Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iantresman (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 28 March 2018 (→‎Help with constructive editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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


Question about editing a page (or creating a new page) for a U.S. government program that has been renamed/rebranded

I'm the Executive Editor of HIV.gov--which was previously known as AIDS.gov. We would like to know the proper procedure(s) for either editing the existing AIDS.gov page or starting a new page for HIV.gov and pointing readers of the old page to it.

We have thoroughly reviewed the rules for editors with close associations, and we find ourselves in a quandary about how to ensure that information about the original program remains available, while also providing information about our current incarnation.

Although HIV and AIDS are no longer on the health “radar” for many Americans, the current state of the domestic HIV epidemic (particularly in communities of color), the threat of a rising tide of new infections associated with opioid-related injection drug use, and the availability of groundbreaking new methods for both HIV treatment and prevention make it imperative that people who are living with, or at risk for, HIV and AIDS can find accurate and consistent information across all reliable platforms and sources.

Since Wikipedia is the "go-to" source for information on everything under the sun, we want to be sure that people who come to you before they come to us get that accurate information and know how to find us if they want to know more. Thank you in advance for any advice/suggestions you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigeb11 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Paigeb11: - thanks for taking this through the correct channels. You have accurately identified the conflict of interest that you suffer from. Any edits to the article would require supporting citations from reliable sources to remain, so any edits which you would like to make should include such references. You should also contact the relevant WikiProject, to double-check any edits you would like to make, and use the talk page, rather than editing directly, to suggest changes. The edits which you have suggested above, provided that you can source reliable references, would be relatively easy to make - I would suggest looking at medical journals, published research, books on the topic or media coverage. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paigeb11, I have moved the article to HIV.gov as the site itself is a good source for its own name. But Stormy clouds is correct that you need to edit carefully because you do have a conflict of interest. Supplying additional independent published reliable sources would help the existing article, and sources are vital for any suggested addition to its content. Please post any suggested changes to Talk:HIV.gov. Please inclkude source information with such suggestions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paigeb11, a common pitfall of major updates such as this is the loss of historical information. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles about organizations should primarily be about the history of the organization. The latest news/campaign/product lauch/etc is of relatively little interest here. So please do not for example remove previous brands/logos, rather place them in historical context. Aim at expanding the article rather than "replacing" it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been moved to the new name - the old name will still "redirect" to there, which solves your initial problem. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Uploading UK and US patent diagrams; copyright implications

Hi there,

First time in the Teahouse. Hope you can help.

I'd like to upload some diagrams in US and/or UK Patents, in order to illustrate inventions. The patents are all over 100 years old.

While I have read what I can in Wikipedia help pages, I am still confused about several aspects of the process.

Specific questions:

1. In order to upload an image in a Wikipedia article, do I upload it to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia commons?

2. If I upload an image from a US patent, I seem to be OK on the copyright front. Correct?

3. It seems I should tag the US patent image with "PD-US-patent". Where do I put this tag?

4. On the UK front, I see from The UK National Archives that Crown Copyright seems to apply to patent content, no matter how old, if earlier than 1 August 1989. However, the official UK position is that "no steps would be taken to enforce that copyright (notice of this was given in our Official Journal (Patents) on 25 June 1969)" for non-commercial use. How does Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons deal with this?

5. Is there a different place I should be asking these questions on Wikimedia Commons instead?

Thanks for any help you can give!

ElectricFeet (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElectricFeet: I suggest asking at WP:MCQ, which is where the folks knowledgable in copyright answer questions. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Thanks RudolfRed. Do you (or anyone) have advice on question 1? ElectricFeet (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ElectricFeet: That will depend on the licencing/copyright of the image. If it is out of copyright or freely licenced, then upload it to commons. Otherwise it will need to pass the criteria at WP:NFCC and then you upload it to this Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Great. That makes sense. Thanks RudolfRed! ElectricFeet (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey ElectricFeet. Works first published in the US before 1923 are fair game, otherwise it's usually 70 years after the death of the author. If it pre-1923 or post-death-plus-70-years, you can take it with Template:PD-1923 or with Template:PD-old-70 in the "Licensing" section of the file. In the US specifically, as Template:PD-US-patent indicates, patents themselves may be public domain if prior to 1989, but content of the patent (such as an illustration) as far as I know would not be covered under this and would need to go via 1923 or 70 years after death. For the UK (since you know the author and publication date of the patent) it would pretty much be 70 years after the death of the author across the board.
To upload to Commons the file needs to be public domain in both the US and the source country. If this is true, it's better to upload to Commons, and not the English Wikipedia. If it's only public domain in the US, and not in the source country (the US is generally less strict than the UK) then you can upload it to Wikipedia with Template:Do not move to Commons, and it can be later transferred to Commons when it falls totally out of copyright.
For the purposes of Commons, the content has to be public domain or licensed in a way that is compatible like CC BY SA. Being copyrighted, but not enforced is probably not going to cut it if it gets nominated for deletion. For the purpose of Wikipedia, it's probably similar, since I doubt it would be usable under our fair use policy, which is stricter than fair use laws. GMGtalk 17:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added citations to article. Enough to remove Maintenance Templates? Seeking help to add Infobox.

Subject article:

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

Seeing the Maintenance Templates, I added citations (6).

Checking to see if the added citations work, and, if so, if they're enough to remove the Maintenance Template, or, otherwise, what's in store for working to get it good to go.

I'd also like to add a starter Infobox. I researched around, but I'm still striking out.

Please excuse me being relatively new and my limitations in getting articles going and keeping them good to go on my own.

Really appreciate all the help throughout the Wikipedia Community.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Tqiwiki (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tqiwiki:
  • You can remove the citations templates when the issue is solved, but I note that you have several "citation needed" tags on individual sentences in "Early life" and "Education". Since the subject is still living it is absolutely required that facts about them be explicitly cited, for the protection of their reputation. You need to either cite those facts about them, or remove those facts if you cannot prove them.
  • If you can't find an infobox that you feel explicitly matches the subject's career, there's always the defalt option of using the code shown at Template:Infobox person.
Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tqiwiki: I disagree with some of the above advice. Per WP:BLPSOURCES, you must remove unsourced material if it has been "challenged or is likely to be challenged" or if it is contentious. The "Life" and "Education" sections are pretty mundane and unexceptional. Certainly not contentious or defamatory. If you could find a self-published CV type source, you could use it to support these sections. (We cannot use a self-published source to establish notability, but that's not an issue here.) I would focus on sourcing more of the " awards and recognition" section. Cite a few more of those and you should be good to go. Regards,Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing - identifying unreliable sources

Hi. I'm just wondering if anyone can give me advice about an article. The article is "Jehovah's Witnesses Handling of Child Sex Abuse" The first paragraph makes the claim that an independent study found the rate of child abuse among JWs is similar to the general population. This is footnoted with the 2nd footnote, which cites a Norwegian book - so as it's a book and not in English it's not possible for me to check the claim to try to verify it. The claim is at odds with the Australian Royal Commission information in the rest of the article. Should I just delete the whole sentence? Or should I modify the sentence somehow? e.g. I could put brackets at the end of the sentence saying that the claim is unlikely due to the coverups that have been exposed in the last few years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerJC (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TruthSeekerJC: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Strictly speaking, it is not impossible for you to verify the Norwegian book, it is just difficult and likely expensive(to fly to Norway and visit a library or purchase the book) as well as time consuming(learning Norwegian so you can read the book). See WP:SOURCEACCESS. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to discuss this on the article talk page, with those that follow that article. It is possible to present two disparate viewpoints in the same article. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TruthSeekerJC. The reliability of a source has nothing to do with how difficult it is for you, personally, to obtain a copy of a book. But it is not impossible to get any published book. Major libraries arrange interlibrary loans. Amazon and hundreds of other online booksellers ship obscure books all over the planet. We assess the reliability of a book in any language by taking a look at the reputation of the publishing house and the author, and their academic credentials. Reviews of the book by people with expertise in the field are also very useful. There is nothing inherently unreliable about books published in Norway. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328. Thanks for the response. I'm aware of what you've said. My issue is that I'm almost certain that the information is wrong, based on what I already know about the cover-up of child abuse among JWs (e.g. Nearly 2,000 cases of child abuse in Australia JW churches and not one of those cases was referred to the police). Given that I'm almost certain that the information is wrong, I want to try and verify it and find out more about the claim that is made - for example is it just referring to JWs in Norway? What was the sample size? How did they obtain the information? Because if they just looked at conviction rates then that would be skewed by the covering up that goes on, and if they did it by interviewing JWs that wouldn't work either because JWs are taught that they should lie if necessary to protect the JW organization. I also suspect that whoever put that information in could have been a JW and so the editor could be deliberately distorting the truth and making false claims in order to protect their organization. While this might sound like a conspiracy theory, it's not unfounded when you look at what we already know from investigations that have been conducted.

I don't want to just delete the sentence and the footnote, and if I did that it might get undone anyway. So I'm currently trying to find someone in Norway that can find the book and let me know what it says.

