like this.
(2) On the existing page add a DAB note, something in the direction of "This page is about the Swedish order, for the Mongolian order see [[Your page with a different name]]".
There are rules or guidelines how that should be done if both topics are (roughly) equally relevant, and how it should be done otherwise, but I'd try (2) first, it requires less or no discussions, and other folks can "hug it out" if they insist on "equally". –84.46.53.245 (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a missing actress to wikipedia

Can you please add Mildred Washington to Wikipedia... She was a early actress.

http://readandwriteromance.blogspot.com/2016/05/mildred-washington-life-cut-short.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:CC06:807D:8488:9F33:8A92:F09 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources on which to base an article. I'm sorry, the fan-written biography on imdb.com isn't sufficient. If you can find any good sources, let me know on my talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Schazjmd. I just did a quick search at Newspapers.com and found little about her. The original poster might want to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. That project specializes in trying to add coverage about women (assuming they meet notability standards). Eddie Blick (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hashtag #InvisibleNoMore (on LinkedIn, at least) supported by WikiMedia among others expires in less than three days, now is a brilliant time to tackle this article, if and only if you find good references, or the project linked above has subversive ideas about not so good references sufficient for a stub. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

For anyone interested, a draft for the article currently exists at Draft:Mildred Washington. MarkZusab (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You found sources, @MarkZusab:, way to go! Excellent job on the draft as well. Schazjmd (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Game reviews can make flawed cited sources

I will often times look up my favorite video games on Wikipedia and find factual errors that have been cited from video game reviews.

As an example, the article for Turok: Dinosaur Hunter states, "Enemies and boss characters have multiple death animations depending on what body region the player shot." (Citation 11 - "Setting a New Standard For First-Person Gaming". Game Informer.) In fact, enemies in Turok have simple rectangular hit boxes and the death animations are random.

How can I make an edit that contradicts a cited source when the only source I can cite is my own experience with a game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5C00:BD55:14B7:5C35:5F7A:54AB (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2601:1C0:5C00:BD55:14B7:5C35:5F7A:54AB, and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is you can't. That is what is know as original research, and isn't allowed on WP. The best thing you could do is post a question on that game's talk page, and another editor might know of a source which verifies your personal experience.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Submit a draft

What are the chances of my draft article being published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plortinum2 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are talking about Draft:Bipolar Disorder, the chances are nil. It is a copyright violation, so the draft will soon be deleted. In any case, an article already exists at Bipolar disorder, so if you can improve that (based on published reliable sources but using your own words) you can edit the existing article. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Stylized caps in titles

Hi. I've seen articles around creative subjects which have stylized ways of writing the title, Mstrkrft and Pink (singer) come to mind, where the common usage of the names are MSTRKRFT and P!NK. ABBA is in all caps, but that is an acronym, so would fall under MOS:CAPSACRS. But there are other bands in which their titles are in all caps, like MGMT, STRFKR, PWR BTTM, and probably another half dozen or so. Does anyone know the specific WP policy regarding this, if there is one? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry, but I'm aware of NIИ + twenty øne piløts. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks 84.46.53.245 Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: MOS:TITLE, WP:MOSTM, & WP:BANDNAME. -- AxG / ✉  11:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, AxG - I had looked at those, along with WP:NCCAPS and MOS:TITLECAPS. And from looking at all those, the issue is, not a single one of them deals with Bands and/or titles which are in all caps. In other words, there's not a single clear guidance which says, "If a band stylized their name in all caps, like MSTRKRFT, the article title should be in sentence case, with only the first letter capitalized, of since it's a proper noun, PWR BTTM, should be Pwr Bttm. The closest matching parameter that I can point to is under the trademark guideline, which uses the examples of TIME as Time, KISS as Kiss, etc. I guess that's the one I'll hang my hat on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Collective Causation: Entry Denied

Dear Wikimedia Community,

I am a science textbook author and educator. I've been researching linguistic anthropology as it might apply to global warming and similar issues where there is a lack of language describing "micro causations" culminating in a "collective causation". I've learned that for a society to get a handle on an issue, there first must be a language describing that issue. For example, in the 1950s, Robert Levy was able to correlate high rates of suicide in Tahiti to there being no word for "grief" in the Tahitian native language. Similarly, in modern society, we are short on language to describe the underpinnings of issues such as global warming, lung cancer, drunk driving, elections, pollution, and more. These are all examples where seemingly insignificant, but numerous "micro-causations" combine to provide a very real "collective causation".

In my teaching, I would like to be able to use these very terms to help my students understand the root of many modern problems, most notably global warming. Understanding and appreciating the root of a problem is key to 1) believing there's a problem, 2) accepting responsibility for the problem, and 3) taking personal action to relieve that problem.

I attempted to create a Wikipedia entry for the term "Collective Causation". My entry, which is my first ever, was promptly declined for being too "essay" like. I had tried the sandbox and studied various help pages, but to no avail.

Thank you for any assistance or editing suggestions you are able to provide for allowing this entry. I will paste the entry below. Thank you for this consideration.

Good chemistry,

John Suchocki, Ph.D. Conceptual Chemistry, et. al. Founder, Conceptual Academy

Display collapsed, as not the place for a draft

Collective Causation Also expressed as collective-causation, which is the sum result of numerous micro-causations. People are generally familiar with a direct causation. Tip over a glass of milk. This directly causes the milk to spill. Hit your toe against a corner, and this causes pain, depending upon how hard you hit the corner. A collective-causation is more difficult to appreciate. While one cigarette won’t cause lung cancer, smoking many cigarettes over many years most likely will. The habitual smoking of cigarettes is thus a “collective causation” of lung cancer. Each cigarette, in turn, is a “micro causation”. One might ask: Does a one beef steak cause arteriosclerosis? Does one child not getting vaccinated cause an epidemic? Does one vote impact an election? Does one water bottle thrown out the car window cause a plastic problem in the oceans? Does one drive to the grocery store increase atmospheric carbon dioxide? Does one raindrop cause a flood? These are all examples of micro-causation. For all of these, you have a little event that can add up to a large event when the numbers are also large. The answer to all of the above questions, according to the idea of collective causation, is yes. As the human population continues to soar, collective causations will become all the more notable. And because the rapid rise of the human population is ever so recent, the very idea of collective causation is not generally recognized. This is particularly problematic when it comes of the issue of global warming. When one’s actions account for only a tiny fraction of the whole, then blame for the collective causation is easily discounted and not personal. Similarly, collective causation explains, in part, why quitting the smoking of cigarettes is so difficult. The danger posed by one cigarette (one micro-causation) is truly miniscule, but not zero. Because miniscule and zero are relatively close to each other, the smoker may thus erroneously equate the two. Likewise, it is easy to discount the combustion of one tank of gasoline as a significant cause of increases in the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. Truly, it is not a significant cause. But it is, in fact, a micro-causation, which means a collective causation is inevitable when there are so many people burning through tanks of gasoline. Connecting the results of any collective causation to its micro causations is key to solving any problems that arise. As an example, drunk driving is a collective causation of thousands of highway deaths each year. The micro causation is an individual drunk driver, who still stands a chance of making it home safely without harming anyone. When cars were first introduced, the collective causation of drunk driving was not recognized. Public awareness efforts by organizations such as Mother’s Against Drunk Driving, schools, and police departments have helped to change the culture to the point where the connection between the collective causation and the micro causation has become generally recognized. Such a shift in culture takes decades of sustained public awareness efforts and is something that will need to be maintained indefinitely. In short, because micro causations are so easily dismissed, unlike direct “macro” causations (such as spilling milk), getting the public to do something about it is quite the challenge. All the more so with global warming given that the results of the collective causation are long term, unpredictable, and generally not as visible to us as a horrid car accident scene. An important first step will be bringing the terms “collective causation” and “micro causation” into our daily language. When this is the case, identifying the problem and pushing for micro causation remedies will be all the more possible. The terms collective causation and micro causation were generated by John Suchocki in the development of his Big Picture podcast series. He gives thanks and recognition to linguistic anthropologists, such as Robert Levy, and cognitive scientists, notably George Lakoff.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSuchocki (talk • contribs) 04:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:Neologism. If/when the topic has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple published independent reliable sources it would then be considered notable in Wikipedia's terms and could be the subject of an article. Your existing draft had no references at all. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• * * *

Thank you! -John — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSuchocki (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello All

This is my first time making and editing Wikipedia articles. I only joined Wikipedia so I could shed light on an underrated artist I discovered while doing a research project. Here is the link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Susan_Watkins

I have submitted it for review, but as I am able to still edit it I would appreciate suggestions. I would like to make the small biographical box at the top right of the page showing the birth date, death date, etc. but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dystopianfox (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dystopianfox! Without checking the sources, I have to say that this looks very impressive. About the infobox, what I would do in your case is look at for example Florine Stettheimer, click "edit" and copy the "infobox artist" code to your draft but of course fill in the info you want. Pinging Vexations, in case they want to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Dystopianfox, I have added the infobox, but suspect that her date of birth is incorrect. Shouldn't it be 1875 in stead of 1857 that would make her 38 at the time of her death, closer to what one of the sources says (37). Vexations (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

My Greatest Question

How did life begin? - @Bewwy3

Start with Abiogenesis, Creation myth or perhaps Sexual intercourse. Also, for questions such as these we have Wikipedia:Reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You were told (at #How many planets were discovered beyond our Milky Way? Are there any yet? above) that the Teahouse is about asking questions about editing and using Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice and welcome now given directly to user at User talk:Bewwy3. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A pair of questions from the beginner.

