Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 531

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 525←Archive 529Archive 530Archive 531Archive 532Archive 533→Archive 535

Uploading photos Issue

Uploading Personal images (scans of personal photographs)

I keep getting photos rejected with the copyright issue which come from my own Family history.

Please can somebody help me upload the scanned photograph images I own

Captain Static (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Captain Static. Can you give us some more details about where you have tried to upload the files, please? I don't see any evidence that you have had images deleted for copyright concerns, so I'm a bit confused about where you are going wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Captain Static: you own the photographs, but do you own the copyright in them? It will belong to the photogrpaher, unless you agreed a contract that explicitly transferred it to you. Maproom (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried uploading the photographs taken by my mother (deceased) - the message I get is "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

I cannot even upload therm to my profile or talks Captain Static (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Static: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are your mother's sole heir, then you own the copyright. If there are other heirs, then her estate owns the copyrights. In that case, you would need a legal document that assigns you the right to freely license the photos. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification [User talk:Cullen328|Let's discuss it]] , I am the only heir as the only child. Thus what is the process to share my photo's in that case?Captain Static (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Static. Is the photo you're discussing above with Cullen328 the same as the one you're discussing at Talk:Ysgyryd Fawr#Landslip on the photo. The reason I am asking is because you mention on the article's talk page that you have both newspaper cutting and original photo. If the photo your mother took was later published in a newspaper or something, then you may still need to send a permissions email to WP:OTRS for verification purposes. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? for reference. If you have more specific questions you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Another thing I noticed is that you made this edit to Ysgyryd Fawr. While that bit of information about your father might be true, it's not entirely clear how it is encyclopedically relevant to the article. There's lots of factual information that could be added to pretty much every Wikipedia article that currently exists, but articles are really only intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about the subject; they are not intended to include every thing true about the subject. This also applies to photos as well; only those which improve the reader's understanding should be added to articles and they need to be used in a proper context as explained in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content. Proper licensing is only one part of image use on Wikipedia; there are other concerns which need to be considered and you may need to establish a consensus for a photo's use on an article's talk page for it to remain in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Captain Static: I have to be honest with you. It is very difficult for me to see how driving a tractor to the top of a gently sloped peak which is less than 500 meters high is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. That is a triviality, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, nice to see that condescention and censorship is alive and well in Wiki. I'll give up posting information towards Wiki and Wiki Commons. DILLIGAF? There we are then one less contributor leaves the project due to bullying16:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Captain Static (talk)

I said abovebelow that it is all too common in Wikipedia to yell "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. It is also too common to yell "Censorship" to "win" a content dispute. If you have actual evidence of bullying, you may present it at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Archiving changed the order— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing reasonable warning tags

Good day to all! User:Shhhhwwww!! has removed my notice about Conflict on Interest and final warning for vandalism and stated that I am harassing and vandalizing. By the way, I placed the notice about CoI on Leila de Lima because I think that he has it on the article (see detalls on Leila de Lima talk page) and vandalism for removing some details on Leila de Lima article that is covered by WP:RS (see detalls on Leila de Lima talk page) and etc. as other users also warning him on vandalism, not properly sourcing (like this one). And now he's blaming me of vandalism and harassment! I would like to ask if what I should do? Shall I give him another warning, undo his actions, or nothing? ~Manila's PogingJuan 16:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy. An editor is entitled to remove notices from their own talk page. As to issues about the article, discuss them on the article talk page at Talk:Leila de Lima. If that is inconclusive, use a dispute resolution procedure. Both of you should read what is not vandalism. It is all too common in Wikipedia to yell "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Both of you should try to resolve this as a content dispute, because, before posting to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, you should read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
If you really think that there is a conflict of interest, you may report it at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where it will be discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@PogingJuan: Welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism is a deliberate and malicious attempt to damage the encyclopedia. A content dispute is not vandalism. Please read our policy on biographies of living people. Following this policy is mandatory. Whether or not to include information about unproven allegations is very tricky, and we must get it right. If you need specific advice from uninvolved editors, please take the matter to the Biographies of living people noticeboard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@PogingJuan: Per Wikipedia:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings; a user can freely remove or blank anything from their user talk page, with just a few listed exceptions. Removing legitimate warnings counts as acknowledging them, and they should not be restored. Removing inappropriate or illegitimate warnings counts as cleaning up or removing harassment. I'm offering no opinion on who is in the right here, only that it's generally ok for someone to remove stuff from their user talk page, as long as it does not have the effect of changing the meaning of an existing comment or conversation (i.e. any removal normally needs to be an entire conversation or comment). If someone removes legitimate warnings, they are in the page history and will normally be spotted by the admins if that is needed. I've not looked through all of the history to try to figure it out, but if this really is a content dispute (i.e. something less than unambiguous vandalism), see also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (but the advice above is good, and the BLP noticeboard is probably the correct next step for controversial or disputed BLP content, if you need a next step). Murph9000 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Krxnic and Draft:Ryan Lee Ashley