The book in question is published by Universitetsforlaget, which has all the signs of a highly reliable academic publishing house. Of course, you are welcome to try to read a copy yourself. Your comments indicate that you may be editing as part of some sort of campaign to discredit the Jehovah's Witnesses. Bad idea. Every religion has bad actors and any critical content must be balanced and neutral. All editors must adhere to the neutral point of view, a core content policy. Wikipedia is not a forum to right great wrongs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TruthSeekerJC Try asking at Norwegian WP, you may get replies there. I suggest Wikipedia:Torget . Also, consider what Cullen328 says. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source itself is exactly the kind of source Wikipedia wants - peer reviewed research published by a reputable academic publisher. (The ref is not complete, it should include the name of the chapter though it matters a little less since the chapter author is one of the book's editors. I'll add that to the ref anyway because it should be included.) Whether the source is correctly represented is a different matter but there is no reason to assume it wouldn't be. Never hurts to check, though. In the meantime, do not add any disclaimers or your own analyses - that violates the policy on original research. We can't say "in source x a leading researcher in the field says y, but that is probably wrong". We also can't say "scholarly source x says this, but this is wrong because journalistic/primary source y says something different."--bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TruthSeekerJC, you might be able to ask for help in verifying the citation via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request where editors can ask other editors who have access to a source to provide info or copies. This can be a very helpful resource. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Cullen328: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TruthSeekerJC, as you have already been advised at the article's Talk page, the statement based on the Norwegian study is not contradicted by the Australian Royal Commission. The Royal Commission indicated that there were 1006 cases of child sexual abuse within the JW denomination since 1950, but it makes no assessment of how that number of cases in that period compares to the rate of child sexual abuse in general society. Additionally, the fact that none of those cases were reported to police has no bearing whatsoever on whether the incidence of abuse in the group is rare. Instead of going on a conspiratorial witchhunt by trying to discredit a peer-reviewed academic journal, perhaps your time would be better spent locating other sources that actually mention the rate of child sexual abuse among JWs as it compares to general society. None of the available sources make any claim that the rate at which child sexual abuse occurs among JWs is not rare or that it happens with greater frequency than in general society (which would require metrics for comparison); instead the objections are consistently about how such cases are handled.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translating Wikipedia pages into English

How do I browse the German Wikipedia page (de.wikipedia) in English? Brunski13 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could use translate.google.com but it is pretty rough. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the menus in English by using this link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptseite?uselang=en – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brunski13 I always use Google Chrome when viewing any foreign language pages because of Chrome's inbuilt 'Translate this Page' button. It is immensely useful, and works about 95% of the time. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about finding help improving an article:

Hello Teahouse! I'm an editor who has been working primarily on improving the coverage of articles related to Hypericum on Wikipedia. My main project has been the article List of Hypericum Species, which I have sunk dozens of hours into adding info and formatting the list. However, I don't have nearly as much time now as when I started the project, and it is still a long way from being complete. I hate to just see the list go half-baked for the rest of its lifespan, so I've tried asking around to find help. I've looked through multiple mediums, including WikiProject Plants and others. I have gotten little to no response, but I still would like to find some other editors who would be willing to help pick up the project. I'm asking here to a) find out if there are any more places I can ask around to find help b) find help here or c) find ways to go about quickly finishing the list so it doesn't remain the way it is. I think the article has the information and promise to go on to become a Featured List, which was my goal when I started it. Thank you for reading and for any help or tips you can give. Sincerely, Fritzmann2002 14:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you're aware, it's List of Hypericum species. Case matters. Rojomoke (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fritzmann2002, what kind of help are you looking for specifically? Formatting, or research, or what? I can do some formatting work. Research may require someone with more biological knowledge than i have. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the article requires is the filling in of each of the different categories: type, habitat, distribution, and synonyms. "Research" is an overstatement of what would have to be done to find that info, there are numerous sites that you just have to scroll through to find it. For example: Hypericum MySpecies, BioLib, Plants of the World Online and a bunch of others. The workload comes from scrolling through the websites and manually entering in that info to the relevant cell in the article. I've been chugging through it for the past year or so but I've run out of steam at this point. Fritzmann2002 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wikilinking the countries, bullet points for the synonyms, references for each species, descriptions of the sections, and splitting sections into subsections is also to be done. Fritzmann2002 18:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:: if it's a transfer of information into wikipedia that exists elsewhere, may be think seriously about just pointing to the other sites from wikipedia. If there is additional information not on those sites approach those sites to ask to add it, or ask in thier thier forums where people may have similar interests for help on wikipedia. Another good alternative may be to ask for a download from those sites (or learn to use a screen scraper). Good Luckd[@-@]b (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category template links in red

I am learning about Image-use guidelines, Is this a sandbox issue, or is the template in need of repair? See here.Deermouse (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deermouse. I'm not quite certain what you are asking about. If you mean that some of the categories shown at the bottom of the page (which I don't think are anything to do with any template) are redlinks, then the answer is that a Category comes into existence as soon as it is included in a page, but the link does not go blue until the Category itself has been edited to add some text (or templates, or parent categories, or anything else). Since most categories should be in some parent category, this is the obvious edit to make. See WP:Categorization#Creating category pages. --ColinFine (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and very fine skill at deducing. Let's see if I understand, in sandbox at Image use information, I pasted the template for license and added the links for where that particular image is being used (removed the hyperlink code), I am not aware of adding a template for categories, could you explain how categories got there, and now along with being sure of proper attribution/license, I need to understand categories, and their generation. Creating these scenarios on my user page and performing the functions we discuss, seeing what happens and resolving issues will help me become a refined editor.Deermouse (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Deermouse. According to the page history, in this diff, you introduced the Categories directly, along with the other material. Looking at c:File:Qian Xuan - Early Autumn.jpg, it appears that you copied the "image description" and "licensing" sections from that Commons description page. The (Commons) categories for that page happen to be declared in the Licensing section, and you copied them over along with the licence template. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Totally makes sense, thx - to be sure inspect this implementation of using templates and categories.Deermouse (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

invoke does not work (parserfunction)

On my own wiki I added:

wfLoadExtension( 'ParserFunctions' ); to localsettings

And yet template:red still looks like this:

{{{1}}} {{#invoke:documentation|main|_content={{ {{#invoke:documentation|contentTitle}}}}}}

why? Infinitepeace (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infinitepeace this seems to be about the MediaWiki software rather than Wikipedia. You should be able to find help at https://www.mediawiki.org/ -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Infinitepeace: #invoke requires mw:Extension:Scribunto but it appears from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#[SOLVED] "invoke" does not work (parserfunction) that you no longer need help. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archive my tal

Hi I am trying to archive my user talk page but I think I gone wrong I only want about 10(ish) discussion per achieve can someone help me do this P+TFanoflionking (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fix this now let us now if. I need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions as to how to set up your archive configuration are at User:MiszaBot/config. It sounds as if you ought to have set maxarchivesize=10T if you wanted only 10 threads in each archive file, but you put the value 10 in 3 other parameters, which you have now changed to a value of 1. I see that you have been juggling all manner of things with your existing archives, including various garbled redirects, and I don't feel brave enough to try to sort that out for you. You may be better off reverting your user talk page to where it was before you started archiving, deleting all the confused archive pages, and starting again. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read the advice again. You have asked for the size of each archive file to be limited to 10 bytes rather than 10 threads, and you've still got the tangle in the first few files because you didn't delete the previous garbled attempts. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sad

I never do anything right and I am sad about it. I don't know if i belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMinecart88 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far you don't seem to have attempted to improve any articles. If you don't intend to do so then you would be correct in saying that you don't belong on Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CrazyMinecart88. Looking over your contributions, your short time on Wikipedia seems to have been spent:
  1. Filling your user page with excessive amounts of "funny" GIFs and user boxes
  2. Vandalising various pages in a way that I can't believe isn't intentional
  3. Creating nonsense pages like Draft:***no name-see article for explanation***, apparently in attempt to create some sort of Easter Egg-hunt for "hidden pages"
Overall, it seems like you think that Wikipedia is some sort of game or creative sandbox. It's not. It's a serious attempt to build a reliable encyclopaedia. If you would like to help us do that, you are very welcome. Otherwise, your current behaviour is tiresome and disruptive to those of us who are earnestly trying to work on this project, and you will probably end up blocked before too long. – Joe (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how was your day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theylikenick (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC) I will not exist anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMinecart88 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on finding info on Fluoro phosphoric acid

I cannot find anything about Fluoro phosphoric acid (other than pubchem, but pubchem only tells us stuff like atomic weight and stuff). I would like any of you to help find me reliable info on Fluoro phosphoric acid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericeleven (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Ericeleven. We have an article, Fluorophosphoric acid, but it's pretty stubby. You may want to ask this at WP:RD/Science, as the Teahouse is for help with using Wikipedia, not for general-knowledge questions. Deor (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

slurs in Talk pages?

is it against the rules to use racist or islamophobic slurs in talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, SadiqKhanFan. Wikipedia:Civility is prescribed and enforced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Finnusertop — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what pages have you seen such slurs, SadiqKhanFan? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

none dear comrade S — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SadiqKhanFan: you have created the article Mohammad Mahmoud. It needs some improvement if it is to remain as a Wikipedia article (this is no criticism of the imam himself).
It relates to the article Finsbury Park attack, which could also be improved. It does not mention Mohammed Mahmoud, though it should. It might be best to abandon the article Mohammad Mahmoud, and move its content to Finsbury Park attack. Maproom (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

maproom I agree and would like you to move the content there the article will soon be deleted so please swiftly move the content — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i was removed from NPR access but why??

i was removed from NPR access but why?? Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The log says concerns over CSD tagging. You presumably read the various concerns before you deleted them from your user talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamstraw99: Please see this version of your talk page (the "Your CSD tagging" section, second from the bottom). --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidity

Dear Wikipedia Reviewer:

Thank you very much for quick review. Unfortunately, your review is incorrect. I am the sole author of this material published in the site (reference 2 ): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123211001238

The other mentioned source: http://www.grf-1-29.com/consolidity-theory-provides-an-effective-tool.html has used this material under the Creative Common License which I signed for use for all interested researchers.