Hello everybody! I'm planning to improve my article draft Draft:Boris_Turzhanskiy, so I've got a couple of questions. At first, is it possible to cite archive documents as proofs and how it is done in en-wiki? At second, is it possible to use illustrations, downloaded in ru-wiki, here? And how (if the picture wasn't uploaded to Commons)? Please excuse me if I've mistaken in something. EX690662 (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, EX690662, and welcome to the Teahouse. In answer to your first question: it depends on what you mean by "archived documents". It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that all information in articles must come from reliably published sources. If the document has been published, then it can be cited: if it is a private document stored in an archive, then it probably can't be. For how to cite it, please look at REFB: the important thing is the bibliographic information that tells a reader what the document is and who published it and when: the sources does not have to be available online, and a URL is a convenience, not an essential part of the citation.

For the second question, it depends on the copyright status of the picture. If it is public domain, or has been released by the copyright owner under a licence compatible with CC-BY-SA, then it can be transferred to Commons, and used from there: see commons:First steps/File transfer and tools. If not, it is possible that it could be separately uploaded to en-wiki, but only if its use satisfies all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. (Note that different langauge Wikipedias have different rules, so the fact that it is used in ru-wiki does not automatically mean that it can be used in en-wiki). You would do this by downloading it to your device from ru-wiki and then uploading it to en-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@EX690662: But see also {{Cite archive}} for referencing publicly available documents in formally established archival repositories. This looks an interesting draft - well done. Could you give us a url to the ru-wiki page, please? I can't find him by using the English spelling of his name. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's ru:Туржанский, Борис Александрович, Nick Moyes. v--ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! Now I think I understand what and how to do to improve the draft!EX690662 (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

While sources in english are not mandatory, they don't hurt either. [1][2] at least mention him. You could try to ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Could someone clarify something for me?

Hi all, could anyone confirm (or deny) if Reddit can be used as a reliable source? I'm pretty sure its not but open to corrections. Thanks Nightfury 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that Reddit contains too much user provided content to be a reliable source, much like us (Wikipedia). Britmax (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that's my understanding as well. You can use the sources listed in Reddit wikis/posts just fine, if they are from reliable websites. But the content on Reddit itself is too user-generated. ShindoNana ^talk? 13:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

There's actually a redirect: WP:REDDIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting... Thanks all. Nightfury 15:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a reference to one's own published work

Is it permissible to add a reference to and a brief statement about one's own published work in a refereed scientific journal? This would be added as a reference to a pre-existing article and it is directly to the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4400:B301:C17E:A86E:18A9:BF37 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. With care, I think a qualified 'yes' is in order. I've done a very similar thing myself in the past, but it is essential to only add a reference that genuinely adds value to an article and is not in any way promoting oneself or one's writing, and is in a properly published book or journal of good standing. Had you linked to the article in question, or to your source, we might have been able to help you a little more. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Well put. A little more at WP:SELFCITE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Finance department life dates in titling

Hello Teahouse,

I have a question about page titling conventions.

An Australian finance department has had a few iterations, and there are varying titles as follows:

1. Department of Finance (1976–97)
2. Department of Finance and Administration
3. Department of Finance and Deregulation
4. Department of Finance (Australia)

Is there a preference for life dates in the same fashion as Department of Finance (1976–97)? I realise that the earlier listing for Department of Finance uses the dates as differentiation. But would it be appropriate to have the date listing for the other names? I’ve done examples below but is this something that would involve a page move proposal, or is it not necessary?

Department of Finance and Administration (1997–2007) Department of Finance and Deregulation (2007–2013) Department of Finance (Australia) (2013–present)

Thank you for your advice! - SunnyBoi (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• @SunnyBoi: (I made a minor reformatting to your post)

First of all, it may be appropriate not to have that many articles (though redirects from the appropriate titles might be warranted). One could probably merge all historical information into Department_of_Finance_(Australia)#History, as that article is not extremely long at the moment.

Assuming all articles are kept, I cannot find the guideline right now, but there is no need to parallelize the disambiguation pattern (for instance Mercury (planet) needs a DAB parenthetical because of the metal but Jupiter does not); the idea is in general to use the least disambiguation possible. If you do need disambiguation (for instance if the next iteration changes back to "finance and deregulation"), then there is an argument to keep the DAB consistent (hence Mercury (mythology), Saturn (mythology) etc. - "(god)" or "(Roman mythology)" would probably have been appropriate as long as it is consistent). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I change a page title?

I work for the gallery that represents the artist Glen Baxter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Baxter_(cartoonist)). Unfortunately his wikipedia page calls him a 'cartoonist' as part of the page header i.e. Glen Baxter (cartoonist). This is not correct. It should be a fairly simple change by simply clicking the move button and making the change I require. However, for some reason I do not have this option. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucykeystratton (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Convenience link Glen Baxter (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Lucykeystratton, Hi, I already answered your question at the Help Desk. However, It appears that this person is a cartoonist, and if you do work for the mentioned gallery, you would have to declare a WP:COI WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor changed title to Glen Baxter (artist). Cannot be just "Glen Baxter" because there are several Glen Baxters. Glen Baxter (cartoonist) now redirects to the (artist) article. David notMD (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

How to Request Help with an Article?

Hello, I have created a living person biography 'draft' that is pending review. I wanted to inquire if there is a process to request for someone to take a look to see if I have attributed the quotations properly and if this is an acceptable practice - some are in the body and some are indented. Also would be very helpful to have input on the content if it reads in a NPOV to determine if it still needs more work. I am new at this. Have done a lot of ready but still would appreciate the help if that is possible in this space. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: I cannot comment on the quality of the citations at this time, but just a couple minor style pointers (shouldn't affect draft acceptance, but will improve it): please don't use title case in the headers, and make sure to use quotation marks instead of double apostrophes. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The draft is at Draft:Kent Tate. Putting it to review, as you have done, is the intended process to get some feedback.

(Channel 2) I changed the title case and will correct the double apostrophes to quotation marks. I didn't realize I had done this... can you give provide me with an example so I can see where I've used the double apostrophes? Thank you very much!! LorriBrown (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: Are you sure File:Kent_Tate.jpg is eligible for CC-BY-SA licensing? The URL in the file information is a 404, but in any case the main site does not waive copyrights. Copyright violations are a big no-no on Wikipedia. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I removed the picture but can you help me understand what the problem is? Thank you!!! LorriBrown (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: OK, but I will ask for the picture to be deleted from the servers as well.

The problem is that by default, images you find on the internet are copyrighted, which means you cannot distribute (publish) them without the consent of whoever holds their rights (usually the photographer). (See our article about copyright.) Legally, we would probably be able to use such on Wikipedia under relevant exceptions (mostly "fair use" which allows reusing material for critical commentary), but on Wikipedia we are more restrictive than "fair use" (because we want articles to be easily reusable by anybody, even for purposes not covered by fair use). The list of criteria is at WP:NFCC whose #1 "...or could be created" clause means photographs of living persons cannot be used (since in theory you could go ahead and make your own photography of them).

In any case, even a legal use of copyrighted material does not allow you to unilaterally relicense the work under something different such as CC-BY-SA. So the licensing information you gave when uploading the file is incorrect, unless you took the photograph yourself or the website specifies a CC-BY-SA license (again, I cannot access the URL but I really doubt so). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: Correction: I see the image was actually uploaded by the account Cheri Brown on Commons two years ago. Is that a different person, or is it an account you created (but whose password you forgot for instance)? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown, I think you should consider the guidance at WP:QUOTEFARM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk I will take a look. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That was a very interesting version of failed ping. Skål! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a second new article?

I seem unable to find a way to offer a second article for publication. Please can you give me simple instructions to do this?