Can other experienced editors please try to explain to User:Krxnic why their autobiography keeps being declined? They write, at my talk page, “3 different people have now told me 10 different things to do with my article.” I count three different reviewers, but I don’t count 10 different things to do with the article. I don’t see any encouraging advice that would amount to any thing to do with the article. Can someone explain in another way? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not experienced on Wiki, I just don't understand the requirements as someone told me to not use links such as YouTube, Facebook, SoundCloud. But to instead use reliable links, ive added links to my BBC Profile, MusicBrainz, official website, iTunes, Spotify & Tidal. But them links seem to still be unreliable? Like I said this is my first ever time on Wiki. If there is any way of you correcting my article then please do so it will be much appreciated. Thank you Krxnic (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Please read the autobiography guideline, which strongly discourages the submission of autobiographies, and the conflict of interest policy, which strongly discourages editing of articles when you are associated with the subject of the article. I am not about to give you any encouraging advice about how to "correct your article", because my advice is not to try to use Wikipedia to promote your career. My advice is to find some other medium than Wikipedia. Can someone else comment, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Besides not proving notability, the article isn't particularly well-written. In order to prove notability, please find magazine or newspaper articles, if they exist on this person. Then do a cleanup and smooth out the prose. If notability can't be proven with reliable sources, then this editor will have to work on other topics and leave their autobiographies to Facebook. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Policy re: WP:COPYVIO

Hello! I'm trying to understand Wiki policy concerning certain nuanced reverts regarding WP:COPYVIO. Let's assume that there IS a COPYVIO in a WP:1RR article. Editor A then makes 10 different edits and reverts (all under one edit), including deleting the copyvio. If Editor A's edit is reverted, can s/he re-revert the entire edit (meaning other 9 edits and reverts) because of the one copyvio? Or, should Editor A only delete the copyvio section? Or anything else? [NOTE: Editor A did write in the summary statement (among other things) COPYVIO, but would not specify which edits were copyvio, despite repeated requests.] It is my belief that the copyvio was questionable at best, and that Editor A basically made three reverts in 24 hours all under the umbrella of COPYVIO in order to WP:GAME. Please clarify. Thank you. KamelTebaast 17:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetical questions are hard to give a definitive answer to as there are nuances. If this really happened please link to the situation so a usable answer can be given about the situation. -- GB fan 17:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kamel Tebaast: Welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you received a specific answer about a copyvio at User talk: Malik Shabazz. Is that what you are talking about, or a different matter? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kamel Tebaast: Removing clear copyvios is a listed exception to WP:3RR, Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). …, but WP:1RR is not explicit about exceptions. Of course, that only applies to the copyvio itself, not anything else. If you are confident that it is a significant problem, {{subst:copyvio|url=source}} is an available option, to blank without removing (and leave it to the official copyright investigation process). There are also some other templates linked from that one which cover varying scenarios. Whatever you choose to do, you are the one who may later have to justify your action(s) as reasonable. The Teahouse people said (or implied) it was ok is not likely to help you, especially when we have been dealing in hypotheticals. In complex cases or where it can't be quickly resolved, and you have a good faith belief that there is a copyright problem remaining, you should always list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. In cases where it has already been removed, and you are not listing at the problems page, you should use the {{copyvio-revdel}} tag to deal with the page history. You use any and all of the above advice strictly at your own risk. Murph9000 (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. User talk:Murph9000, you stated: "Of course, that only applies to the copyvio itself, not anything else." That is the basis for my entire question. As I read your response, an editor cannot make several reverts (in a 1RR area) just using the umbrella of COPYVIO. That editor can only revert the COPYVIO material. Is that what you meant? KamelTebaast 18:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kamel Tebaast: The only clearly stated exception is in WP:3RR, and my opinion (as just another editor) is that the exception only applies to the actual copyrighted content (with possibly some minimal margin around the edges to facilitate a clean excision). Removing other substantial good faith edits in addition to the copyvio seems like something best avoided to me, in general. This advice is provided "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed. If you are in doubt, tag it and flag it for the official investigation process. Murph9000 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Murph9000: Thank you! Not even a 24-hour warranty??? KamelTebaast 19:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kamel Tebaast: WP:NOT3RR states the exceptions to WP:3RR, which includes removing copyrighted material. Because WP:1RR say The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert", in my experience, that has usually included all the 3RR exceptions. Of course, that exception only applies to the copyrighted material itself.
If you are unsure about a possible copyright violation, tag it by using {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} (putting spaces between the urls to list them separately). If it is only part of the page (to the point that the page would survive without the copyrighted content), be sure to put the above template at the beginning of the copyrighted content and put {{Copyviocore bottom}} at the bottom.
If the section is an obvious copyright violation, you should remove it and ask an administrator to hide the revisions of the page that contained the copyright violation. This can also be done if the template above is used and the revisions containing the copyright violation are not hidden. (You can tell if a revision has been hidden in the normal way because, in the page history, the date will be grayed-out with a line through it. It won't be clickable.)
If the entire page is a possible copyright violation, then just put that first template at the very top to blank the entire page with a copyright investigation notice. (Be sure to also follow the instructions for filing listed on the template itself, too.)
If the entire page is a definite copyright violation, {{db-copyvio|url=sourceurl|url2=sourceurl2|url3=sourceurl3}} (Excess url parameters, such as |url2= and |url3=, can be removed.) to have an administrator look into deleting it. This should only be used if the page has no version without a copyright violation.
I apologize if this was a bit too much to understand. Please remember that this is my interpretation of 1RR and you should be very careful when dealing with it.
-- Gestrid (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Becoming an administrator