Hope that your decision be corrected for this reference and all other references from 16 to 58, as I am the owner of these copyrighted materials and have the right to use them as I wish.

Thanking you,

Dr. Hassen Dorrah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorrahht (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can someone paid to me to create his page/article? how much i can charge for an article ? do i have to pay to wikipedia if i get paid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravipratap singhs (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravipratap singhs, if you want to find people to pay you for that, it's up to you. The community will not help you in finding customers or determining prices. If you decide to do that, you don't need to pay Wikipedia anything. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finnusertop, Thank you for helping me Ravipratap singhs (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hellom, Rabipratap singhs. I am going to say a little more in reply than Finnusertop. My personal advice is, Do not try and do this. Wikipedia does not forbid paid editing, but many editors are hostile to it, and will inspect your work very critically. Wikipedia's rules will require to make a full disclosure of who is paying you to edit. Also, people who pay somebody to create a Wikipedia article about them are usually under the misapprehension they or their employee will have any control whatever over the contents of the article: they will not. And finally, creating articles in Wikipedia is hard - see my first article. Without wanting to be unkind, I don't think you have the experience and skills to do so successfully at present. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support what ColinFine wrote. You clearly don't know what is involved in creating a Wikipedia article. If you took someone's money and promised to do something that you don't know how to do, it would be dishonest. Maproom (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ravipratap singhs, finally, and most importantly, Wikipedia's encyclopedia is built and maintained by unpaid volunteers. They do not appreciate people making mney out the hard work they have provided. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help from experienced editor wanted

Hello,

First off, I am a physician and have used Wikipedia throughout my life and have a great appreciation for the editors who have created and maintained it and wanted to start by saying thank you.

This is a long post which basically asks for an experienced editor to help update an existing page. If that might be you, please read on.

Last year, my son was diagnosed with a rare disease known as Kabuki Syndrome. I immediately looked at the Wikipedia page, of course. Since that time, I have studied Kabuki extensively including flying my son to world experts in the field to discuss research directions and the details of the disease. I am also active in the largest group of Kabuki patients and family members, which has been a great resource given that most doctors have never heard of the syndrome.

I was discussing with the group my disappointment with poor representation on Wikipedia. The page is quite limited in information, does not direct new parents to the support groups or reputable sources, and is often flat out wrong. The page includes 2 pictures which, although so show some classic facial characterstics, Miss many of the typical features and do not accurately reflect the spectrum which is this disease. The page as a whole does a poor job at showing the spectrum of disease, from the very mild to the very severe. Anyways, I have been wanting to do something for this community I have joined/been thrown into, and I have always had a lot of respect for Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to update the Kabuki page. I have discussed this with the group (the largest group of Kabuki patients and families in the world, about 2700 members) and everyone 100% agreed that this should be done. I can’t explain how rare anyone agrees with anything on this page, much less 100% agreement. In fact, many affected parties offered to assist as well including other doctors, nurses, therapists, PhDs, etc. The only thing we don’t have is an experienced Wikipedia editor. Upon looking into it, I realize that I will need the help of an advanced editor.

Is there anyone who is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor who could translate information onto the page in an appropriate and efficient manner? To be honest, between work and raising kids (one with special needs) it is hard to find time to do anything, but this is something I would like to do.

If you would like to help a group of people affected by a rare disease to better educate the public, I would love to speak with you.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdacd123456 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the Kabuki syndrome history, appears you have been making additions, but find the process daunting. One suggestion -draft your content in your Sandbox. Only after you are happy with the way the text and citations look there should you paste it into the article. Another suggestion - start a new section in the Talk page of the article, explaining what the group hopes to accomplish. Keep in mind that a Wikipedia article about a disease is not about identifying support groups, etc. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the advice. Just kind of tinkering at this point. I find your last comment interesting. I sense that many in the editor world feel this way. I am somewhat confused why listing resources for patients with a disease is not within the jurisdiction of an encyclopedia? I would imagine that a comprehensive encyclopedia would be quite thorough in describing not only the history, pathological process/mechanism, and treatment options but would also include things resources for those affected. In the same way that an article on cigarettes causing cancer would include a link to a smoking cessation program. In this case, there is a single 501c3 which represents the thousands of families affected by this disease (which I am not affiliated, just to clarify, although I am grateful for them. These types of conversations/details are things that are important and why I feel I need to find an experienced editor to help with this project. Maybe the talk section is a good place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdacd123456 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This question has arisen for many of the less common diseases. For example, at the end of the article Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), in the External links section, is this invisible caution that appears only when someone wants to add external links to an organization website: "PLEASE READ — If you intend to add links to non-profit organizations, charities, or web pages that you think may be of interest to people with ALS, please ensure you have thoroughly read and understand WP:EL, Wikipedia's policies on external links. Most links are *not* suitable for Wikipedia, even if they would be helpful to people with ALS." David notMD (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this is a minor issue in my mind considering the overall page. That being said, I reviewed the guidelines and feel that allthingskabuki.com would fit the profile of an acceptable external link. If you have a moment, I would ask you to look at it and see what you think. The organization is important to many of the families around the country and world, mostly because it is the only organization dedicated to this disease. It is a 501c3 and has a lot of detailed information for families to share with providers etc. I am more involved in a separate online group, although all of the leaders of ATK are in the group I am referring to. I personally gain great benefit, networking, and information from our online group and it does make me sad to think that someone affected by kabuki wouldn’t know there is a large, great group of people out there who are very active, discussing a wide range of issues, etc. that being said, I realize Wikipedia isn’t Looking to be like “check out this support group” even though it would be helpful to the people affected. The ethics are actually interesting from an academic standpoint.

Anyways, I realize that our support group is not a perfect fit for Wikipedia, I do think ATK is a good option for a external link given it’s status as the only organization dedicated to KS and a 501c3. To be honest, people will find ATK anyways, but if the KS page is to be complete-it should include it.

Just pointing out- that’s the smallest part of the page that I would change/update and would love help making some more important updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdacd123456 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not on topic,but typing four ~ at the end of your comments will automatically add your User name. And using one or more ":" at the start of a comment indicates that it is a response to the previous comment. My recommendation is work on the article and set aside for the moment whether External links mention kabukisyndrome.com, allthingskabuki.org or neither. The article, especially the Lead, is too medical/scientific in tone. Approach it less as an MD and more for parents who have just had their child's diagnosis dropped in their lap. Perhaps look at Tay–Sachs disease as a model. David notMD (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new page

Hey so im making a page on a professional photographer, and he is more of a private photographer so there arent many secondary links about him. I used his website, websites that reference him, and pages about him. Can yall think of other stuff maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winbarker23 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winbarker23: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In order to merit an article on Wikipedia, a person must have been written about in independent reliable sources with in depth coverage. Those sources must indicate how the person meets notability guidelines, in the case of a photographer those at WP:ARTIST. If it is true, as you state that there aren't many secondary sources about him, I'm not certain your article will be able to remain. A company profile Twitter account, and webpages of this person's businesses are not acceptable as sources to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create A new biography

How do you create a new biography in the Wikipedia of someone never affiliated with the Wikipedia before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone Fabb (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects of Wikipedia article are in no way "affiliated" with Wikipedia. They, and their associates, should have no influence over the contents of the articles about them. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Stone Fabb. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Profile page

Hi there I am trying to create a new profile page on Wikipedia on the British photographer, Carl Hyde. I am stuck as to how to do this.

I have created an account for myself on Wikipedia, but I am now stuck as to how to proceed.

can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erminia1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erminia1 and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you stuck on how to edit? If so, Help:Tutorial (click the link) will be of use. If it is about how to create an article/biography, then I would recommend checking out WP:Your first article as it contains useful information. Please note though that with biographies of living people, they do have higher standards for sourcing and notability. Any information in a BLP that is not referenced (from a reliable independent source) must be removed. Since it is your first article, I would also recommend submitting it via the Articles for Creation process so that an experienced reviewer can take a look at it and help out if it isn't up to par. I hope that this helps! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This tips page is also worth a read. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Erminia1: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first inform you that Wikipedia does not have "profiles", but has articles about subjects shown to be notable in independent reliable sources. What that means is that Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about someone, but to summarize what third parties state about article subjects.
I would also caution you that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is probably the hardest thing to do here. It takes much time and practice. New users who are most successful started much smaller by making small edits to existing articles in areas that interest them(like correcting spelling) and then gradually moving up to more substantive edits and eventually article creation. This allows people to learn about how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles.
However, if you still want to dive in to article creation, I would strongly recommend the following: first, you should use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts on using Wikipedia. You should then read Your First Article which summarizes what is being looked for and the process. Lastly, you should visit Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft for review by other editors before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, you find out any issues before the article is formalized, rather than afterwards, when it will be treated more critically. If you have any other questions, feel free to add them to this section. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erminia1 and welcome to the Teahouse. To be a viable article, the subject (Carl Hyde) will either have to pass what we call the General Notability Guideline (GNG) or the alternative criteria at WP:ARTIST. The GNG requires multiple and significant coverage about him in entirely independent reliable sources, i.e. magazines, newspapers, books, journal articles. This means either whole articles devoted to him or several paragraphs in a more general article or book. It does not include press releases, interviews with the subject, blog posts, or mere mentions in photo credits. WP:ARTIST requires major solo exhibitions, having his work held in the permanent collection of a major museum, or winning a major prize for his work (all verified by independent sources). If neither the GNG nor WP:ARTIST standards can be met, then the draft article will not be accepted or if created directly in article space, will be deleted. I suggest that you start by assembling the sources required, if they exist, in your sandbox. To create your personal sandbox, make sure you are logged in and then click the Sandbox link in the upper right-hand corner of any page. Make an edit to it and click Publish changes. Don't even try to create an article until you have collected multiple sources and are reasonably sure that they meet the criteria for reliability and verifiability. You need to all read the guidelines that I've given you very carefully in order to make that judgement. Or perhaps once you have collected them, come back to the Teahouse, post a link to your sandbox and ask an experienced editor to give you their opinion. Hope that heps, Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a page property?