IanOverington (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating a WP-article that isn't quickly deleted is seldom simple, but have you looked at Wikipedia:Your first article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@IanOverington: A user can make any number of separate 'sandboxes' pages to work in. I didn't quite read your question correctly, so went ahead and made one for you, sorry. It's at User:IanOverington/sandbox2 and all I did was change the url by adding a number '2', pressed enter, and clicked 'create', then added a line of text for you and saved (published) the page to the internet. I think you've already had enough feedback for me not to lecture you on Conflict of interest and self-promotion, but you are free (within certain limits) to draft a new article or work on content there. But, as was said above, WP:AFC is probably the best place to do it, but you can always come back here and ask for a 'submit for review' button to be added to any page you've worked on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Editing help and publishing help PLEASE HELP

hello, recently I have created a draft for a business and submitted it for review, I knew it wouldn't be published i was just looking for feedback now i am hoping to find someone to help me edit and publish my page. is there anyone you would recommend? if there isn't anyone how can i fix my page and get it published? I also don't know how to cite my sources correctly using the wiki platform, I've read all the links and pages others have sent me but honestly i am awful at this type of work and would really prefer professional help. here is a link to my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cathead_Vodka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntermwilliamson (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Huntermwilliamson: I have very little time right now, and so cannot address all of your points, but unbolding the headers would be a start. It is written in a tone that, while ideal for a piece on the company web-site, is not suited for Wikipedia; for instance, "expanded its horizons", while sounding grandiose, is not a great phrase here. Reading an article about a different company (pick one, as long as there's no orange tags up top) should give you an idea of what it should look like. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Huntermewilliamson. Wikipedia will accept an article about your company only if the article can be almost 100% based on what people who have no connection with your company have chosen to write about it - not from your press-releases or interviews, but from their own independent research. The Wikipedia jargon for this is whether or not your company is notable: if it is not, then no amount of editing or rewriting can create an acceptable article about it. If Wikipedia ever does have an article on your company, it will not be your article, and you will have no control over the contents; and in general Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say, only in what independent people have said about them. So unless you can find at least three independent reliable sources with substantial material about the company, you should give up and waste no more time on it. (Note that the New Orleans City Business article, for instance, is based on an interview or press release, and so does not count). The reviewing editor, Barkeep49 judged that the references currently in the draft do not establish its notability.

On the subject of professionals: there are people who will take your money and promise to create a Wikipedia article for you; they are permitted to operate, under the rules for paid editing, but whatever they tell you, they cannot guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will be satisfactory for you, or that it will stay that way. My advise is to steer clear of them. Wikipedia is mostly created by volunteers, and the only effective way to get somebody to write an article for you is to engage their interest, not offer them money.

I guess that you, like many people, believe that it will be advantageous to you to have a Wikipedia article. This may or may not be the case (see PRIDE for a counter-suggestion), but Wikipedia will go along with you only as far as is consistent with Wikipedia's principles; which forbid promotion of any kind. --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Huntermwilliamson, In addition to what everyone else said I would take a look at referencing for beginners. The long list of sources at the bottom make it hard to tell where information came from. The way I recommend trying to write an article is to find good reputable sources (what we call reliable sources and summarize, neutrally, what they say about the company. These kinds of sources shouldn't be based on press releases or interviews. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Article

Can I write an article about what is the steps!

Faithfully, Abdallah Hossam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.238.52.134 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. And please sign your comments with the four tildes. ~~~~ TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

John H Reagan

Good Afternoon, I would like to know how I can find out who has edited John H Reagan's page, the date it was edited and what supporting evidence they had to add or subtract from his page. I ask this because I am a 1979 graduate of John H Reagan in Austin and they are changing the name of the school due to his alleged support of slavery and allegations of his owning slaves. Any information that you cold provide would be greatly appreciated. Respectfully Todd A. English- GM1 SEAL Team 17 (Ret) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.157.229.135 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Article in question is John H. Reagan High School (Austin, Texas). David notMD (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Todd A. English. If you go to John Henninger Reagan, and click the "View history" tab at the top of the page, you can see every edit to the article in reverse chronological order, and who made those edits. The refererences at the bottom of the article provide much more information about this person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that was better answer from Cillen328. The article John Henninger Reagan is about the person. In "View history" there are green and red numbers inside ( ). Green means content was added. Red means content was substracted. Whenever a change is made, the editor making that change is supposed to provide a brief description of what they did. The article John H. Reagan High School (Austin, Texas) is about the school. The beginning of the article about the school describes the name change and states that this will become effect for the 2019-2020 school year. Thus, rightfully the article itself still goes by the previous name. David notMD Hope this helps. (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

external links to stuff page is sort of promoting

As an example, the lede on Ted Genoways, unquestionably a notable writer, names two of his books and links the titles to google books. I've seen pages that link to Amazon. Is this kosher?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:External links, external links should be used in the body of the article in only rare cases. This is not one of them. Any links to an Amazon page, including in the external links section, are generally considered promotional as commercial links. MarkZusab (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice on template User:Daan1969/sandbox

Hi guys, I just wrote my first extended article (still a draft in my sandbox), using examples from other pages to make sure I was doing it the way it was supposed to be, but somehow it was detected as a G11 infringement. So I guess I missed something. I already did the speedy deletion contest, as I think I wrote an article from a neutral point of view, but any help - also for future articles about Dutch female leadership - is highly appreciated. Daan1969 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Daan1969

Welcome to the Teahouse, Daan1969. I removed the speedy tag and did a little cleanup. Please continue improving the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen³²⁸, will continue improving it. Daan1969 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Daan1969

Rejected draft of Robert Beckham Mugimba recently moved to Robert Mugimba page

hello teahouse my name Robert Mugimba and i would like to know why my drafts are always declined for now almost a year. i am creating a biography and i would need help because even my pictures that i upload are always turned down. i kindly need a response on how i can be helped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Beckham Mugimba (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robert Beckham Mugimba. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability. It is a poor idea to try to write an autobiography on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome Robert Beckham Mugimba! Building on such advice, I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:No original research. If you are gonna write an autobiography, I suggest you try to get other editors to pitch in so that they can put in their point of view. YouGottaChill (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sent to MfD and a block requested on the editor. He keeps removing the AfC declines and resubmitting. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard and Maurice McDonald

Hi,

I noticed someone recently changed Maurice McDonald’s name to Mauric gay McDonald. This seems to be a prank. Could someone please change it?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.174.100 (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. ubiquity (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

How would we go about editing a page so that the advertisement notification is not on top?

Hello,

How would we go about editing this page so that the advertisement notification is not on top? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CK-12_Foundation

I am new to this.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ses ck12 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ses ck12. From your username, I assume that you are probably affiliated with this foundation. If so, begin by complying with the mandatory paid editing disclosure, and familiarize yourself with our guideline on conflict of interest. You should make specific proposals for improving the article on its talk page. In my opinion, this article should primarily be about the foundation itself and has excessive detail about its products and services, such as FlexBook, which has its own article. The refererences rely too heavily on the foundation's own websites and include a press release. The article should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources which are entirely independent of the foundation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, Ses ck12 and welcome to Wikipedia's Teahouse. I presume from your username that the CK-12 Foundation has set you the task of cleaning up the page about it? If so, you would need to declare both your conflict of interest and that you are being WP:PAID to do so. (If you follow those links, you will understand the steps you are obligated to follow to take declare paid editing, or those conflicts.) Better still, leave it to others who are not connected to clean it up, or request removal of content via an {{edit request}} on the article's talk page. Oh, and we only allow one person per user account to edit here. There should be no "we" in anything you do here.

Then, to justify removal of the "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" template, an editor would need to remove all content that is written like an advertisement. Simple. There's tons of it to go at. If you cannot see what that content is, your are likely far too close to the subject, and too ingrained in the promotion of your own material.

Try for one glorious moment to think of Wikipedia as being a little bit like an encyclopaedia, in which content is neutrally presented, precise, factual, informative and not fully of promotional waffle and trivial detail, and is only based on citations written by non-involved people and organisations, nor is full of content linking back to the company's own website all the time. Then read the article right through from start to finish in one go and decide whether you or any other any reader really, genuinely would want to read a promotional brochure for the Foundation's products on Wikipedia when they could get all that stuff from the promotional content of the Foundation's own website. For example, the article needs very major pruning to remove what we call "WP:COATRACK content" about Flexbook which is simply not relevant to this article about the Foundation, especially when there's already another page about Flexbook they could go to. If you can imagine how well that shorter article would actually be, there's a chance you can then see how best to justify removal of that templated message from this encyclopaedia.

I suspect that even if you do have a WP:COI, not too many people (except maybe your bosses) would object to you judiciously deleting all that trivial content - just don't add any more back in, please. Hope this explanation addresses your question, though I suspect it was probably not what you wanted to read. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ses ck12 The CK-12 Foundation article has now been pruned of all promotional content. Albeit much shorter, I hope this is now seen as more succinct, more informative and more neutral in tone. Almost like an encyclopaedia! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Are references in Japanese acceptable on English Wikipedia.