How to request for an admin ship ?Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rudra Protap Chackraborty, and welcome to the Teahouse! I can already tell you that you (and many of us here) have nowhere near enough experience to successfully become an administrator. The proper place to apply, when you have quite a lot more experience, is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. The process requires a question-and-answer phase and a "voting" phase that many of us here would likely fail. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Rudra Protap Chackraborty: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your willingness to help this encyclopedia. It looks like you have been editing here for less than a month and now have 421 edits. Successful candidates for administrator in recent years have many thousands of edits and several years of service. I advise against a request for administratorship at this time. If you want to become an administrator in the future, I recommend that you study our policies and guidelines, at least until you know the most important ones thoroughly. Focus for a year or two on writing excellent encyclopedia articles. Participate in "behind the scenes" administrative functions like Articles for Deletion or the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. There are many other examples that you can discover. Spend a few years contributing productively without disruption, and then consider asking to become an administrator. By then, you will know when the time is right. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay,thanks for telling me.Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

TIMOTUS speady delete

I just need some guidance. If my article does not meet the requirements, I'll accept that.

According to the founding documents of the U.S., which I cited, there is no higher authority in this country than the American people. My conclusion is, then, that the ultimate authority belongs to kings and emperors with a prerogative of perfection, limited by the Magna Carta, of course, otherwise there would be anarchy brought on by mob rule.

If that is a true statement, then the acronym is purely a personification of the history of this nation and explaining that the people are the emperor with their name as The Imperial Majesty Of The United States seems noteworthy and not a fabrication.

If that is outside of the Wiki guidelines, then I will not appeal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Nico van Niekerk MourningDemocracy

Mourningdemocracy (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

1) Read WP:No original research.
2) See step 1.
3) Repeat steps 1 and 2.
Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mourningdemocracy: Welcome to the Teahouse. Like you, I favor American democracy and its traditions. But this is a worldwide encyclopedia, not "Americanpedia". This project does not favor America over New Zealand or France or the United Kingdom or Spain or Canada or Australia. Their founding documents and traditions are just as valid here as ours, as are those of hundreds of other countries. Study the neutral point of view. If you can accept that and comply with it, you can edit here. If not, then there are many other websites where you can opinionate to your heart's content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How to add an image under 'fair use'

All the images I've added so far have been flagged as copyright issues. What do I need to assure Wiki they are under fair-use?March1310 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that all the images were added to Commons, rather than to the English Wikipedia. Commons is only for freely licenced images, not for fair-use, for reasons explained at Commons:Fair use. Fair-use images need to be loaded to English Wikipedia, but need to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content, meaning that the 10 criteria listed must be satisfied and justified for each use. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You will find further advice at Commons:User talk:March1310. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Password Problem

I forgot my password and I don't have an email-address, I can still talk to you guys because I have chosen for entering 365 days without entering password. What should I do? Is ther any possible ways to change back or get back my password?(I can't enter the question so I will just post it here, it's urgent, sorry:( lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 11:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi lysvincent, add your email address at Special:Preferences while you are still logged in, then you can recover your password. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
But it told me to enter the password one more time to identify again....and I still couldn't remember the password:(lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 09:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation of articles

I learned a lot from the introductory Modules that teach new users how to improve Wikipedia articles (make changes, add photos and links, ecc). Is there something similar for users who want to learn to add translations from other languages (in my case Italian to English, and in particular I would like to start with the Italian article called "Museo del tesoro della basilica di San Francesco")?