On Special Pages is one for searching for pages by property. Putting page property into either the Help search or article search produces nothing relevant. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Deisenbe and welcome to the Teahouse! It appears to have to do with the MediaWiki (software Wikipedia uses) API. You can read more about the properties table here and here. Essentially, it allows for more detailed searches by the looks of it and that special page is present in all media wiki installations (just checked on my own install). I hope that that answers your question. If you have any questions, please do let us know. --All the best, TheSandDoctor Talk 22:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deisenbe: The link at Special:SpecialPages#Lists of pages goes to Special:PagesWithProp. Here a page property is certain things a page may have which the software registers, e.g. a DEFAULTSORT and its value, or whether the page contains NOTOC. I see a "Property name:" drop-down box where I can click at the right to see the possible page properties in the feature. The Go button finds pages with the selected property. Many or all of the properties for a given page are shown by clicking "Page information" under "Tools" in the left pane. See also mw:Manual:Page_props table. mw: is the wiki about the MediaWiki software itself and often has more information about it than the help pages at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mackinac College

I have been struggling to upload an upgraded version of Wikipedia's article "Mackinac College". I came to the Teahouse because of my most recent attempt (starting through WikiProject Michigan). Please let me know if you can help me. Here is the history of my efforts. I am a 71 yr-old research scientist (molecular microbiology) with three 30-something children and five college/university degrees (BA, BS, MA, MS, and PhD). I retired in 2011. Since then – in addition to many other activities – I started reading and using information in Wikipedia. The first college I had attended was Mackinac College and I was surprised at the disappointing content in the MC wiki (my other schools have GREAT wiki pages). So I started researching, writing, and learning how to organize and contribute information to improve the MC wiki. By 2014 I had extracted, written, and uploaded Mission Point (Mackinac Island) and Mackinac College (Humbard) with the help of jREF; the current MC wiki was created by another editor at that time.

Our upgraded Mackinac College wiki is now complete, and I was advised to begin the upload process by going through the Talk tab for Mackinac College. So on 7 March 2018 I uploaded into the Talk section (1) a critique of the current article and (2) our new Mackinac College article (Please have a look!). NO COMMENTS ensued, and no recommendations. So to find help I looked into WikiProject Michigan and and eventually ended up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft. I didn’t know what else to do. Sure enough I had a reply: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Mackinac College instead. David.moreno72 00:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)"

I then asked David.moreno72 the correct way to proceed, and he said: "Hi Karin D. E. Everett. If the existing material is unreferenced, then yes, you can go ahead and remove the material. Make sure that you explain your changes in the edit summary. If you wish to incorporate your improvements, as per WP:V, they must be fully referenced. I would suggest a 'go slow' approach. Make incremental improvements so that it gives other editors time to review your changes to ensure they comply with policy. If there are no objections (via reverts) then keep making changes (all fully referenced of course). Happy editing. David.moreno72 02:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)"

So I changed three sentences in the existing Mackinac College wiki, providing 7 new primary references citing numerous specific pages and explaining the changes as simply as I could. The next morning my changes were gone and two boxes had been added to the Talk tab, accusing me of being personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article...conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

I do not know how to proceed. Please can you help me through this? The complete critique of the current article and our complete new Mackinac College article are still in Talk (my plan is to upload photos once the new article is "approved"). I can be much more specific regarding the errors in the current MC wiki, and I can provide full content for the references I've cited in the new MC wiki. Karin D. E. Everett (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karin D. E. Everett -welcome to our Teahouse. Perhaps it's important to point out that we never replace one article with a completely new version. However, we are happy to see a poorly written and badly sourced article evolve over time into a far better one. I see David.moreno72 advised you to take it slowly when you add new, sourced content, and that is very sound advice indeed.
The conclusion that you may be connected to the subject is probably not an unreasonable one to make, bearing in mind your detailed work on this subject. Was that, in fact, the wrong conclusion to draw? From what you wrote above, it isn't. So, my advice would be to clearly state your connection - or lack of connection - and you can do this in two ways. First, why not simply add something about yourself on your Userpage, just as you've written above? You haven't created one yet, and this is always the first place I look if I'm unclear of the motives or background of an editor. Whilst not giving away personal details, you could explain a bit about yourself and your interests/motives in editing. Tell everyone if you're not connected to a topic, or how you are if you! Secondly, if you feel someone has posted a suggestion that you are connected when you're not, all you need do is simply go to their talk page and advise them of the facts. We all have interests in editing here, and sometimes it's because we have a close connection with a subject for one reason or another, or we might just be fascinated by that topic, having heard about it on TV, for example. These templates aren't their to impune you - just to help others assess whether one or more editors bring an accidental, or intentional, bias to a page. We call this a Conflict of Interest, and we do require everyone to declare it if you they might think they have one. And if you don't, why not help others understand that? I have a COI declaration on my own talk page - it's quite normal for us to do this. Because you are connected to this college, you might accidentally bring a bias to anything your write (despite your research scientist background), so it's OK for the template to remain in place, and it's OK for you to carry on editing the article - that way we all know who's doing what, and how they're involved. The template you saw on the article's Talk page was not directly accusing you of failing over a "conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view" - but were simply pointing to our key policies which are usually relevant in cases where this template is used. They're for everyone's information, and are well worth reading.
Another thing you asked his how to proceed when an editor reverts your additions. Firstly, I'd look carefully at what I added, and then what the reverting editor said in their explanation of their reversal. I'd consider whether they had a point, and if I did something wrong. If I don't think I did, I might contact that editor on their talk page and politely enquire why they reverted, and succinctly explain why I made that revision. John from Idegon who made that revert is quite experienced here, but also quite reasonable, and open to succinct discussion. So talking is the first step. It is important that editors remember this is a neutral encyclopaedia, and that sometimes 'less is more'. Adding overly-detailed information on a minor topic can be (or can be interpreted as) WP:POV-pushing. I must be honest and say that when I say your rejected 'alternative' article with a lot of overly detailed text and a huge list of books written by students who had gone to that college I did wonder myself whether you had misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, as we don't want directory listings of non-notable works by non-notable people who attended a college. You might be aware of the acronym TLDR which might be relevant here. 'Too long - didn't read'. We urge everyone to try not to fall into that trap.
The existing college article is quite short and could undoubtedly merit expanding, providing it is all done in a neutral manner, with consensus if there's likely to be disagreement, and one step at a time. I hope this might give you a few pointers as to the way forward with some of your concerns, and that you can continue to bring your skills and knowledge to contribute productively and collaboratively. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you so much for your response to my plea. I didn't know I had a Userpage, although a few days ago I did stumble into something with my name at the top. I've now seen a few Userpages for other people. I will definitely take your advice. Don't forget me. I may have to come back with a question or two as I get this all sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karin D. E. Everett (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lolee Aries

I used to read Lolee Aries and edit Aries' page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slightlyoffkitkat1994 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia still has an article on Lolee Aries. Maproom (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to take interest and join the conversation on someone else's talk page before the talkpage owner has responded ??

Yesterday I Posted an issue on an admin's talk page but before the admin some other editor responded on the admin's behalf.. And he said he is a proud "talk page stalker"... Can I also do the same? I Mean if i just browse through other users' talk page and jump in the discussions or queries/issues there, will it be considered a valid practice or bad behaviour?? thank you Adamstraw99 (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamstraw99. You should be able to post comments on another editor's user talk page if you think they will be helpful and are relevant to whatever is being discussed, which is what most talk page watchers/stalkers do. Sometimes it might take some time for an editor to respond to posts added to their user talk page, so if you're confident that you can clarify things first, then it shouldn't be an issue. If, by chance, it turns out to be either because you posted something incorrect or because your input is not desired; just try to be more careful overall or refrain from doing such a thing with respect to that particular talk page in the future. I wouldn't, however, suggest making a habit of going around and looking for user talk pages where you can post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is sacre for me but I must finish eiting an/or rewriting a ocument first pass it on to you before submitting for publication

'Bold textGreetings I am grateful to you all I am 84 years ol trying to make a comeback on my own quarantine as I am in a wheelchair

You eiting system is too cumbersome for me for the ancient school of copy-eiting an sening the ocument own the shoo I will appreciate it if I can use my ol message irectly on the ocument as a raft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chander perkash (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chander perkash. I am sorry that you find our editing system cumbersome, but that is how we build this encyclopedia. You may find the Cheatsheet to be useful. It is a handy reference to coding and formatting here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new wikipedia article about faranto e.V.

Hello and Dear Team of Teahouse Q&A Board,

I would like to write a new wikipedia thread about our organization faranto e.V. faranto is a registered Club in Germany, which is part of the ESN Germany. The Club was formed at 2001 in Dresden and its task is to strengthen the international cultural understanding.