The only information I could find in English about the subject was on their own website, twitter, e-shop or youtube etc. I was told that is not a good enough source. I contacted the subject and they said they will send me links to articles but they will be in Japanese. Can I use them for my sources / references ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumu-Metal (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is OK. English sources are preferred, but foreign language sources are allowed also. See WP:RSUE. RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that simply having sources does not mean that material will be appropriate for the article, or that your draft Draft:Keisandeath will be accepted. Also, since you contacted the subject, do you have a conflict of interest? Please see WP:COI Meters (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Akumu-Metal. As pointed out above foreign language sources can be used, but English one's are preferred. Any sources you cite for an English Wikipedia article (regardless of which language they are in) are going to need to satisfy Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and it sounds like the sources you're intending to use are either going to be primary ones or self-published ones; such sources can sometimes be used, but they need to be used carefully and they are pretty much never considered sufficient alone for establishing Wikipedia:Notability so that a stand-alone article can be written. What you should be looking for is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in which other people are discussing the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I have a conflict of interest because I only contacted them to ask permission to make the wiki and use any photos and information I could find on my own. Unfortunately what I found was not enough so I requested they send me Japanese articles for references. I have never met them and I am in North Carolina USA and they are in Tokyo Japan and I have no affiliation with the group. I do listen to the music they make but my only intention is to create a record about the group for those who seek more information about them. I am not making the page to promote the group or gain anything for myself. The articles I am trying to get are secondary sources that have reported about the album releases or activity taking place by the group such as LIVE performances. I do remember a blog interview that mentions some background information as well but I can't find it. I am waiting to see what they send me to continue making the page. Akumu-Metal (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumu-Metal (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Akumu-Metal: You might not intend to be making a page which promotes the band in some way, but the band might be seeing this as an opportunity to do just that. They may be sending you sources that pretty much only promote them and their music. I'm not sure if this is the same band, but I checked Japanese Wikipedia for an article about them and found ja:Keisandeath. That article was speedily deleted from Japanese Wikipedia last year as being too promotion for Japanese Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia project has it's own policies and guidelines. There are many similarities across the varous Wikipedias, but also many differences; in general, however, English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tend to be more restrictive compared to other Wikipedias mainly because it has the most articles and the most people editing. So, if an article about the band cannot survive deletion on Japanese Wikipedia (where the editors should have no difficultly finding, reading and assessing Japanese language sources), it seems unlikely that an article about the band could be written for English Wikipedia. Perhaps the things have changed since last year and the band is no longer WP:TOOSOON. Maybe you should try asking about this at WT:JAPAN to see if anyone there can find out more about the band for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC

There's no COI with what the user describes. It's somewhat unusual for editors to be able to directly contact article subjects, which is why I asked. Meters (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Akumu-Metal: I'd like to second what RudolfRed said above: foreign language sources are OK when there's not enough English language sources. However those sources must prove the subject's notability. Notability, in general, is a social interest being 'big enough' – when the subject is written about in newspapers or handbooks, when there are scientific articles or popular movies about it, when it wins recognized decorations or awards, then it is notable. This implies notability is language-dependent and culture-dependent: some musician, politician, book, village, art event or building may be famous in one country or nation whilst remaining unknown in other parts of the world. Hence I'd say that IMHO Japanese sources alone do not prove notability for English-language Wikipedia. If English-speaking world doesn't talk and write about X, then X is not notable for English-speaking part of mankind, hence in English-language Wikipedia. As a result, my point of view is that an article in enwiki based on Japanese sources only would be a promotion on the English-speaking market. Please wait until the subject gains some recognition in reliable, English-language secondary sources, then write about it. As for now, it's Too Soon. --CiaPan (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do/must we be paid if we are giving information and data out of the goodness of our existence(s)/existense(s)?

I am asking because nobody ever wanted to donate to the free encyclopaedia known as "wiki wikipedia" on googleDOTca . If the encyclopaedia is free, so is the information, and that and vice versa is also fair, as in, if the information is free, so is the encyclopeadia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FB52:7700:65DB:B7CC:5F0B:C540 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This question does not seem to have anything to do with editing Wikipedia, or with this Wikipedia at all, for that matter. Meters (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The user seem to be asking why Wikipedia calls for donation if it supposedly is free. The answer is that, just as NGOs feeding starving African children or whatever, it has some operational costs, even if its philosophy is not to recoup those costs by charging the final user, just as NGOs don't charge the starving African children for the food they give. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I would let this user know that if they don't want to see requests for donations, they can register an account and then shut them off. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

How to go about requesting or writing article on a notable (deceased) relative

My uncle's playground sculptures became fixtures throughout the US and beyond and he was later celebrated for his mid-century modern work. From his iconic turtle (which is in SF Golden Gate Park among many other places), his porpoise, moon house, and many others (including ones that made it into a Zippy cartoon) - his work ended up defining playgrounds when they were about a child's sense of imagination instead of about hyper-safety. I believe that he is notable such that a Wikipedia page would be warranted, but of course I am biased. His later artwork has also been shown in numerous galleries. Playground work here: http://jimartwork.com/artwork-type/playground-and-park/

Below is his bio I wrote for AskArt.com and some references that follow. I realize that this is NOT set up properly to be a Wikipedia page. I'm looking for advice/guidance on how to proceed. Thank you greatly in advance!

---

This is not the place for a draft

With his playground sculptures enjoyed by generations of children, Jim Miller was at heart an artist. He employed the traditional skills of patternmaking plus his fine art skills to create a wide variety of distinctive artwork. Jim’s father was Martin Miller, a skilled patternmaker outside of Detroit who ran his own business through the depression and from whom Jim learned the foundational skills he later brought to his work. He credits his mother, Jennie (Lindfors) Miller, with fostering his love of art. Jim studied at the University of Michigan (1947-49) and Wayne State (1949) followed by an independent study in Europe with sculptor Ossip Zadkine (1951-52) before succumbing to the draft. He joined an intelligence unit in the Korean War, where he and his fellow soldiers invented the moniker “Porkchop Hill” and where Jim earned the Bronze Star by saving another soldiers life in an incident he rarely discussed. After the war, Jim studied at Cranbrook Academy of Art (1954-55) and was then hired as an Instructor of Sculpture & Basic Design at the University of Michigan (1955-1960). He left teaching as he was self-described as ‘fiercely independent’ and he wanted to focus on his own work. In 1960 he started a company, Form, to design and build playground sculptures and equipment. Over the next 21 years, Jim created his iconic work which was celebrated in the Michigan Modern: Design that Shaped America book and gallery showing in 2016. One of his most famous pieces was the Turtle, still found worldwide, with ones on display at Cranbrook, in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park and in his home City of Birmingham Michigan’s Shain Park. Another was the Porpoise, with the first ever made now on permanent display at Cranbrook. Others included his Moon House, Camel (where many are found in the Middle East), Castle, Elephant, Playwall and Basketball Standard, which is still in use throughout the United States. In 1981, he sold Form to Wassau Tile, and focused from that point forward on his artwork using the name Jim Miller-Melberg. Melberg was his grandfather’s last name before immigrating from Sweden when he changed it to Miller. Jim chose to use it in order to stand out from the many ‘Jim Millers’ in the art world. His work can primarily be categorized into Wall Sculptures, Sculptures and Relief Paintings. His sculpture work often included complex pattern making and metal casting, with the wall sculptures using painted plaster forms for the primary structure. Later in life when he didn’t have the stamina for the metal casting, Jim returned to his original love of painting and developed his own technique of carving a relief design on his board before employing the brushes. Jim’s work has been displayed in many galleries, including Michigan Artists Show at Detroit Institute of the Arts (1956), Rackham Gallery at University of Michigan (1958), Play Sculpture Exhibitions at LA Museum of Science & Industry (1971,74), Extended Media – Fresh Visions at Detroit Institute of the Arts (1986), Krasl Art Center in St. Joseph Michigan (1991), Ford Gallery at Eastern Michigan University (1991), Michigan Outdoor Sculpture in Southfield Michigan (1993), Sculpture at the Matthaei at the University of Michigan Museum of Art (1999), Sculpture Invitational at the Crooked Tree Art Center in Petoskey Michigan (2004), the Michigan Modern: Design that Shaped America exhibit at the Grand Rapids Michigan Art Museum (2014) and The Art of Play exhibit at the Lawrence Technological University (2017). An interview with Jim was also featured in the Michigan Modern: Design the Shaped America book (released 2016). Jim has sold his work privately and through numerous galleries. His most iconic sculpture, Michigan Spring, was approved by the City of Birmingham Michigan on 12/3/18 to be placed permanently in front of the town’s public library in honor of their local artist, with installation planned for 2019. Jim died November 14, 2017, peacefully, at home, surrounded by his artwork and after a day of his close friends coming to see him one last time. A good friend and a nephew have safely stored his remaining artwork which will be made available for sale in 2019. Jim’s beloved wife Sally (Dow) Miller died in 2007; her final words were “I always loved you Jim Miller”. They went to school together as children and by random chance saw each other in Paris in 1952. It was this encounter that led Jim to return to the United States, follow the draft into war, and then to return and marry Sally. They had no children, though Sally – an accomplished concert pianist, taught children to play and Jim built playground sculptures to foster imaginative play. Jim’s artwork gallery - http://jimartwork.com/ Jim’s biography site - http://www.jimmillermelbergsculptor.com/ Additional References: Michigan Modern – Design that Shaped America - http://www.michiganmodern.org/michigan-modern-design-that-shaped-america Scott Hocking Photo Gallery - http://www.scotthocking.com/jmm.html Jim’s Obituary - https://www.lynchandsonsclawson.com/obituaries/obituary-listings?obId=2723786#/obituaryInfo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintonjoe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a band to Wiki

Hello,

I’m tryig to add a band that I work with to Wikipedia. They’ve been together over 5 years. Have produced a couple larger hits one most notably entitled “Patagonia”

I submitted a draft to get a feel for how I would need to write and edit the content. Two separate moderators responsed saying my draft is not eligible and the content is not Notable.

Can someone help me get off on the right foot and complete this Wiki article?