It's great to be part of this community. Thanks for your assistance!

TimeForLunch (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello TimeForLunch. Have a look at Special:ContentTranslation. I have not used this tool so I cannot offer much help or insight. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Greetings TimeForLunch. In addition to RobbieIanMorrison's answer above, a comprehensive translation resource page is here. It is written to learn about translation of foreign-language Wikipedia articles into English, Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both, RobbieIanMorrison and JoeHebda. I'll take a look at these resources. TimeForLunch (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Original Research and Military Notability

Hi, would you be able to offer some comments in relation to what I need to do to upgrade my article? As I understand it, the following are reasons why the article has been initially rejected: 1. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. The issue here is that a large part of Slade’s story is based on research I have undertaken at the IWM London, the National Archives UK, the Bergen-Belsen Memorial and the Marlene Dietrich Archive in Berlin. If I delete everything that is not related to my research there would not be a story here. If I publish a book or blog, can I then refer to that in the article? How do other articles overcome this particular issue? 2. See military notability guideline, which this person does not appear to meet. It is not Slade’s military notability which is the primary reason for the article. Slade was the Administrator of the Military Government at the Bergen-Belsen displaced persons’ camp, and was stationed at Bergen-Belsen from May 1945 to June 1946. Thanks! Ossura (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ossura. There's a lot to unpack here. Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources, but with some restrictions, such as you should not base an entire article on them. So a good place to start would be trying to find more secondary sources to supplement the primary ones you already have. Since Slades' principle claim to notability seems to be the fact that he was the head of the DP camp, looking through some good books on the camp itself may be able to provide additional information on the person. I would begin with the dozen or so sources on the Bergen-Belsen displaced persons camp main article, and see where that leads you.
Also, writing a blog based on your primary sources wouldn't actually add any additional credibility to them. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, with very few exceptions, and your interpretation of them would most likely constitute original research.
You may also want to check out guidance on writing a lead section, and also general guidance on article writing, since there seems to be some overall issues with structure and formatting. One big thing is that what you currently have in the lead seems to be better suited to an infobox. This is a little advanced for a first article. I'll head over and try to plug in the markup for it. You may also want to check out guidance on using quotes, since a lot of the current article seems to be taken up with lengthy quotes that are not necessarily always directly about the subject of the article, but at times, only concern him tangentially.
Hope this helps as a jumping off point. Remember, writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, so it's not a big red flag or anything that you didn't get approval on the first go around. Also, if you're interested in this sort of thing, and it seems you are, you may want to consider joining us over at WikiProject:MilitaryHistory, where we love getting waist deep in this kind of stuff. If you have any further questions or need clarification, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, it may be helpful to check out the articles on Charles Scherf or Herbert J. Ray for excellent examples of pieces written on contemporaries of Slades. TimothyJosephWood 12:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Help: Wiki Common Deletion

Hi, Less known history had uploaded a few images which came up on 'deletion-debate' recently. Though an invitation to discuss the issue was posted, it could not be attended to immediately upon seeing the friendly notice. Inexperience in posting reply in the right forum/place quickly and lack of time resulted in a delay. However, by the time Less Known History returned to discuss the matter (in just a few days), the pictures were deleted. A notice was made in red on the concerned Wikimedia Commons page saying: "This deletion debate is now closed". Kindly review the matter. Pl ref: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files uploaded by Lessknownhistory

Now, the images were genuine and did not involve any copy right violation so far as Less Known History's understanding goes:

1. The two photographs (bust) put up were photographs of the original photos in print owned by relatives of the "protagonist". It was with their full permission that these were photographed. They had no objection whatsoever to using them. Any evidence required can be furnished if need be. (Photo-credit can still be given where applicable though it may not imply copyright).

2. The photograph with Gandhi taken seemingly in 1937 is a public-interest photograph not covered by the British copy right Act etc (Section 171 (3) of the Copyright, designs and Patents Act 1988 pertaining to public-interest photographs in public domain). Again what was uploaded was only a photograph of that public-interest-photograph found on the internet. In any case there was no copyright notice or symbol on the photograph. Considering all these, it cannot be a violation though 70 years have not passed after clicking the photograph. [It is also very much possible that this is a case of 'copyright orphan"]. If any claim comes up, in spite of all this, it will surely be looked into..