Currently we are using Mediawiki to make publish our meetings and storyline transparently. [1]

Therefore we have already been in touch with programming via html5. However we would like to write for the wikipedia article a complete new decription.

We are also available on facebook [2], website [3] or from the location inside the Campus of the University.

HTW Dresden c/o Faranto e.V. Friedrich-List-Platz 1 01069 Dresden Germany

My question is now, if it is from the contents possible to create an article, because faranto is part of the ESN. The Erasmus Student Network (ESN) has now an amount of clubs and counting every single of them seems for myself not meaningful. However the Club is financially and executioned independant. So it is therefore on paper (e.V.) annd not part of the university even if the members are part of it. faranto is also listed inside the government in Saxony(Bundesland of Germany) [4] With 200 exchange students each year for 17 years, i am not quite sure if creating a new wikipedia article is worth it.

If not, then we remain on our Media wiki :) Thank you beforehand for your reponse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.212.42 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. We already have an article about the Erasmus Student Network. In general, we do not have articles about local clubs that are branches of larger national or international organizations. Please read the section WP:BRANCH and the whole guideline that it is part of. The relevant passage is: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Do reliable sources outside the Dresden area devote significant coverage to your club? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cullen,
Well. Counting the university Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Dresden wouldn't count probably
  • HTW Dresden[5].
Searching in Google for faranto would also give several articles but more locally.
And from a more accurate time last year
  • 25 years HTW Dresden [6]
    • Therefore Strg+F: faranto
There is also an
  • entry that we are listed in Saxony Volunteer Clubs. [7].
And somehow we are mentioned in:
The more important relevant awards, that we have received are:
I am not quiet sure, if that is enough relevance.
Shouldn't i not better write to the german wikipedia and how much difference would that be to post an article to the german wikipedia compared to the now "english" wikipedia? :)
Best Greetings
Viet Dang

On my Watchlist, why does it say 'Two requests for adminship are open for discussion'?

Hello. I just noticed a message at the top of my Watchlist, saying 'Two requests for adminship are open for discussion'. I haven't added the admin page to my watchlist, or even put a request in to be an admin, so what does it mean and why is it on my page? Thanks, AllyGebies talk 03:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, AllyGebies. The top of our watchlists is used to communicate important information to active, experienced editors. Selection of new administrators is a very important process which is essential to the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia. You are invited to participate in that process, commonly called RFA. Just click the link. This is entirely optional, and if you are not interested, you can ignore the message. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it's simply telling me something like 'Someone has put in a request to be an admin. Would you like to ask them questions to see if they should be an admin?' AllyGebies talk 03:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. You could ignore the requests, you could read the pages and !vote for or against their adminship, you could even ask them questions. Maproom (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to ask questions, AllyGebies. I have participated in hundreds of RFAs and have rarely if ever asked a question. Instead, we want your informed opinion about whether or not these two editors should be promoted to administrators. As I said earlier, participation is entirely optional. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of interest, AllyGebies - the two long-standing editors who the Wikipedia community are currently considering for the responsible position of being administrators are two of our regular Teahouse helpers and contributors here, namely: 331dot and Cordless Larry. Because these positions have access to very powerful tools to help run Wikipedia, including deleting pages, closing disputes and even blocking editors who don't act in good faith, we always seek the input from the broader editing community. It's akin to asking the students at a college for their opinions on who they feel would make the best and most trustworthy janitors to mop up the mess that some of the other students leave in their wake. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyGebies: The watchlist message varies with time but not with the user. It comes from MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages which can be edited by administrators. It's by default displayed to all users who have the default language "en - English" at Special:Preferences. You can hide it by disabling "Display watchlist notices" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding fair use image

Hi. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so thank you in advance for your patience. I just published my first article, on Virginia Minnich, and I would like to add this photograph of her under fair use but I wanted to make sure it wouldn't be a copyright infringement. Here's the link to the image http://beckerimages.wustl.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15793coll3/id/2345/rec/21 and their policy: http://beckerimages.wustl.edu/cdm/rightsandpermissions.

Thanks! Biochemlife (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biochemlife. Images used as fair use are generally not considered copyright violations because the doctrine of fair use (at least in the United States) allows the use of copyrighted content in limted ways without needing the permission of the copyright holder. One of these ways is non-for-profit educational use, which I'm pretty sure Wikipedia falls under, so it's unlikely the use of such a file would be considered a copyright violation. However, having said that, what matters with respect to Wikipedia is whether the particular use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy (as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE) has been purposely established to be more restirictive than "fair use" which means that even though a particular image may be considered "fair use" so to speak, the way the file is intended to be used on Wikipedia might still not be considered acceptable per Wikipedia policy. In this case, I would there's a good chance that the image you've linked to is OK because item #10 of WP:NFCI does allow non-free images of deceased individuals to be uploaded for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the individual in question. There is a caveat though in that you much be sure that the file's use satisfies non-free content use criterion #1 (see WP:FREER). Wikipedia prefers to use free content as much as possible and basically only permits non-free content to be used when there's no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent can neither be created nor found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Since Minnich is deceased, nobody can take a new photo of her; the question then is whether there are any old photos of her floating around somewhere which are either within the public domain or which have been released (or can be released) under a free license compatible with Wikipedia's licensing policy. If there's a reasonable expectation that such an image exists, then non-free use may not deemed OK. The word "reasonable" is a bit subjective, but it generally means more than making just a tokin effort to find a free image. If you've made an effort to find a free equivalent (including possibly contacting some copyright holders) and haven't been able to find one, then a non-free is likely going to be considered to be OK; on the other hand, if you just want to upload the first image you found online, then that's probably not going to be OK. Moreover, it's important to remember that even though a non-free image of Minnich in a labcoat smiling might be a nice image, a free equivalent doesn't have to be same exact image; it only has to be sufficient for the encyclopedic purpose of identifcation. It's also improtant to remember that non-free use is not automatic and the default is not to use a non-free image until someone someday finds a free equivalent image to replace it. I've probably already gone into a little too much detail for a Teahouse answer, so you might want to try asking this at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFC since those pages specifically deals with image-related matters like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I did unsuccessful try to find free pictures, but I hadn't contacted the copyright holders of this one, so I just sent them an email. Biochemlife (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Biochemlife for making the extra effort. Not many editors seem to be willing to go that far. You might want to look at WP:ERP for some examples and suggestions regarding requesting permission of copyright holders by email. You might also want to consider asking at WP:RI/c:COM:RI in addition to WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. Some people have a real knack for finding free images online and they might be able to find one that acceptable. If after everything you still are unable to find one, then {{Non-free biog-pic}} and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} can be used for the copyright license and non-free use rationale if you want. You need to provide a copyright licnese and rationale to prevent the file from being speddily deleted per WP:F4 and WP:F6. Also, remember to provide a valid non-free use rationale for each use, which can sometimes be tricky since not all uses are equivalent and not every use may be deemed policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - they responded and said it was fine to use Biochemlife (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Biochemlife:. Seems like you might have misunderstood something in my original post. Non-free use does not require permission of the copyright holder; it might be nice to have, but it's not necessary. Permisssion of the original copyright holder is only necessary when you are requesting that they release their work under a free license. So, that's what I meant when I wrote including possibly contacting some copyright holders above. Some editors feel that a "reasonable" attempt to find a free equivalent means at least attempting to email a copyright holder or two to see if they would be willing to release their work under a free license. Contacting copyright holders is not a specific requirement per se, but some feel it is at least something which should be tried and often gets a favorable response in return. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oh - sorry! Biochemlife (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making first created page visible?

Hello All, I'm really hoping for some help. I recently created a page, I went to move it to (article) and put the name of the page I wanted next to it in the blank. it then leads me to what looks like the finished article, but when i copy and paste URL, itll open to not found. Any Suggestions? This is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Pumphrey,_Jr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtztay123 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kurtztay123, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article is at Don Pumphrey, Jr., with a period at the end. In the future, please sign any posts on discussion pages (such as this, and all Talk pages) with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. Rojomoke (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has apparently now been moved to Don Pumphrey, Jr (without the period at the end), but not clear why it has been moved, given the convention at WP:JR/SR. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:CSD criteria should I choose

Article 1 was merged with another article. Somehow article 1 was not deleted. What criteria for speedy deletion should I choose for article 1? Itsquietuptown (Talk • Contributions) 14:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article 1 should probably not be deleted. It should be redirected to the article it was merged to. ~ GB fan 15:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
..., as advised at WP:MERGETEXT. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two Citation/Reference Questions

Hi:

I just had an article published that needs attention with respect to two references. Would appreciate guidance on how to handle them. Here are my questions:

1. I need to add a citation/reference in the article that has already appeared beforehand. How do I do that without having it show up twice in the References section at the end?

2. Some of my citations/references are actually chapters in books that are assembled and edited by others ("Editors"). In the Templates you make available on your Editing page, there is no provision for that. Where can I turn for guidance on how to handle that?

Thanks!

Mwmcelroy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmcelroy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mwmcelroy welcome to the Teahouse. Your first issue should be solved with "named references". See WP:REFNAME for detailed instructions.
For the second issue {{cite book}} has provisions for chapter information with the chapter= and chapter-url= parameters. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the cite book documentation gives the following example:
Citing a chapter in a book with two joint authors and an editor
{{cite book |last1=Bloggs |first1=Joe |last2=Egg |first2=Fred |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Big Book with Many Chapters and Two Co-authors |publisher=Book Publishers |date=January 1, 2001 |orig-year=1st pub. 1986 |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 6: Getting There |chapterurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/ |isbn=978-1-234-56789-7 |lastauthoramp=y}}
Which gives -- Bloggs, Joe; Egg, Fred (January 1, 2001) [1st pub. 1986]. "Chapter 6: Getting There". In Doe, John (ed.). Big Book with Many Chapters and Two Co-authors. Book Publishers. pp. 100–110. ISBN 978-1-234-56789-7. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
I hope that is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I help an article become a Good Article?