Kind Regards,

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancesnitch (talk • contribs) 06:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dancesnitch. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and Wikipedia:Too soon. You need to be a honest in your assessment of the band's Wikipedia notability because a lack of Wikipedia notability is one of the main reasons why an article ends up deleted. If after reading through these pages, you still feel that the band is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about them, then perhaps one can be written.

Writing a proper article can be a bit hard if you're not very familiar with Wikipedia editing, but you can find some guidance on this at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music. You might also be able to find a few editors experienced in writing articles about bands at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. For what it's worth, a poorly written article about a Wikipedia notable subject can be usually be fixed; however, excellent writing and formtting is not going to make a difference if the subject lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources typiclally required to establish Wikipedia notability. So, you're going to need find those sources, write your draft based upon what's written in them, and then add citations to those sources to the draft for verification purposes if you want Draft:Patawawa Band to eventually be accepted by a AfC reviewer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

how to publish over wikipedia

after creating a page and including all details which was available related to article, under sandbox then i published it. but its been around 1 month and my wikipedia is not appearing in google. how to get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palvindersingh10 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Palvindersingh10. As it says on your user talk page, Your draft User:Palvindersingh10/sandbox was deleted for being unambiguously promotional. —teb728 t c 08:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Palvindersingh10: and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately it looks like you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not personal profiles or a place to promote a person. Articles must be about subjects that are notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability, as documented in reliable independent sources, and they must be written in a neutral manner. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should always be written by people who have no connection to the person, and autobiographies should be avoided. This page has some suggestions of alternative outlets, websites where they accept content that is not acceptable at Wikipedia. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

what to add in content

Can you suggest me how can I place or what type of content are fair to put into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.235.80 (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That is a very broad question; is there something specific you were interested in adding? Wikipedia covers subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. There are sometimes more specific notability guidelines for some subject areas(such as organizations) The content must be supported with independent reliable sources, sources not associated with the subject in any way. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

New page for a historic Artist

Hi folks

My grandpa died in 1978. He was a noted calligrapher, and pupil of the renowned Edward Johnston (who IS on Wikipedia), and sometime collaborator with Eric Gill I'd like to create a Wiki page for him, perhaps linking to images of some of his work - though much was commercial so I may have copyright problems with that.

My question is about citation - as he died before the start of wikipedia there isn't much about him that I can reference online. Is it okay to reference books and documents owned by the family in the page text? Can we reference for example an oral history of his life which is held in a Museum?

AndyBeck (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AndyBeck: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources for any article need to be independent reliable sources and need to be verifiable. It is not required that they be online(helpful, yes, but not required) or easy to verify(i.e. paying a fee, learning a foreign language, etc are all okay). It is needed for the sources to be accessible to anyone interested; books are fine as long as it is possible for anyone to read them. If your family has the only copy of a book in existence and doesn't allow the public access to it, that would be problematic, but as long as it can be viewed by the public it is okay. An oral history held by a museum should be fine, I think. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AndyBeck: We do have a special referencing template for archives held in public institutions (see {{cite archive}} but unfortunately you may not used documents and papers that only you alone hold. These would simply not be regarded as 'publicly available' should other users wish to check the veracity of the page's contents, nor should user-edited genealogical websites be used, as these don't have any editorial oversight to them. I do understand your position - a recently deceased relative of mine was an illustrator of a number of mainstream books in the 1950s and 60s, who illustrated works for more than one big publisher, and who also worked on design drawings for the Lancaster bomber. But they won't ever meet our notability criteria although, as I am now the sole legal owner of all their artwork, I had considered putting a few of them onto Wikimedia Commons (original book jacket illustrations, nude drawings of Quentin Crisp etc) as a way of making some of their work useful to other articles here, even if there's not enough sources to demonstrate 'notability' about them as far as Wikipedia would see it. They were notable enough to me - and that's what really counts. Good luck with your own project on Albert Edward Barlow. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)    

Content deleted

I'm new to wikipedia editing and it seems like I've already broken some rules. I'm very disappointed, however, to see that the content I created was deleted due to potential conflict of interest because I am connected with the charity for which I was adding content. The existing page was considerably out of date and all the information added was taken directly from the charity website, so in my view, it was both referenced and neutral content.

As it is unlikely that anyone else will update this page, and it is now out of date again, could you advise me of how we can update it in a way that doesn't break the editing rules.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plentyoriginal990 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Plentyoriginal990, You can make a Edit Request on the talk page, and an uninvolved user will evaluate and decide whether to add it or not. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating a biography for a professor

Hello, I am interested in creating and publishing a biography for a university professor.

1. Is there a template or link to get started? 2. I see serveral services advertised to create a Wikipedia page - is this recommended or legit? 3. Is there a cost to post the biography on Wikipedia?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:8D04:4C00:B8CE:F3A2:8A17:590 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

First, you should probably get an account. It opens up a ton of tools to reduce the difficulty of writing, and is the only way to create pages. Once you create an account, familiarize yourself with some of the ways wikipedia works. WP:TWA Is a good interactive tutorial. Then you should find a page similar to the one you want to make. Open up it's source and look at how it is formatted, maybe copy some elements such as templates. Then you want to go to your personal sandbox(you can get there from the buttons on the top of every page) and start writing. for your other questions:

2. No, these are against Wikipedia's rules and in some cases, a scam.

3. No, editing everything is free.

Be sure to follow the rules outlined in WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Good Luck! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this was very helpful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:8D04:4C00:B8CE:F3A2:8A17:590 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be especially useful to read Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which sets out our criteria for accepting pages on academics (sometimes termed 'the professor test'). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree in general with what WelpThatWorked says, I would answer some of your points a bit differently.

It is true that only autoconfirmed accounts can create articles in mainspace, but I don't think this is very significant, because I would advise anybody against creating an article directly in mainspace, unless they are very sure they can get it up to scratch in one go. Instead, I would advise using the articles for creation process to create a draft, and you do not need an account to do that. Nevertheless, I would still advise you to create an account, mostly so that people can communicate with you easily.

Paid services are, unfortunately, not against Wikipedia's rules, provided they comply with the conditions on paid editing. But some of them are certainly scams, and if they represent to you that they can guarantee that a particular article will be accepted, or that it will have the content that you want, they are either ignorant or lying. My advice is not to waste your money.

As for templates: people often ask this question, and it seems to me to be based on the misunderstanding that the format of an article is the tricky bit to get right. The format is important, of course, but it is a superficial matter, easily corrected. The important bit, and the bit that makes writing a Wikipedia article much harder than most people expect, are the requirements 1) that everything in the article derive from reliable published sources, and most of it from sources unconnected with the subject, and 2) that the article be written from a neutral point of view according to how the independent sources view the subject, not according to how the subject or their associates view them. Besides your first article (which I am surprised WelpThatWorked didn't point you at) User:ian.thomson/Howto is a good potted guide. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I will add that "I am interested in creating and publishing a biography for a university professor" suggests this is a person you know personally, or perhaps are even being paid by. For first situation, see WP:COI, for second see WP:PAID. These dictate how to approach editing. And a reminder that once an article is created, any other editor can add content. I recently saw an article on a semi-famous high school football coach. The added content I doubt his friends and descendants appreciate was about an old arrest and conviction for soliciting a prostitute. David notMD (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Catapult Ventures

Hello Editors! I am hoping to get help with this Draft:Catapult Ventures. I have disclosed a COI and am looking for someone else to take the lead... Thanks! Dliccardo (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo

Hi, Dliccardo and welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. I see your first attempt at creating this article was rejected. The key think you need to do is find some really good, in-depth reliable articles that are not related to your company's promotional articles or press releases which show that the world has genuinely taken note of this company. Insider business journals are often insufficient. A NY Times article, on the other hand, might help greatly. Our guidelines are set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and by supplying those references you might get others interested in writing about it. You can request that other editors do that by creating an entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. But there is absolutely no guarantee of how quickly, if ever, an editor will think it is of interest to them. If it's not deemed 'notable' then the chances of having an article about it here is zero, I'm afraid. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes. Why do you say / assume that those articles are "related to your company's promotional articles or press releases" ? That is simply not true. The very first published information (reference 1) on the company was discovered by Ari Levy (https://www.cnbc.com/ari-levy/) a well known CNBC reporter; he notes in that article that he found an SEC Form D filing on Catapult Ventures, which alerted him to its existence. The most recent TechCrunch article (reference 5) notes this company as a significant new fund consistent with TechCrunches "theory" about VC funds in 2019. Dliccardo (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo

@Dliccardo: I say it because it is precisely what you must do, and is the best advice you can have. For "you" take it that I mean "everyone". Nick Moyes (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dliccardo. As a founder of this fund, you most definitely are a paid editor as Wikipedia defines that term, even though you deny this on your talk page. You must comply with WP:PAID. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have clearly disclosed a COI, both here, and on the talk page of the draft article. The assumption of assumed bias has been very strong as exemplified by the false statements made about the sources of information above and in the comments on the draft article. As an editing group, you should consider a different tactic. You have a subjective get-out with every proposed article, which is "notability". You should stick with that and not make specific unsubstantiated claims about the independence of articles written in generally respected industry journals (in this case: TechCrunch, CNBC, VentureBeat, BusinessWire, PE Hub, and sUAS News). Dliccardo (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo

User:Dliccardo - I tried to explain to you on my talk page that, as a partner in the company, you are paid if you receive a salary or dividends or share of the profits. Being hostile to neutral advice does not help. When User:Nick Moyes said to find some in-depth reliable articles that are not related to your company's promotional articles or press releases, he did not necessarily mean that your sources were promotional. But that sort of defensive attitude is another reason why Wikipedia requires that you make the paid editing declaration and one more way in which editors in the course of their employment are not neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Dliccardo - No one has made "false statements" about your sources of information. Nick Moyes did not say whether your sources were or were not neutral. Pause and reconsider whether you are coming across as having a defensive attitude. If someone were reading the Teahouse looking to help a COI editor, your attitude would be likely to make them to decide to help a different COI editor than you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"The references are not independent." was your original comment Robert McClenon at Draft:Catapult Ventures. That was a bold assumption. I am sure you are right that the end result is that I am unlikely to get further help. Dliccardo (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo

User:Dliccardo - On the one hand, it is possible that I may have made a mistake in saying that the sources are not independent. However, our concept of independent sources is stricter than you might think. On the other hand, there is a difference between a reviewer making a mistake and a false statement. I know that you don't believe that you make mistakes, but it is a mistake to try to read the minds of reviewers and to assert straightforwardly that they have made false statements. I also know that life is surprisingly difficult for people who don't ever make mistakes. I will restate my reminder that your attitude is likely to work against you in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"I know that you don't believe that you make mistakes" - Robert McClenon Wow. Another bold assumption and perhaps fair to classify as a Ad hominem personal attack? Robert, reading your response above, perhaps you are confusing intent with fact? A claim that a statement is false False statement has nothing to do with making a mistake. It's possible that you have made a mistake or it's possible that something else is going on or it's even possible that your independence claim is somehow true under a very different interpretation of independence. I am simply claiming that the statement that "The references are not independent." is untrue and is thus a False statement. I have tried to provide an argument above regarding the independence of those references to prove my assertion. Determining Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources is indeed tricky and I was hoping to get some engagement on those specifics in this case. It seems I have failed to achieve engagement in this forum at a useful level of detail. Thank you for a reminder that attitude is an important part of any request of a volunteer. I would simply ask you to self-reflect on your own attitude and comments. As an editor/admin, I think you should be particularly careful in setting an example of how all users should behave on such a platform. Dliccardo (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo

Sockpuppet question

There is nothing happining right now, but:

Can you respond to a sockpuppet investigation when you are not a checkuser? --TheWinRatHere! 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is a "Comments by other users" section. It should be used to provide behavioural evidence about whether the checkuser is warranted. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

COI Suggestions on Talk page

Hello,

I hope my question is general, but concerns the page: Samaritan Health Services

I am an employee of a company, and thus have a Conflict of Interest. Any guidance/examples on how is best to suggest edits to the company's page via the Talk page?

An editor had some good recommendations about my first suggestion via Talk. Should I start a new topic with my re-write with a request template? Simply add to the bottom of their reply? Rewrite the original request and depend on the Talk page's history to make the historical context clearer?

If the page needs some significant work (in my case, several pages are flagged be editors that they should be merged with the SHS page) how might I go about helping with that? Should I put in a request on Talk with all the content? Put up something on my User area and point to that on the SHS Talk page?

I think I will be skipping the decaf today.

Thank you all for your efforts,

John At SHS (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, John At SHS. Thanks for coming here and asking. You are in an awkward position, especially if you feel that a major rewrite is required. I think the principle to bear in mind is that you are asking people to do something which you are not allowed to do yourself; but everybody here is a volunteer, so you are more likely to get results if you make the task as attractive and easy as you can. So I would suggest

• break the changes up into reasonable size chunks if possible, rather than one huge rewrite;
• specify as precisely as you can what change you think should be made (eg "Replace text XXX by YYY"). The editor who carries out the request may decide that what you have requested is not precisely appropriate, but it is usually easier to respond to a specific request than a general one;
• give reliable published sources for any information you wish to introduce. Unless the information is uncontroversial factual data like places and dates, give sources independent of the company. (Even things like turnover and numbers of employees are not always uncontroversial).

I suggest it is best to put each request in a separate section on the talk page, with its own {{edit request}}: that way, editors can pick them off one at a time. You should almost never remove or change something that is already on a Talk page.

If you are proposing significant amounts of text, it is perfectly acceptable to put it in a user subpage and link to it: see the request I made at Talk:Bradford Playhouse#Recent events in the Playhouse's history. for an example. --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, That's just the advice & example I am looking for. Since this is a merge of existing content, I'm assuming the content is not so much of a rewrite, but just a consolidation. I totally want to make this as easy as possible for the volunteers. John At SHS (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced section allowed?

Hello Teahouse hosts, this will be my third question on here now! I am very confused about how this section (Kravis Center for the Performing Arts#Venues) cites no sources yet nobody has put a {{Unreferenced}} template message there. Is it entirely possible that the editors of that page have not noticed this, or is there some Wikipedia policy that allows this to occur? None of the references/sources at the bottom of the page support the information in that section. — BladeRikWr 20:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The template for you to apply is {{Unreferenced section}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thanks for that, but are you are telling me that the section is in violation of the Verifiability policy? — BladeRikWr 20:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Informally 'YFI-YFI' applies, meaning "You found it, you fix it." Either tag it as an unreferenced section (or if something smaller, {{cn}} for citation needed, or else find and add reference(s). David notMD (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly the answer I was looking for. Thanks friend. — BladeRikWr 21:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There is also {{More citations needed}} for tagging tops of articles with more than one section lacking. David notMD (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Astralwerks New Logo - Edit 3/6

Hi there -

I work at Astralwerks Records and so I cannot edit our label page as my edits keep getting removed. We have a new logo and updated website and I just want the new logo on our page. This is becoming quite the issue for me at work as I was asked to do it a month ago and I can't seem to get it to stick. Can someone please help to update this for me?? astralwerks.com has all the proof and new logos etc.

THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.90.65 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello there. If you are talking about this page (Astralwerks), I do not see any edits to it that occurred today. To update the image, navigate to File:Astralwerks New.jpg and scroll down to where it says "Upload a new version of this file", and do so. Also, in the future please sign your post by using "~~~~" without the quotes, at the end of your message. — BladeRikWr 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It says I cannot overwrite the file, and there is nothing that says "upload a new version of this file". I didn't try the update today but I did a few days ago and am just following up. can you please update? 209.249.90.65 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized you need a Wikipedia account to upload images, to prevent image spam from random IP addresses. Please create an account; it's free and only takes a minute. — BladeRikWr 21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I logged in and am still seeing the same thing. I've also in the past suggested the edit and no one helped me. Is it possible for you to just upload a new image? It's right on the website... Nicolee2492 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard! Just upload it there, put some information and then it should be available on Wikipedia. YouGottaChill (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It won't let me use the uploader as my account is not confirmed because I have not made 10 edits. Can someone please just upload it for me? Nicolee2492 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to delete an history page of a page?

Hi there, I wonder if there's a way to delete a history page of a page, for e.g., I edited a page, ok, then several people edited it too afterward. But people can always see my edited page version at the history, is there a way to delete such page version I edited so people don't see my version?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a way to do it, Wikipedia:Revision deletion. There are only limited reasons it can be done, just because you don;t want people to see what you have done is not one of the reasons. ~ GB fan 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! I reviewed why you would might wanna delete someone else's revision (cause I snoop around contributions) but a rumor or controversy does not fall under the Wikipedia:Criteria for redaction. Deleting your own history of an "edit war" does not follow under it either. One last thing! Sign all of your posts with "~~~~" (with no quotes) at the end to show your name! YouGottaChill (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted Content