3. The photographs of the pages of the printed article: These were from the pages of a publication which was not priced (not for sale). The implied copyrights were vested in a committee of which just two people or so are alive today. These people have no interest in the articles or the book and there is technically no reason to obtain their permission. Yet they were consulted before the photographs of the pages were uploaded and they wished to have no claim over any article or content on the publication. If necessary written permission can be obtained.

Kindly therefore re-upload these pictures or cause these to be uploaded by someone who knows the process. Also it is clearly undertaken that any claim raised by anyone shall be considered and honored by Less Known History ........ It is hoped that this note (clarification) is being put up in the right forum/ discussion page and the response to this will help Less Known History to be better informed. There is absolutely nothing dubious about these pictures as it was mentioned in a comment. However, this clarification could have been made earlier by Less Known History. Lessknownhistory (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really sure whats up with referring to yourself in the third person, but I would remind that WP policy does not allow shared accounts. At any rate, I've posted on the talks of the nominator and the deleting commons admin and pointed them to this thread to see if they can offer any insight. TimothyJosephWood 12:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Pinging @Lessknownhistory:. TimothyJosephWood 12:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
One may always request undeletion at COM:UDR if you think we are wrong. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:ZendyHealth

I have been asked for advice on Draft:ZendyHealth by its author, User:Cofeebk23. They say that they want to become a long-standing creator and editor in Wikipedia but need advice, and that they have tried to make the draft less promotional. My general advice to any new editor who wants to help Wikipedia is that, with more than five million articles, the best way to help the English Wikipedia is with the articles that we do have, rather than with one of the articles that we don’t yet have. Many new editors think that the only way to contribute to Wikipedia is to create a new article, but, as other regulars here say, that is the most difficult job in Wikipedia. (Also, some new editors want to push through one new article because they have a conflict of interest, but even many good-faith new editors think that creating articles is the only way to help.) However, can other editors comment on Draft:ZendyHealth? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

As a good-faith new editor, I really have to agree that we believe it is better to contribute on WP with new articles. Let me state my experience. On my first month here (May 22-June 22, 2016), I have created 6 articles (one of them have been nominated for deletion, but luckily, I've defended it and the article was not removed). I've learned from the AfD discussion some tips on creating articles. It was really my goal to create many articles. But as I go on, maybe because the vacation is over and I have to attend school, it became tiring that I cannot continue the drafts I have made. And as I go on, I have seen many articles that need grammar fix, article-linking, minor edits, and small contributions, and for me, It is not tiring as creating new articles and it is enjoyable too. By the way, Draft:ZendyHealth, for me, also appears as promotional. ~Manila's PogingJuan 16:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean that it is better for new editors to contribute new articles, or do you mean that you previously, as a new editor, thought that your best way to contribute was to provide new articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The latter one, Robert McClenon, that I, previously, as a new editor, thought that my best way to contribute was to provide new articles, that have lead me to provide six (6) new articles on my first month as a Wikipedian. ~Manila's PogingJuan 06:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that many new editors have that idea. At least you, creating six articles, actually were serving the interests of the encyclopedia, while some new editors come only to push one article with which they have an association into the encyclopedia. Thank you for your contributions, and for seeing that there are other ways to help Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Nathan David Lamardo Curtis – Request for explanation

Can someone please explain to User:Nathancurtis1 why their autobiography, Draft:Nathan David Lamardo Curtis, is being declined? They have sought informal mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard and are now seeking formal mediation at Requests for Mediation, and they say that they aren’t trying to “advertise”, only to publish their biography. My comments are, first, that Wikipedia discourages its use to publish autobiographies, and, second, the draft consists of peacock language, and, third, they haven’t established biographical notability. However, it doesn’t appear that I am accomplishing anything. Can other editors try to explain? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the editor says, in the third person, that the person they are trying to help is an internationally known poet and lyricist. (I didn't find a poet Nathan Curtis by Google, but that isn't the point.) Either the person is himself, in which case my comments on autobiographies apply, or the editor is using the name of another person. User:Nathancurtis - Are you Nate Curtis? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems an awful lot like the individual has been provided with everything necessary to understand why their draft has been declined, including being directed here at least twice. Further, unless there's a good reason why the DRN request apparently includes links to balloon articles, I am going to probably lose about three points off my AGF meter. I...am dumb and I have never used mediation. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
A Google search for "nathan curtis poet" shows that this person exists but yields no evidence that he is notable or that he meets our notability guideline for creative professionals. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I worded making an autobiography wrong, I'm just trying to make a Wikipedia page for him. If you Google Nathan Curtis Bahamas you will find plenty of notability about him. Nathancurtis1 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Nathancurtis1: if you can find reliable independent sources which discuss Nathan Curtis, you should cite some in the draft. Just asserting that they exist won't convince anyone. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Nathancurtis1 - If you are not Nathan Curtis, you need to change your user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I did cite them in the draft and they keep saying it's not notable enough. I Can't even make a new draft, it's locked. I will change my username.Nathancurtis1 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
What do I need to do to correctly cite a source? Nathancurtis1 (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
How do I change the username, it doesn't give me that option? Nathancurtis1 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
See WP:UNC. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

move something to talk page?