I know that there is the WP:GA, but most b-articles that I come across already look pretty good. I want to do my part in helping, but I'll sometimes get overwhelmed by how much an article already has. Waterco4 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Waterco4. Personally, I prefer to expand existing stubs, because you have more of a clean slate to work with, and I prefer writing content to checking someone else's already written content. Since about half the articles we have are stubs, there's no shortage of things to work on. GMGtalk 17:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Waterco4. You can always find additional reliable sources and add content based on them to fill gaps in the article coverage. you can also copyedit to fix grammar or improve wording. Look at the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and try to make sure that they are all met for a particular article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The actual process: You nominate an article after you have spent significant effort improving it. After a time (weeks to months) some other editor agrees to review the nomination. That person - and other editors (!) identify dozens to scores of things wrong with the article. Which will require additions to and deletions from the article. You reply to every request. This typically takes 7-10 days. At the end, the reviewer either approves or fails the nomination. You either pat yourself on the head (and, optionally, put a Good Article user box on your User page), or go sulk in the dark. When I started on Milk allergy it was C-class, 10,100 bytes, and 10 references. David notMD (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in Draft mode

Everything I Publish is stuck as a Draft and I'm not sure how to actually submit them. Please help. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcw82890 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcw82890: Answered at Draft talk:Brittany Chrishawn. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS @Bcw82890: You've only written one draft article so far, with only four edits to that draft. When you say "everything you publish is stuck in draft" do you mean you have published other drafts? Or that the entire single article you wrote is stuck in draft? Because I'm only seeing the single article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I reference information?

I was wondering because I am currently thinking about making an article for review, and they said I needed to make references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealWeatherMan (talk • contribs)

@TheRealWeatherMan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on citing sources can be found by reviewing WP:CITE. The sources will need to be independent of the subject and be reliable. It may help you to use Articles for Creation to write your draft. Doing so allows you to get feedback on it before it is placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. If you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TheRealWeatherMan. It sounds from your question as though you have got writing an article backwards (as many people do). Don't write an article and then add references. Find the references first, and write the article from them. Wikipedia isn't interested in what you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) know: it is only interested in what reliable published sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, :Hi, TheRealWeatherMan. If you are just starting out editing wikipedia, You may find Referencing for Beginners helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. Can someone please point to me some documentation explaining https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fear_of_the_dark&curid=5153191&diff=831788593&oldid=810420011 ? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpheus Lummis (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orpheus Lummis. Welcome to our Teahouse. I've added a new heading to separate your question from the previous one. (Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes like this:~~~~, please) I've not seen someone trying to add a category in a foreign language on en.wiki before and that's not an acceptable way to go about ensuring links between languages. Google Translate tells me that "อาการกลัวความมืด" is Thai for 'Fear of the dark'. So, it's relevant, but not appropriate to an English language wiki. That said, interlanguage links are acceptable in the right place. See Help:Interlanguage links and Wikipedia:Categorization where the latter page says it's OK to have interlanguage links on the left hand side of the page to assist users find similarly categorised pages in other languages, as you can see in Category:Fast food. Thanks for drawing this to our attention. Those two edits by an IP have now been undone. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus Lummis I think they meant link to the Fear of the dark article on the Thai wiki, but forgot to add the semicolon in front of the language code, like this: [[:Th:อาการกลัวความมืด]] which would have resulted in Th:อาการกลัวความมืด. That's not how you add links to other wikis in the sidebar, BTW. Mduvekot (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's helpful. Orpheus Lummis (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mduvekot: You are wrong. The link [[Th:อาการกลัวความมืด]] actually is the way to add an interlanguage link to other Wikipedia into a sidebar – and, as far as I can understand what happened here, that is precisely what the anonymous editor wanted. It just is an obsolete way of doing that.
OTOH, what you present ([[:Th:อาการกลัวความมืด]]) adds an interlanguage link in the article. (BTW, its first metacharacter is a colon, not semicolon.) This, however adds a plain, readable link in the page's contents, as you can see in your own example above, not in the sidebar. --CiaPan (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CiaPan thanks for the correction. Mduvekot (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Thai article in question is already linked in Wikidata to the English article Fear of ghosts, so (because of Wikidata's significant flaw in being unable to cope with one-to-many links where the article breakdown differs between Wikipedias) that method is not available, which presumably explains why the inter-language link had been added manually (until Nick removed it). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I am making a draft for review and was wondering if it was legal to use images copied off the internet to add to my draft. Thanks in advance.TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases not, I'm afraid, TheRealWeatherMan. Most images on the Internet are copyright, and may not be used in Wikipedia, unless such use meets all the criteria of the non-free content criteria. Sometimes images are in the public domain (by reason of their age, or by explicit release by the copyright owner); sometimes images are released under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, (which allows anybody to reuse them for any purpose and in any way, including commercially, as long as they are properly attributed); in those cases, you may upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, and use it freely in Wikipedia. Please see image use policy. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheRealWeatherMan. It's hard to provide a more specific answer than what ColinFine gave above without knowing more details about the actual images you want to use. Only images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia can be used on Wikipedia pages since the software will not display images which are just links to external websites; morevoer, whether an image can be uploaded and how it may subsequently be used basically depends upon the copyright status of the image. Although Commons and Wikipedia are sister projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, they do have some differences in policy when it comes to the types of images they accept. For more details about the type of images you can upload to Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files; for more details on what kinds of images Commons accepts, please refer to c:Commons:Licensing. Just for general reference purposes, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't permit non-free image to be used in drafts per non-free content use criteria #9 and Wikipedia:Drafts#Preparing drafts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvement of WP:USCITIES

Hello. I would like to suggest an improvement towards WP:USCITIES. I disagree with this statement in the Geography section of the guidelines: "If a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, if there is any, remove any existing article coordinate from this section." I disagree with this statement because this is shown on many articles of incorporated municipalities in the United States. Here are some articles as examples for my disagreement: Johnstown, Colorado, Manchester, Ohio, Lockhart, Texas, Arvada, Colorado, and Aurora, Colorado. Here is a featured article with this as another example of my disagreement: Hillsboro, Oregon. I wanted to ask my question here at the Teahouse. Comments welcome, please! 2601:1C0:6800:72C1:6940:1387:90CC:AAAD (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place for suggesting changes to WP:USCITIES is the project's talk page: WT:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: I just did. Thanks. 2601:1C0:6800:72C1:6940:1387:90CC:AAAD (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page public

How can my page be viewed to the public? Plz help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmlanMurmu06 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AmlanMurmu06: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that your draft is a little ways from formally being part of the encyclopedia. Aside from the starter text needing to be removed, the draft does not have any independent reliable sources that indicate how this person is notable as Wikipedia defines it. See WP:RS and WP:CITE to learn more about sources. If you haven't already you should read Your First Article as well. Creating an article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia.
I would add that Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about someone; Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you are ready, you can use Articles for Creation to submit your draft for review, but I would not do so yet. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AmlanMurmu06: - I agree with 331dot on all of the above. It is also worth noting that the subject of your draft is Amlan Murmu, and your username indicates that you either have a relationship, or are in fact yourself, Amlan Murmu. As such, you have a conflict of interest with the subject of your article. You should not use Wikipedia as a place to pen your autobiography, and should refrain from editing articles about your close friends or family to avoid introducing WP:BIAS. Aside from that, your draft also suffers from not establishing notability, and a dire lack of sources from reliable sources. Thus, you have a significant ways to go to get this article in mainspace. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, We also do not write "pages" on Wikipedia, but rather articles about notable subjects. This is a common source of error for new editors, and appears to me to be a pitfall which you have fallen into. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

i want to add a person's biography on wikipedia, can it be done on an android phone?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minuranking1 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Minuranking1. I believe that some editors have successfully written articles on android phones, though I have not done more than the occasional edit that way. However, please be aware that:
  • Creating a new article is one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia. Please see the essay your first article.
  • Writing about yourself is even harder, and strongly discouraged, because it is hard to write in a sufficiently neutral way about yourself.
  • Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have chosen to publish about the subject, and all articles should be mostly based on such independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Minuranking1: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is technically possible to edit Wikipedia from a phone, but this is probably not a good idea (especially creating an article) due to the amount of typing you would need to do. If you had a physical keyboard, it might work better. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Minuranking1: It's absolutely possible - go for it! If Stephen Hawking could write major books on science from his wheelchair, using a smartphone to create a page here is a breeze. I'm on my iPhone 5 as I reply to you. Whilst I do prefer a keyboard for big edits to pages, other editors of new articles use an Android exclusively. See User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing, by one of our Teahouse hosts. As stated above, the same requirements for accuracy and notability of the subject still apply, of course. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's Sink - possible copyright violation

The article Einstein's Sink looks suspiciously like a translation of the Dutch version to me. I'm an infrequent user and unsure of the right procedure. As far as I remember the Dutch versions have to be imported. Where do I have to go to request that import?