Hello, if my article was not accepted because of copyrighted content, how do I know what content needs to change?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanQuartucci (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi AllanQuartucci. From looking at Draft:EnGenius Technologies, Inc., it appears that some of the content you added was directly copied-and-pasted from an external website. Please look at Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more details, but basically copying-and-pasting large blocks of content verbatim from an external website, or even closely paraphrasing such content is not allowed per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The AfC reviewer who flagged the draft for being a copyright violation is StraussInTheHouse. If you'd like to know the specifics of why some content was removed and deemed inappropriate, you can ask for details at User talk:StraussInTheHouse. You can also still see some older versions of the article (including ones with the content which was removed) in the page's history. Those versions, however, are likely going to be hidden from public view by the administrator cleaning up the draft; so, they may not be there for much longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, AllanQuartucci. Welcome to the Teahouse. Put simply, all the content that was deleted (redacted) because of copyright concerns probably needs to be rewritten in your own words and put back in, providing it's neutral in tone and supported by citations to good sources. Whilst you may have written what was on the company's website, it's their copyright, not yours. You must use your own words and in pressing 'publish' you are then freely licencing that new content you wrote to be reused by others. So, take a look at Draft:EnGenius Technologies, Inc. to see what was deleted. Then read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to see what sorts of sources you'll need to find to support the claim of 'notability'. I think you should focus on the notability of your company itself rather than its products, though it's OK to list a few of the most noteworthy product ranges. Base these references on independent sources that have written about your company, not press releases and the company's own website. But I do have a question: Aren't or weren't EnGenius products once produced either by Senao Networks or Senao International, or is it coincidence they use the same name and logos on their products? The Wikipedia page for Engenius now links to Senao Networks. I'm rather confused over this, and by this Engenius page which indicates Engenius is Taiwanese, and that that EnGenius Technologies, Inc. is just the North American arm of a major Taiwan-based worldwide corporation. Looks a bit of a muddle to me in terms of what's notable enough to be written about here, but as you've declared your inside connections with the company, you're obviously in a good and senior position to understand it more than me. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand all of the copyright changes that are needed now. As far as Senao, they are the parent company, but do not have any presence in the Americas. EnGenius Technologies is all of North and South America, so we'll plan to remove "EnGenius" references from the Senao page as well. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanQuartucci (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AllanQuartucci: You're welcome. It's a great shame you haven't got an office here in England - I could have nipped round and tried to scrounge some wireless bridge equipment off you in return! (Only kidding - but I do need to get my peregrine falcon webcameras back on the internet again before they lay eggs!) Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I should add that I hope you were using a "Royal we", because here on Wikipedia there is a 'one person per user account policy' - multiple users editing from one single account is not permitted. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "royal" we, just me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanQuartucci (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do I view my copyright strikes? :)

Where do I view my copyright strikes? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgbatty (talk • contribs) 22:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tgbatty: What are you asking about? Please clarify your question. RudolfRed (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Somebody Copyright striked one of my pictures, which I agree wasn't fair use, it was from the internet. I'm just wondering the username of the person who filed the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgbatty (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tgbatty. It looks like you uploaded a file to Wikimedia Commons which was subsequently deleted. A notification about the reason why the file was nominated for deletion was added to your Commons user talk page at c:User talk:Tgbatty. You find the name of the editor who nominated the file for deletion listed there. If you want to know the name of the Commons administrator who actually deleted the file, click on the file's name (it should now be a red link) and you should find the name of the deleting administrator as well as the reason for the file's deletion on the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgbatty (talk • contribs) 00:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello I'm new

Hi I just made an account after using wikipedia for 15 years. I'd love to be an editing contributor for "Weird Al" Yankovic, as I'm a huge fan, and follow him on social media. I know the page is protected against vandalism. So how can I be an editor for his page? Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittiness88 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kittiness 88 and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad you've decided to register an account and that you want to contribute. If you think an edit needs to be made to a page but you can't edit it because it is protected, go through the following steps:

1. Click the "view source" option which should appear at the toolbar near the top of the page.
2. Click the big blue button "Submit an edit request"
3. Type out the edit(s) you are requesting to be made to the page, following the instructions that appear above and inside the editing box.
4. Click "Show preview" to make sure your edit request looks formatted correctly and then click "Save changes".

However, it's not quite as simple as that. There are several things you need to remember when making edit requests. First of all, you must state what you want changed clearly and in an X to Y format. Also, for substantial changes that may be controversial, you should not make an edit request this way but rather post on the talk page following the instructions here and reach consensus for the suggested change to be made. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all edits must be supported by a reliable source. Knowing a fact from personal experience or from an unreliable source, such as YouTube, is generally not a good enough method of verifiability to include the information in an article. Therefore, in any edit requests you make, you should provide a link to a reliable source supporting the material you are requesting to add or change.

I know I'm throwing a bunch of information out there, but that's really all you need to know for making edit requests. I hope this helps you out a bit and let me know if you have any questions!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I messed up my mention of you! Repinging Kittiness88.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If you make 9 more edits to other unprotected pages, you will be able to edit the article yourself. Ruslik_Zero 05:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"Auto-confirmed" (10+ edits, 4+ days) allows editing. David notMD (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

uploading a profile on wikipedia

Hey hello, I hope all is well at your end. My name is Zafar, i want to know that how can i upload someones profile on wikipedia. what is the procedure.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahmanzafar (talk • contribs) 05:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rahmanzafar. I am sorry, but Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" like you can find on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of neutrally written articles about notable topics, not a social media site. Please read Your first article. We take those standards very seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Problematic editor?

I'm a bit confused here because I want to see some action taken against an editor, but he is very good at hiding his intent and gaming the system rather well. Providing diffs to prove my case is hard to do for this reason and I would like someone with more time than I have to have a good look at the situation as a whole. It concerns the user Ylevental. Since his arrival on Wikipedia his editing has been highly questionable from the point of view of neutral editing, especially early on prior to learning how to game the system. His bias is towards promoting negative attitudes towards the autistic community, and removing any positivity. Early on he tried to delete articles about those promoting this positivity (eg Amy Sequenzia, Jim Sinclair, John Elder Robison and most recently Julia Bascom) as well as creating articles for those who take a negative view (eg Jonathan Mitchell, David Miedzianik, Benjamin Alexander (which has been prodded for deletion as I type this), Thomas A. McKean and the National Council on Severe Autism and he also has a draft for Thomas Clements). He has been editing current articles on Neurodiversity trying to promote the bad things and temper the good things and he has tried the same with Steve Silberman as well as trying to hide his own conduct by archiving the talk pages of both Neurodiversity and Jonathan Mitchell. There is a lot to go through but if someone could take the time to go through it I feel sure an agenda will become clear. If enough evidence can be found for action I think a topic ban would be ideal. He has a self confessed conflict of interest with Jonathan Mitchell, and at the very least he should be banned from editing that article. This user is adding bias and should be stopped. But it won't be easy and I hate passing the buck, but as I have said this needs someone with the time to look through it all in detail. Thanks for your attention. 2001:8003:5901:B400:71FC:9523:9E60:1970 (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ylevental had been a Wikipedia editor since 2015 and has contributed close to 2,000 edits. Any eval for non-NPOV will not be simple, and likely beyond the scope of Teahouse editors. Is there another place this concern should be directed to? David notMD (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just spent a few minutes looking into these allegations. I think the IP editor has failed to interpret edit histories correctly. From the articles listed that I've looked at so far, the editor in question does not seem to have done the things alleged. I've remove the PROD which was incompetently place, but by an IP editor not a registered user. I see there has been discussion at the talk page of Neurodiversity and consensus reached. David is right to point out that this is not the forum to investigate other editor's motives. But my initial assessment is that they have endeavoured to add balance and weight to the articles they've edited (some they haven't edited for 3 years), and that your accusations are unfounded. And early on in our editing careers we all did things differently than we do today. There is absolutely nothing wrong in creating pages about notable people who take different views of the world than you do. You can't accuse an editor of bias on the grounds of page creation! You would definitely need to collate 'diffs' and present them as evidence at WP:ANI if your attempt to engage with the editor directly and to express your concerns to them was not deemed by you to be satisfactory. You've only ever made three edits here under this IP address, so I cannot see any evidence of that prior engagement, nor on their talk page. I do see discussion of disruption by IPs as part of a concerted campaign to modify the Neurodiversity article. Best wishes. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Help on Correct Language and providing too much research

Dear experienced editors,

I recently decided to improve the the amount and accuracy of information about a certain collective and it's founder. I have come under scrutiny from editors with accusations of being financially involved. In hindsight, my edits could have been more neutral, I now feel like my username is in a way 'black-listed' from editing anything on the subject. This is the draft I created for the founder of Soundwalk Collective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stephan_Crasneanscki . All I want to do is share my research on a fascinating artist. I am also under fire about my improvements to the Soundwalk Collective page. Any help, really appreciated. Sonnenalle44 (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Sonnenalle44: You are not "blacklisted" or anything; as long as you are willing and able to make useful contributions to Wikipedia that follow the guidelines, making mistakes will not held against you.

Draft:Stephan_Crasneanscki looks like a resume, which is not the aim of a Wikipedia entry. That is probably why Robert McClenon asked whether you were paid to create this page (in particular, or in more general social media management things including Wikipedia), because if you are, you need to disclose it. To be honest, what you produced is exactly what a paid-for PR person would produce, and if you do not have a convincing answer to the question asked here about how you took a professional-looking picture of SC without knowing them, you would be much wiser to disclose the relationship.

How the page looks at present is a fixable problem, but it may be indicative of a deeper problem: all subjects of Wikipedia pages must be "notable", which means roughly "has been talked/written about by multiple independent reliable sources". There is no point in fixing the presentation of the page is the subject is not notable. You need to demonstrate that.

On a side note, [I want to] share my research on [topic X] is contrary to Wikipedia's goal. We do not publish original research, we summarize the pre-existing knowledge. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Bholekar Srihari

The person Bholekar Srihari expired in 2018. Please modify/remove sources template as deemed fit. Thanks - Jazze7 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Jazze7: thanks for pointing this out. I've edited the body of the article to reflect that he's deceased, removed the 'living person' sources template and done some copy-editing to make the article have a more-encyclopaedic tone. You could have done all this yourself, of course. Don't be afraid to make WP:BOLD changes to articles - if you make mistakes, others can always put things right. Neiltonks (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How to flag a something suspicious

Hya:

Sorry for what is probably a profoundly easy question to answer. I was just on a we page for the Palau International Airport. The airport's web address is listed as: romantmetuchlinternational.com, but it defaults to a private sector site https://lowcost.club/airports/ror/ .