I added something to a page and got a message that said it should be moved to the talk page? How do I do this? Thanks Freshwaterconch3 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You added {{WP Cuba}} to an article. If you look at Template:WP Cuba it says "The project banner {{WikiProject Cuba|class= |importance= }} may be placed on the talk pages of any Cuba related articles" with the word "talk" in bold. You should therefore have added it to Talk:Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven rather than to Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven. In removing your erroneous addition to the article, you also removed an existing category link from the article; I have added it back for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation requirements

On the article M5000, a new editor has added, text much of which is uncited and appears to be WP:OR. A month was allowed for the issues to be addressed with a cite needed hatnote added, but nothing was forthcoming. I have tried to counsel both on the article's talk page and at User talk:Unclepips, but to no avail, they still insist on running with the 'I have the correct information' line. Can someone run an eye over this, or point me to an appropriate forum to seek an independent opinion? Est8286 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Est8286, I have removed the unsourced content, fixed the formatting and addressed the issue on the article talk page. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass removal of spam or dead links?

Hi :) Earlier I found a weird link to mapyourinfo.com on the Nitrary page and removed it. Strangely, sometimes this domain resolves to a parking page for me, and sometimes it is a redirect loop that redirects me through several spammy clickfarm-looking sites.

I found the external link search page and it seems that a few other articles link to it. Doesn't seem like they were added maliciously, so maybe the old mapyourinfo has expired. I can remove them, but I'm wondering if there's a blacklist or something that this domain should be put on so a bot can come clean them up automatically?

Thanks for your help. Dandelany (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I did cite them in the draft and they keep saying it's not notable enough. I Can't even make a new draft, it's locked.Nathancurtis1 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nathancurtis1: Wrong post. Dandelany (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Change page name

I have updated the content on a page regarding a corporate rebrand, and would like to also update the page title to avoid confusion over the company name.

The page name needs to be changed from Hutchison Port Holdings to Hutchison Ports

It is my understanding that a Wikipedia administrator needs to do this. If there is a way for me to do this myself please advise. We do not want two pages, one with the old name and one with the new as they are too similar and it will cause confusion. Thanks, 194.168.228.253 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. The old page will now redirect to the new one. You also may want to review guidance on conflict of interest, since you appear to be acting as an official representative of the company. TimothyJosephWood 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, The conflict of interest is really quite awkward. I see you have removed the reference to WHAM, which is fine, but how do we get rid of the huge Conflict of Interest message it doesn't look very professional? As a side note WHAM and Hutchison Ports are all part of the CK Hutchison Holdings family, so really there is no conflict of interest at all :) Many thanks Emma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.228.253 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please can you log in before editing. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no hard requirement to edit under a registered name. I have removed two of the cleanup tags from the article. There does not currently appear to be any promotional language present. TimothyJosephWood 17:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's my understanding that if you are a registered user you are required to log in and not edit using the ip address. Is that incorrect? Theroadislong (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
WP policy forbids using multiple accounts or editing while logged out in order to circumvent policy and guidelines, or gain some other illegitimate advantage. But having multiple accounts or editing while logged out in-and-of-themselves are not violations of policy. There is no compulsion (although there are incentives) to log in, and an individual may choose not to log in or abandon a registered account all together. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
That's great so we are encouraging users with a conflict of interest to log out and edit? Theroadislong (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope. We're assuming good faith and not expecting people to act nefariously in absence of direct evidence that they are. --Jayron32 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Not encouraging anything. They have an obvious COI, which is why they were pointed to the relevant policy. TimothyJosephWood 20:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Translating a page from a different countries Wikipedia site

Hi,

How do I go about getting the below link translated into English from Dutch and posted in the English Wikipedia site?

nl:Wearwell

Thanks

WLaughton —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@WLaughton:, I have created an English stub at Wearwell and included a tag indicating that additional content can be translated from the more developed Dutch article. TimothyJosephWood 19:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Greetings @WLaughton:. There is a comprehensive translation resource page is here. It is written to learn about translation of foreign-language Wikipedia articles into English. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How can someone's resume or carreer be in Wikipedia?