On a related note, I have reason to believe that both the Russian and Chinese versions of that article have been translated by volunteers on reddit.com/r/translator. The translations have then been copy/pasted to Wikipedia. I believe translations are worthy of copyright and without permission from those reddit users both those language versions ought to be deleted. What should I do about that? I have already taken the appropriate steps on the German Wikipedia. Thanks in advance --Nfreaker91 (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nfreaker91. They don't necessarily need to be deleted, but they do need to be attributed to the source, as is required by the license Wikipedia is published under. To do this, you need to add Template:Translated page to the article's talk page, assuming you are reasonably sure this is what has happened. It looks like at least the English article was created by an anonymous user, so confirming that with them directly may not be possible, if they don't reply on the article talk page. The translated page template is also available in a few dozen languages, and so should hopefully be available in these alternate translations on other language projects.
Incidentally, if you're familiar with the reddit user's who are helping to translate articles, it may be a good idea to pass this advice along to them when you get the opportunity. GMGtalk 12:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I have no reason to think the anonymous user who wrote the English version got that from elsewhere on the web, so your template should work here. I will put that on the talk page. As for the other language versions: To my understanding of the reddit user agreement, content published on reddit.com is not under a free license compatible with Wikipedia. I am under the impression that a translation in and of itself can be protected under copyright. Unless you are saying that translations of one paragraph are de minimis or similar, I don't see how the Russian, Chinese, German (and probably Swedish) versions are proper, since the user accounts that published them on Wikipedia are almost certainly not identical to the people that put the work into the translation on reddit. The reddit users that did the work, did not give permission for their work to be published under a free license (they gave reddit permission to use it). I'm by no means a copyright expert though. Regardless, I don't speak a word of Russian and Chinese and am unable to navigate to talk pages there, let alone fill out a template correctly. Nfreaker91 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Looks I was misunderstanding you Nfreaker91. So yeah, the original on the Dutch Wikipedia is licensed appropriately, but if someone translates it elsewhere on the web, although it's derivative of a free work, the translation itself creates a separate copyright. As far as de minimis, that's... sketchy, and I wouldn't be comfortable using it as a rationale.
I'm just grasping at straws here, but I know User:Alex Shih lives in Japan, so maybe they know someone who speaks a touch of Chinese as a random shot in the dark. Looks like User:Maxim is active and listed at WP:Local Embassy as a Russian speaker, so maybe they can help out with the that version, or maybe they know someone who can. GMGtalk 12:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GreenMeansGo, I am actually a native speaker of Chinese myself. For the time being, I have provided the required attribution for both zh:Talk:爱因斯坦水槽 and ru:Обсуждение:Раковина Эйнштейна. If the reddit volunteers would like to claim copyright for their translation, they are more than free to do so, and then each Wikipedia language project can discuss deleting these pages accordingly. This is however counter-intuitive and unlikely to happen. I would only be concerned if the user that requested these translation helps at the reddit pages took advantage of these reddit volunteers by publishing their translated works for profit. Alex Shih (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everybody!

Hi my name is Calculator bag and i am new to wikipedia. I am thinking of working in the genre sections of music articles. so if anybody has advice they could give to me that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculator bag (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say the obvious, the genres themselves would be related areas to work: Synth-pop, new wave, post punk, etc. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Calculator bag (I like the username, by the way!). Others might have more specific suggestions, but I would advise you to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and its sub-projects. You could also introduce yourself on the talk page of that project, where other editors with experience of editing music articles might be able to offer you advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calculator bag (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Hello Cordless Larry!! Thanks for the advice, the username was a result of me trying to think of the most random amalgamation of words! Anyhow i will head to wiki project music asap for advice. I would also like to say that when the idea of wikipedia was novel to me i did make a minor vandalization as a joke, but did not think of the after effect it could have, so all i can say is sorry and i hope this does not damage my reputation as a wikipedian. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculator bag (talk • contribs) 21:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~ Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create second sandbox?

Hi there, I am hoping to receive some help. I created a Page for Louck's Tavern, but it was deleted. I found supporting documentation to add, but not sure how or where to add. Attempted to upload clipping of newspapers but was unable to.

On a separate issue, I would like to submit - or work on - an entirely new page, different subject. I hope to create a place where I can upload my content and work around it, while getting suggestions from someone like yourself, WITHOUT risk of deletion, before finally submitting for review. Am I needing a second SANDBOX? If so, please tell me how to do it?

Thanks in advance... jkcproject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkcproject (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jkcproject. You can have as many sandboxes as you like - Any page called User:Jkcproject/anything is a sandbox, and as long as you keep within the broad limits at WP:UP you'll be fine. My suggestion for writing new articles is to use Draft space rather than user sandboxes, but both are acceptable. See your first article if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jkcproject, you can create wanted pages, although no page you create is without risk of deletion. If you want another sandbox you can do what I do, User:ZLEA/sandbox. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is at Draft:Louck's Tavern and you can work on it there. Uploading clippings of newspapers would be likely to be a copyright violation. If you wish to use a newspaper as a reference, you can fill in the relevant details in the {{cite news}} template, and use that in a reference as outlined at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags and more

Hi I don't drink tea, but thanks for the invite

Trying to clear off a COI maintenance tag and it keeps coming back - not justifiably And as I add content to the page and clean up the page and add more sources I get a second remonstration that I am disruptive editing and some of my links are inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry - including, get this, one to a research note at Carnegie Mellon!

What am I missing? How do I convince a bot I'm a better researcher/writer than it is? Is there a way to check if a link is 'inappropriate?' Is there a way to make it appropriate?

Thanks

Mikkopresents (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikkopresents: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In examining the page in question, I can say that the tag is not being restored by a bot, but by another user, Missvain. A bot did revert the addition of a link which is considered not appropriate(I think because it is to a blog, as blogs are not usually considered reliable sources). Is the information not published somewhere more reputable? "Mikko" sounds a lot like Michael(much like part of the last name of the person you are writing about), so I will ask you directly if you represent Mr. Michalopoulos or are associated with him in some way. If you are, you should 1) not remove the COI tag, as you have a conflict of interest and should review the conflict of interest policy, and 2) not edit the article directly, instead suggesting changes on the article talk page. If you are not associated with him in any way, please state that. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Mikkopresents in your last edit you also removed the page protection tags which is not ok or correct. Your edit summary "Removed maintenance tag (for the second time) because there is no COI - the page needs cleanup" also was not a reason to remove the tag before the cleanup. Note the tag only says that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection..." not that they do. If as your edit summary suggests you agree the page needs a clean up, this should be done before the tag removal, just removing the tag just makes it appear that there is a COI (be that true or not). However you are doing the correct thing to move forward and discussing with Missvain the issues they had with your edits and hopefully can work things out. But for now I have reverted the tag removal, until the content issues have been addressed, and while the protection actually exists. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)

Creating articles

I would like to know if my article Sacred ties wasn't good enough that it was reverted to Pavitra Rishta Page, also I would like to help on any article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPagoo (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, AJPagoo. Am I right in thinking that Sacred Ties is an alternative title for the series called Pavitra Rishta? That's what it says at Pavitra Rishta. If that's correct, then we should only have one article about the topic, so your main mistake was in trying to create another one. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would like to apologies and have realised my mistake but still I would like to know why are pages like, Pavitra Rishta and other series not giving full summary of the show.Why isn't there any information about Vaishali and Varsha, and other characters. I would have edited the page but what forced me to create any article is that the Pavitra Rishta Page is protected from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPagoo (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best answer I think I can give to that question is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and no one has (yet) got around to writing a more complete plot summary, AJPagoo. That said, the plot summary already accounts for the majority of the length of the article, so it would be good to add other stuff too! I suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. You'll see that if you click on the padlock at the top of the article, it will take you to WP:SILVERLOCK, which explains how to request edits to the article. Once your account is a few days older, you will be able to edit the article directly, but please do so with care and caution if you do. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improving articles

Why are many articles on wiki short, I would like to know I've noticed that the hindi TV serials are not edited in the full story but are quickly summarized,for examples Pavitra Rishta and Doli Armaano Ki.Also Glow TV is an Indian TV station in South Africa just like Zee World,with programmes from Star Plus and Colors TV,why isn't there a page for Glow TV and information on series and what the channel is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJPagoo (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AJPagoo: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. If information is missing, it means either it isn't available in Reliable Sources or no one has added it yet. You should Be Bold and improve the articles. See WP:REFB for how to use references for material you want to add. RudolfRed (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hannagn Article submitted March 2018

I need help in understanding why this article is being turned down. One comment said that the sources are not liable. I am not sure how to improve the sources since they included: Time Magazine, Fortune Magazine, Smithsonian Magazine, Scribners Magazine, a book on the 1940 election published by the University of Illinois Press, Scott Cutlip's book on major figures in public relations published by Earlbaum Publishers, Allen Frederick;'s Secret Formula published by Harpers Business, K.S. Miller's U.S. Public Relations History published by SAGE Press, and Stephanie Capperel The Real Pepsi Challenge published by The Free Press.

I would appreciate any assistance so that this article can get on the right track. Mtownsley (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While Steve Hannagan may be suitable notable to be the subject of a Wilipedia article, every part of Draft:Steve Hannagan is badly written and badly referenced. My recommendation is to withdraw the draft and study other biographical articles before trying again. From your history of edits, it appears that back in 2017 you have added content about Steve Hannagan to many articles, often using as a reference unpublished interviewers' notes. David notMD (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joining

How can I join you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jashangill18 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Jashangill18:, it looks as if you have already joined Wikipedia, so you should be able to edit and write articles. You can also join various WikiProjects if you find any interesting, but that is not a requirement. Nessie (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jashangill18: - if you are enquiring about becoming a Teahouse host, I would recommend that you spent the guts of a year improving your proficiency at editing, and acquainting yourself with the core policies of Wikipedia before you consider such a move. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How do you add Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RanaeFritola3 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I placed a welcome message on your talk page which has guidance on getting started. You can come back here if you have more specific questions. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have caused a misinformation on Wikipedia.