The site actually has some good information on it, but it's obviously kind of scammy. There does not appear to actually be a website for the airport itself.

What is the appropriate way for me to address this? (I've made changes in the past and sort of broke protocol - trying not to screw up again)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beldings (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Beldings, welcome back to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse. The weblink you gave is in the Infobox, and was added in July 2017 by an editor adding what look like legitimate weblinks to a whole raft of airports. I suspect, as this is now a external redirect from one website to another, that the domain name has been purchased by a third party. Many of their other links are dead too, so someone could go through the lot and check them all if they wished to. Whether to leave it in or remove it is open to debate. On balance, as there clearly is no longer any dedicated website for this airport, I'd remove it and let users find ways to get there via their own online searches. I understand your reticence to make that change (though you needn't worry), I could do it for you, though why not remove it yourself with an edit summary akin to "removing website, per Teahouse discussion, which now only redirects to a holiday company." I'd wait a while a before doing that, lest others here would wish to offer a different opinion to mine. (BTW: You're free to remove the three year old block notices from your talk page now. You've clearly read them, so I don't think they need to stay up there forever, though they'll always be visible in your talk page history. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing

I am new to this. Can someone advise me on how to fix the info I tried to add on Janyse Jaud? I would appreciate that so much! I don't have the experience on how to do this properly. Thank you. Magic of Think (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Magic of ThinkMagic of Think (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

IMBd and Janyse Jaud's own website are not acceptable references, although a personal website can be used as a reference for basic biographical information such as age or marital status. Otherwise, either delete the content or find better references. Also, your User name appears to be same as a website/blog created by Janyse, and your 2016 post suggests you are her. WP:Autobiography is not recommended at Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles -

Which kind of topics are considered suitable? I am interested in presenting a current, alternate model of carcinogenesis for general public consumption and am not sure if it's best presented as a singular scientific topic, an article about a proponent of the model, or an article about a company that embraces this model in the manufacture of its products. This alternate carcinogenesis model has been documented in scientific circles, but I have also helped to develop it in my own research. Sources include scientific journals and magazine articles. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Moondust (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks for asking this question @Dr. Moondust:. The best summary is Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. That is, a topic is considered suitable for an article if people who don't have any vested interest in that topic have written extensively about that topic outside of Wikipedia in reliable sources. I hope this helps. If you click the link, you can get more details. Good day! --Jayron32 16:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit of a contradiction, though, if you are not allowed to write on scientific topics in your own area of research specialization? This means that you may get writers less familiar with those particular topics writing about them. At least in science, this is not a desirable thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Moondust (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, Dr. Moondust. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Wikipedia does not publish original research of any kind, but instead summarizes and cites what has already been published in reliable sources. Subject matter experts are welcome to contribute, as long as they follow our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that is somewhat reassuring because I have already come across some inaccuracies in your scientific articles before like the one about Melanin. I believe it stated that melanin distribution in human populations occurs according to geographical location, and, although there may be a degree of truth in this, it is certainly not a hard and fast rule and it is incorrect to state so. People with low melanin levels who are susceptible to sunburn can be found in all parts of Asia. I'm sure you can understand how detrimental this misinformation could be for somebody studying cancer biology and formulating sunscreens. My personal interest was to contribute an article in a field of cancer biology that already exists, but to which I have added some original research so that such dangerous mistakes do not occur in the sunscreen industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Moondust (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. Moondust: No, we'd like you to write in your area of expertise and training; being trained in a specific area of study means you know where to find the best source material to do your research, and thus write good encyclopedia articles. That's a Good Thing! What Cullen and I are talking about is:

1. Wikipedia should never be the source-of-first-record for any bit of information on anything. That's what is meant by "no original research". We, of course, want you to find good reliable sources of information, like peer-reviewed science journals, well-respected mainstream sources, and the like, and to use the existing, published writing in those sources as the basis for your additions to Wikipedia. That's how it is supposed to work. What you shouldn't do is write about things at Wikipedia which have never been published elsewhere first.
2. By "vested interest", what I mean above is that you would have something to gain by promoting something. This means you would have a conflict of interest that would hinder you writing text that is compliant with Wikipedia policies. Being knowledgeable in something doesn't generate a conflict of interest. However, what does generate a conflict of interest in when you write about yourself, your own direct work (i.e. your employer or the specific work you have done for your employer), organizations you belong to, family members, close associates, etc. It's best not to write about those things, because your close connections to them can interfere with your ability to write quality text at Wikipedia which is compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, among others.

I wanted to make all of that clear. I hope that makes sense. --Jayron32 17:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think reading over WP:MEDRS would be most relevant for you here. There's also sections on conflicts of interest in relation to medicine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

For interest, I have just read our article Melanin, and cannot see anywhere that it states (or has recently stated) that "melanin distribution in human populations occurs according to geographical location" as @Dr. Moondust: asserts. The nearest it comes, in the context of human adaptations and evolutionary origins (of melanin levels) is, "the selective pressure for eumelanin production decreased in climates where radiation from the sun was less intense. This eventually produced the current range of human skin color."

I wonder if Dr. Moondust was actually thinking of one of our several other articles with 'melanin' in their titles? We will happily re-check cited sources and clarify misleading text if we know where it is. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you may be quite right - I believe there are a few articles on the subject of Melanin and it could well have been one of the others. Unfortunately, it was some time ago that I came across this article and I do not recall. It is also possible that it has been updated. Thanks for checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Moondust (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Many of us are experts in areas of science, but we try hard not to cite our own work, nor create articles about ourselves, nor about companies we started. David notMD (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How to contact an administrator?

This is regarding an issue on a BLP in a which a user wants to change the variety of English used. There's an editnotice in place that has been on the article for 4 years, but the user has chosen to disregard it, even going as far as to change the editnotice itself. Who can be contacted about this so that they can get involved? Lupine453 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lupine453: Have you approached the user and asked them about it first? Before involving admins, that should be your first approach. Leave a question on their talk page, see if you can work out your differences with them first. --Jayron32 19:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lupine453: Follow the guidance at WP:DR. RudolfRed (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see the comments made at Talk:Linda Evangelista#Editnotice. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lupine453. I am an administrator but I see no need for use of adminstrator's tools at this point. Linda Evangelista is a lifelong Canadian and therefore Canadian English should be used in the article, according to the section of the Manual of Style called Strong national ties to a topic. The Daily Mail should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, per WP:DAILYMAIL. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Slender man movie questions

The movie Slender man is a movie that leave people with many questions.One question that i have is that in the movie when Hallie was in the bathroom it showed her pregnant.My question is that why and how was Hallie pregnant.Another question is what happened when Katie is looking into the forest?How can slender man capture Katie in daylight?My last question is what happens to their families and parents?What happened to Chloe?What happens Hallie`s sister?Can someone answer my questions?Answer them in the chat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowwolf1100 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shadowwolf1100: Welcome to Wikipedia. The Teahouse is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia. You can ask your movie question at the Reference Desk, WP:RDE. RudolfRed (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

pictures

how would i add a personal picture and data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adecl8 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a picture to an article

How do you add a picture to a article that I'm drafting?

@Adecl8: See Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Also, please do not put two headings asking the same question. Mstrojny (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Where can I see the older version of the page?

Hi there, I see on a page, history shows as many as 500 versions, how about if I want to see even older version?

Thanks Wraper11 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wraper11: Welcome to Wikipedia. Click the "Older 500" link and it will show you the next 500. RudolfRed (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

[Tweaked your formatting – please use one or more colons to indent one or more spaces as I have done here (so a reply to this comment should start with two colons, for example); leaving blank spaces results in an odd-looking text box.]

To address your query, at the bottom of each history page there are a number of options to change its display, including the number of edits shown on the page and whether they are the most recent or the next oldest edits. Five minutes playing with them should show you how they work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

To better address your query, clicking on "prev" for an entry in the View history list shows the changes that editor made. Clicking on the date for that entry shows the old version of the article. Old versions can be seen but not edited. David notMD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How to remove pages from categories?

I edited a couple of articles that were in inaccurate categories, and at the bottom of the pages the categories no longer appear. When I go to the category pages themselves, the pages also seem to have been removed until I log out of my account..and they become visible again. Is this common? What's going on? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudzuman84 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kudzuman84: Can you give us an example of an article and the category you tried to remove? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What does it means when I see "The page ‪User:Wraper11‬ has been reviewed."

What does it means when I see "The page ‪User: Wraper11‬ has been reviewed." from email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

best cheetah picture ever

Hi ,

I have a picture of a cheetah wich is old(30 years) , but soooo full of expression . How can i send it ? Greetings M.J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2A80:2B80:F1FB:6930:572B:77D7 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

request for external editor

i kindly request for assistance of where i can find external editors who can help out in editing my biography so that it suits all the terms and conditions of wikipedia.