Hi I am a software engineer with tech company and a client is asking me to post his profile on Wikipedia. What are the guidelines and restrictions on this type of pages? Alexgda (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Alexgda, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a web hosting or social networking service and any such content is not allowed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Finnusertop, I know that content is sensible and that's why I'm asking.

Although it can't be completely prohibited cause there are resumes and carreers of high profile people like politicians and important business men. Alexgda (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alexgda. We have no proper write-ups on people that would be precisely characterized as résumés. Profiles is not quite as defined a term but no, not profiles either. I emphasize "proper" because at any given time there are always many examples one can find, on a site with over 5 million pages, of some that do not meet our policies and need to be fundamentally rewritten or deleted but just haven't been examined yet.

What we have are encyclopedia articles. The distinction drawn is not at all just semantic. An encyclopedia is a very specific type of reference work—a tertiary source, synthesizing existing mainstream information on notable topics of knowledge, in a neutral manner, by mining previously published material published by people unconnected to the topic—that would never host actual "résumés".

Some of the policies and guidelines that keep this place an encyclopedia, and not something else are: Notability – a requirement that to warrant an article, the topic be the subject of significant publication out in the world in reliable, secondary sources, unconnected to the topic; Verifiability – a requirement that all the content in an article be subject to corroboration in previously published, reliable sources; Neutral Point of View – a requirement that articles be written in a neutral manner (not just in tone but what they do and do not cover), giving due weight to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources; and No Original Research – a requirement that articles must not contain original research; that is material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist, including any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Because of these requirements, we strongly frown on anyone writing about a topic in which they have a conflict in interest, a tendency toward bias because of how they are situated in relation to the topic, that makes it very difficult to write in a neutral and balanced manner. For example, people attempting to write about themselves, their family, friends, clients, employers, or anyone they have a financial or personal relationship with. I hope that makes matters a bit clearer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! The page Wikipedia:Featured articles contents section contains Biographies in sub-topics according to the larger topics. These are great examples of how to write a bio about notable people. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing a Company Page?

Hi there! I work for a company called WebPT. I checked out the Wiki page for the company and noticed that a lot of the information is out of date. My question is, am I allowed to go make edits on the page and add in history items and awards?

I don't want to do anything that is against guidelines.

Thanks!

Xstjimmy25 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The best way to do this is to use Template:Request edit by pasting {{request edit}} in a new section on the article's talk page and explaining in as much detail as possible what changes you would like make, and providing sources for those changes. It may take a while for your request to be answered, because there is usually a backlog, but as long as your request is specific and sources, it should get done. TimothyJosephWood 19:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Xstjimmy25:. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
That is great to hear @Timothyjosephwood:! Thank you so much for the info and I will follow the instructions outlined in the Request Edit. Thank you again for the help!

Xstjimmy25 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How to fix missing article title in references?

I made changes to topic "Caste" on Oct 6, 2016. When I cited the reference, I forgot the article title "The persistence of caste in indian politics." Please give me step-by-step instructions on how to fix this.Sl.gemini (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sl.gemini. Just add |title=name of title  anywhere in the cite journal templates you used, so long as you add it after one of the existing pipes. The cite templates do not require their parameters to be in any particular order. They function the same regardless of the order. However, you used the same reference more than once and duplicated the template when you did so, so that the same citation has two entries in the references section. This is not the ideal way to do this. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once.

Here, you could just change the first use of the template to a named form – replace the beginning of the first use, the <ref> part of the markup, with <ref name="intuitive name based on the citation">. For example, <ref name="Ronojoy">, i.e., the last name of the source's author, which is often a good candidate for a ref name choice. For the next use of the same citation, replace the entire citation markup with <ref name="Ronojoy" />. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

change user name?

I'm a new user, and made a mistake with my name. How do I change? Mirotvorets395 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Mirotvorets395: - see WP:RENAME. Dandelany (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Mirotvorets395. Basically, you have three choices:
  • Create a new account with the username you wanted.
  • If you have verified an email address in your preferences, you can request a rename using this form.
  • If you have not attached an email address to your account and you do not want to, you can go here to check if the username you want is already taken. If it's not taken, you can request a rename here. If the username is taken, you can ask if you can usurp the username here.
It's very important that you follow the instructions carefully, especially with the two methods listed in the last point that don't require an email address. If you don't that will likely delay the processing of your request.
If you do choose to use the method that requires an email address, you will receive an email when the rename process has been started. Depending on different factors, the rename process may take some time no matter what method you request it with. If you suddenly cannot login to your account (or are suddenly logged out), it likely means that the rename process has been started or has finished. Since I'm not one of the people that handles renames, I don't know all the ins and outs of the process. Perhaps K6ka could help you more, so I'm bringing him into this conversation.
-- Gestrid (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Page created contains - promotes the subject in a subjective manner - John M. Keller

Hi

I've created a page, but have gotten the following flag "promotes the subject in a subjective manner" Webpage John M. Keller

Kindly requesting advice on amending the post to remove the flag.