Hi, A few years ago, I uploaded This photo on Wikicommons. At first, I attributed the photo to Iraj Castle, then I found out that this was wrong and the drawing is of another castle, I removed the photo from the English wikipedia but now I saw that the article have been translated to several languages and all have used the misinformation I caused. I tried to remove the photo in other articles but it gets undone by other users. What should I do? Pouyakhani (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pouyakhani. Probably a good start would be to correct an obvious error in the file name on Commons. What sources are you using to determine that the original information was incorrect? GMGtalk 12:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the photo is provided in Wiki Commons,the name of the file is correct,tho.Pouyakhani (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading files

Hi! Is it possible to upload files with a mobile device or do i need to use PC to upload them? Not a very active user (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's possible to upload files from a mobile device. But using a PC will be much easier. Maproom (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an entry where there's nothing but primary sources

I do research on a topic that no one has written on since around 1890's: the history of the steel (dip) pen industry in the US. As far as I've ever been able to find, mine is pretty much the only secondary source ever to write about many of these topics. You can see the topics on my site https://thesteelpen.com/.

I'd like to add some of these topics to Wikipedia, formatted for Wikipedia complete with sources and all, but I'm afraid of it's pretty clearly crossing over the line into Original Research. And I feel I'm in a bit of a Catch-22 in regards to notability as well. Few people even know about this topic, so few people care. It's not notable because it's not known. It's not known because no one has published on the topic before. (at least in the US, in Britain, there are several publications about that side of the industry)

I've started one example entry on a once major steel pen manufacturer in Philadelphia, Turner & Harrison (1875-1952), but no one has ever written anything about them before. My whole history is a compilation of primary sources, so I'm fairly sure it crosses the line into Original Research. Now, there aren't too many "conclusions" being drawn that would be controversial, mostly the account is pretty factual, so I don't think I'm in danger of creating controversy, (Was John Turner truly a recruit of Richard Esterbrook, or is that mere speculation and coincidence? Off to the barricades!) but I'm not relying on secondary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Turner_%26_Harrison

I'm just wondering if it's possible to add entries on this information, which is available nowhere else except my own website? I'd hate to just write an entry and do nothing by point to my website, which wouldn't be considered a reliable resource anyway.

I suspect the advice will be to get this published first in a legitimate source, and then come and create the entries. Unfortunately, it has a limited audience because so few people even know about this once important industry, and among those who even use these dip pens anymore, (mainly calligrapher) only a sub-set are interested in the history of the industry. (how many drivers of cars are interested in the history of the US auto industry?)

Any guidance would be most appreciated

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlucinumMaster (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GlucinumMaster. You're pretty much right on the money. While primary sources are allowed in limited circumstances with careful use, one of Wikipedia's rules for them is that we can't base whole articles on these alone. I'm afraid the topic will have to wait until it has been written about by more people. But there is no deadline, and even though it may take a long while for that type of coverage to emerge, we're still perfectly happy to have an article on the topic once we reach that point. GMGtalk 12:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suspected so. This brings up a related question. In existing entries there are some inaccuracies, such as the entry on Dip Pen, which I would like to correct. The evidence for the corrections, though, are primary evidence, not secondary. I'm assuming that is ok? The problem we run into is that very little has been written about these topics, and what little was written back at the turn of the 20th-century was wrong and the myths have perpetuated ever since. I can make corrections to the parts about the British history from published secondary sources, but the US side, not so much. Thanks. GlucinumMaster (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GlucinumMaster. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but Wikipedia values verifiability over truth, in addition to preferring secondary over primary sources. So in effect, we prefer untrue information in an otherwise reliable secondary source, over correct information based on original extrapolation from a primary source. This approach isn't perfect, but it does mean our articles are probably right more often than not, so long as they're following those rules.
So if the information is unsourced, and the sources you have can be used in accordance with guidance at WP:PRIMARY, then we can correct it using a primary source. If the information is cited to an otherwise reliable secondary source which happens to be wrong in this case, then we would need to wait until some other reliable secondary source corrects the record. GMGtalk 15:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deleting your article

Someone decided to delete my part of an article can people just do that without reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winbarker23 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find that one person removed one edit of yours, here, and they gave a reason in the edit summary. If you don't understand their reason, click on the "talk" link next to their name and ask them to elaborate. They should be able to provide you with a more thorough answer if you didn't understand what they meant by the reason they already gave. If there is another edit of yours which has been undone, please let us know WHICH edit on WHICH article, so we can help you further. --Jayron32 14:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another reversion was this one, also the article James Barker (photographer) was deleted under criterion G7, but you are correct that the OP needs to tell us which edit or which article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Winbarker23: First, it's better to think in terms of "ours" instead of "mine" and "yours."
Second, users can remove content that does not cite a reliable (usually professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic) source. They should give a reason in the edit summary but there's nothing forcing them to. I see here that a reason was given but here a reason was not (although most links to Youtube face problems of reliability and maybe even copyright violations).
Third, whole articles can be deleted if they do not meet the general notability guideline: new articles must cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject. Websites like LinkedIn and Yelp never establish notability; neither do directories or the subject's own website. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with constructive editing

Over 5 years ago, I was topic banned under Discretionary Sanctions for discussing a source[10] I'm not concerned with the details of my content dispute, but I am interested in getting help to enable me to collaborate constructively, as suggested by one of the other editors.[11] --Iantresman (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iantresman, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not clear what sort of help you are asking for. I take it that you are not at this time appealing your topic ban. Any sustained constructive contributions woulkd no doubt help. Are yoiu asking for suggestions on how to do that? Are you looking for a mentor? What exactly do you want here? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel I guess a mentor. I'd like to know how I should go about discussing a difference of opinion in a way that doesn't get me banned. I'm not appealing my ban here, but I'd like to know what I could have done differently. --Iantresman (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new user, new page, question on if its worthy of addition

Hi there, i only created an account as i was wondering if it was worthy or not to write an article about different fpv flight simulators. im fairly well versed in one, though there are several out there they are the sort of thing that is now widely available and used by the people in the fpv community, and plenty of articles have been written about the different ones available on the web.

I was wondering if this is acceptable on wikipedia, and if i should create a page each for the most established ones?

I hope this is the right place to aks.

i have checked for the simulator i know the most about (LiftOff) and can find 3 independent sources, but they are independent reviews so im unsure if this qualifies under the notable rules or not.

if not that's fine, if so, what should i be mindful of?

these are the reviews i have to hand,

http://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/814970-testing-liftoff-drone-racing-simulator/

https://www.propwashed.com/liftoff-drone-racing-simulator-review/

http://www.controllercraft.com/articles/liftoff-fpv-racing-simulator-review/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robisnow (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robisnow, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think three articles is a little too little. From the looks of it, these are good sources, independent and reliable, but I'm not confident that three is significant coverage.
I notice that we have an article about First-person view (radio control), but it has no information on FPV RC flight simulators. I think you could create a section in that article about them. Try to explain what are some common features of FPV RC flightsims, and name a few of the most important ones. The great thing about editing existing articles is that expanding them is easier than creating new standalone articles. While some topic may not be notable enough for an article of its own, it can be introduced in an article about the larger topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I see the files I've uploaded?

On Wikipedia, not Wikimedia, I mean. The Verified Cactus 100% 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey The Verified Cactus. See here. GMGtalk 15:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... which is accessible through the "uploads" link at the top of your contributions page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wikilink to heading on a page/article

Can't find how to wikilink to heading within a page/article. BrucePL (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the answer at WP:ANCHOR. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Recommendations Please - or Direction

Hi there, I hope I am in the correct place. (If not, my apologies. Could you please direct me to the appropriate place?) I have just created a draft of an article and am looking for recommendations. I am currently waiting for media, which I will insert, after checking for media's (pics) copyright status.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:12_Days_of_Pizza

Is there anything outstanding that I should correct/delete/modify? Thank you very much for your help.

Jkcproject (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkcproject: As a start, don't put links to other Wikipedia articles in a reference. Use a Wikilink to link to the relevant article See WP:LINK and WP:REFB. Also, read the information at WP:YFA for how to create an article, you will find good info there that you can apply to improve your draft. RudolfRed (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Forget about media until you get the basics right. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and then read about how to add references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. References to Wikipedia are not acceptable, see WP:CIRCULAR. References to the organisation's own website are not independent. If, after removing the unacceptable sources and the text which they have been used to support, you are left with a sufficient number of reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject, then expand those references from bare URLs to include sufficient information to allow reviewers to assess the sources, preferably using templates such as {{cite web}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Jkcproject, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, One Wikipedia article should never cite another as a source. So all your citations to Wikipedis should be removed. This leaves only one news article, cited three times, as independent coverage, and that seems to be purely local coverage. This is not nearly enough to establish notability. Additional reliable sources that cover the program in some detail would be needed, and they should be regional or national coverage. See out guideline on the notability of organizations, and Wikipedia's Golden Rule. I would advise you to concentrate on finding additional sources to establish the notability of the topic before worrying about images. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the incorrect citations to Wikipedia articles, and combined the duplicate cites as a single named reference. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=832913878"