Thank you

Natasha.Alexander (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natasha.Alexander, Wikipedia is not the place to post resumes/CVs, like your additions to John M. Keller, but Encyclopaedia articles.
What we want to include is what reliable, independent sources have written about Keller, not what he, his employers, students or anyone else connected to him, has said, We do not want a long list of journal articles, honors and awards, but we do want everything to be verifiable by citations to reliable, independent sources. - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your response, it's appreciated.

I created the page for a school assignment, which required the following information for Professor Keller:

a. Personal life/biography – must include a picture b. Education and academic career c. Research d. Publications and/or books e. References

I'll review the page and amend accordingly. Thank you again Natasha.Alexander (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

With respect, Natasha.Alexander, and at the risk of stating the obvious: you are editing Wikipedia and are subject to the Wikipedia rules. Your assignment instructs you to make a wiki page that includes an exhaustive list of publications, while an experienced editor (Arjayay) has explicitly asked you *not* to do so. I recommend that you follow the editor's advice and discuss the matter with whomever gave you the assignment, if you don't want to risk getting a ban/block. Dandelany (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Concur, we seem to be suffering a rash of these assignments - set by people who do not understand our aims, principles, rules or guidelines. As stated in the lead of Wikipedia:Student assignments
"Student assignments can help improve Wikipedia, but they can also cause the encyclopedia more harm than good when not directed properly"
"Instructors are expected to have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia and should be willing to help address core content policy violations. Each assignment should have a course page .... Instructors should be identified at the course page, and their user page should provide contact details or enabled email."
There is also a very readable essay at Wikipedia:Assignments,
Natasha.Alexander, I realise that telling your lecturer/teacher/instructor that they are not doing things correctly, may put you in a difficult position. Please explain that you have been told to ask your instructor; to read and follow Wikipedia:Student assignments, set up a course page (including contact details) and ensure that all their students' user pages link to that course page. If they have any questions these should be asked at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

How should I report a vandal

There is a user who has been using multiple accounts (sockpuppets) to remove a section in one specific article "DVBBS". I have no evidence that this is sockpuppetry but I had assumed that multiple accounts removing one specific section in that one specific article should be enough as evidence. I'm not sure about that. The section is sourced and the information appears to be correct but the person removing it claims that the source and information are inaccurate. I reported that one account to the admins few days ago but was declined because I didn't warn them properly. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You can't make a grossly libellous allegation like "two girls were found unconscious in their dressing container" sourced only to the Daily Mail, which is a paper notorious for making up stories. The people removing this allegation are entirely in the right. 79.67.83.166 (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for clarifying it. I only assumed that the user removing it was a vandal because of his/her history of removing contents from articles but still it could be sockpuppetry though because of the newly created accounts removing the same content on the same article. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Do-it-yourself reference

Please have a look at Talk:Worldwide energy supply - it is not very long. It is a dispute with The Banner about references for verification. I resolved the problem and removed the maintenance template. The Banner admits that references are technically correct but finds them not good enough and reverted the removal. He calls Reference 3 a do-it-yourself reference and wants me to replace it by about 40 references, one per country. That would make verification not much easier. Please help me to end this dispute. Rwbest (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please follow the procedure in Dispute resolution, Rwbest. This is not the right place to bring content disputes, and your appeal looks a bit like forum shopping, which is not allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

re Sources of references

Good Day Everyone!!! Greetings of Peace! I am just wondering if I could use a captured "image" (at Wayback machine archive.org) of an official webpage. Similarly, can I use a youtube video published by a TV network as a reference? Thanks Danryan132 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

HEy Danryan132. The short answer is, it depends. Archive.org is regularly used on WP to avoid link rot, and so is acceptable. Images of text, such as historical documents, may also be used, but should be done in a way that conforms to policy regarding the use of primary sources.
Links to YouTube must be careful to not direct readers to copyrighted content, as this can be a form of copyright infringement. So long as they are a primary source (see link above), they must also follow the same rules, such as any content should not be interpreted at all by the editor, but should represent what is clear, obvious, and indisputable in the video, which is a very high standard. TimothyJosephWood 12:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_531&oldid=745181832"