Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a 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.

Help Wikipedia

Some editor removed some link from a page

Some editor had removed many reliable source link from a page , in spite of repeated request in Talk page the same not added. Provided some new links also , but neither the same added or given any response. Can any one help ? Ruproy1972 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Where do I begin to write my article?

I just signed on, and I want to create an article about a businessman, but don't know where to beginJudyalmer (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've put a few links on your user talk page, including Your first article. You'll also need to know about notability, reliable sources, and referencing. Happy editing! - David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Company pages?

Hi! My company page has a bunch of flags saying we need to cite external sources for our information. Well, the number of employees, size of company, services, etc. is obviously all internal information. Is there a category for company pages to avoid this? Surely other companies have this same issue, but are not flagged. Thanks! Write Ed (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Write Ed, and welcome to the Teahouse. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires that information such as this be supported by a reference to a reliable source. My suggestion would be that any information that is purely internal to a company should not be included in a Wikipedia article, because it can't be verified by anyone other than company employees. If there are other company articles that this applies to, then the same policy should apply there, but as you can imagine, with 4,941,791 articles currently on the English-language Wikipedia, this is quite difficult to keep on top of. I would also encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which strongly discourages users from editing articles about their employers. A better approach is to post suggestions and requests on the article's talk page, and leave it to editors who don't have a conflict of interest to make changes to the actual article text. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

moving article from draft to approved

The article I wrote is listed as a draft. Not visible in search. Am I right that i need to do 10 edits before I can move it out of draft to full status. Does a minor edit count as an edit? Feel like I have done 10 already but might be wrong.

Sorry if you've answered this before but confused. ` Jebblz (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if you have done the requisite number of edits to be WP:autoconfirmed, but I would recommend that you go through the WP:AFC process and submit your draft for review. If you move it yourself and people decide it isn't suitable as an article it is liable to be deleted. As a draft for AFC review, if there are shortcomings you will be given advice for improving it, but (apart from absolute no-nos like copyright violations) it will stay there to allow you to improve it. At first glance it looks OK to me, but I'm not an expert AFC reviewer. I've added a tag to make it easy for you to submit it for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing Dr Gulati's Article on Wikipedia

Dear Teahouse,

Dr Ashok Gulati has an article on wikipedia but it is not complete.We want to edit it in an organised way.We have tried to do it earlier but it was deleted from your side saying that we cannot upload any new information without reference.We were suggested if at all we would like to upload the information again.So I am writing to you.We have the relevant codes and references for his work.We also have the login id and password for the article.I want to seek your suggestion as to how should we go about it.Can we do it through the user id or shall we send the information to you, if yes, then how?.Thanks,Priti Rajput (203.92.34.114 (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

203.92.34.114, welcome to the Teahouse. Just to clarify, Wikipedia articles do not have login IDs and passwords; rather, user accounts do, and with an account you can edit articles. You posted this message whilst logged out (hence why it appears with your IP address). Could you let us know what your account name is? It also sounds like you might be sharing an account, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia (see the explanation at WP:NOSHARING). Can I also ask whether you have a personal connection with Ashok Gulati, which might result in a conflict of interest? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect article "subtitle"

I'm working on the pages about Ursula K. Le Guin and her works, most recently on the three-book series Annals of the Western Shore. In the mobile view, but not in the desktop view, that page has the "subtitle" "novel by Ursula K. Le Guin". That's not correct, and her other series pages, such as Earthsea, have accurate subtitles.

I've been adjusting categories, including creating Category:Series by Ursula K. Le Guin and adding it to the page. I can't see anything in the wikicode that would produce that line. How are these subtitles generated, and how can I get this one to be correct? --Thnidu (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu. Mobile subtitles are copied from Wikidata. In the desktop version, click "Wikidata item" in the left pane. The Wikidata description for Earthsea is longer than I think is preferred. "Book series by Ursula K. Le Guin" should be sufficient for Annals of the Western Shore. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Google Capital Logo

Hi All, I am trying to find a Google Capital Logo. I did upload a version of the logo, but it's now going to be deleted due to copyright... (Sorry new to this!). Can anyone help me at all? - Blitzernnn (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blitzernnn. Some logos can be uploaded to the Commons – which is only for (suitably) free images – because they only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text and therefore do not meet threshold of originality, but I don't think this logo qualifies. However, a low resolution version of that image can be uploaded here and used in the article (and nowhere else) under a claim of fair use, if properly annotated on the image's description page with a copyright license and fair use rationale. For an example you might emulate, see File:Ohio Valley Conference logo.png. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Fuhghettaboutit. Many thanks for confirming that for me. Say for an example i found a logo for it what would i have to do to be able to not get it deleted? Kind Regards - Blitzernnn (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blitzernnn: Well I thought the one you uploaded already to the commons would be the one you would use, but upon a local upload, to Wikipedia, under a claim of fair use as described above. That should avoid deletion. Maybe you aren't clear on the difference. The Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded the logo, is a separate website. It is also run by the Wikimedia foundation but it is not the same as Wikipedia. The Commons is only for suitably free images and no fair use images can be uploaded there. For that reason, the image will properly be deleted, from there; I am suggesting you upload it here, not there. Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Where would i upload it then? To Wikimedia Commons? - Blitzernnn (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's where you already uploaded it, and where it is (properly) up for deletion. The Commons does not allow fair use images. Wikipedia does. You would upload it to Wikipedia, this site, not the Commons. I linked above our upload wizard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Complaint

Where does one go to make a formal complaint about an administrator's behaviour? Thanks, --Rubbish computer 23:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: I'm sorry you've had to feel this way about an administrator. The first thing to do regarding any conduct dispute is to talk with the other user on their talk page. It can be tricky, but always remember to be civil and treat the other with respect, even if you feel they are not treating you the same way. Explain to them what you think they did wrong, and listen to their answer with an open mind. Always remember to assume good faith—most of us are trying to make the encyclopedia better, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you still feel there is an issue with the other user, then you may choose to follow through with the dispute resolution process (see § Resolving user conduct disputes). The first step of a user conduct dispute (following communication with the other user, naturally) is generally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI"). If this fails to achieve a consensus on the way forward, or if the dispute concerns private information such as email, the final avenue of dispute resolution for conduct disputes is a request for arbitration. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks. --Rubbish computer 23:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that if you complain at WP:ANI about an administrator's conduct, your behaviour as well as his will be under scrutiny, and in an extreme case it could be you that suffers boomerang sanctions. Of course if you are confident that you haven't contributed to the problem, you need have no fears in this regard. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New editor, tips on adding to an existing page

Hello World,

I'd like to make additions to several pages and I would like to know the best way of approaching page creators and editors and watchers in a respectful way. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

DouglasDouglas Williamson 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Earth87 (talk • contribs)

Location of the talk page tab

Hello Douglas Earth87, welcome to the Teahouse! The best way to suggest improvements and discuss with editors interested in a particular page is on that page's talk page, which is located in a tab at the top of each page (see image). Once there, click the tab that says "New section" to add a new topic of discussion to the talk page. Alternatively, if there is one particular editor that you want to talk to, you can contact them on their "user talk page", which can be found by searching for "User talk:username".

Our talk page guidelines has some good information over how you should conduct yourself on talk pages. The biggest things to remember are to refrain from edit warring, which means repeatedly undoing another user's edits in favor of your preferred version of a page, and to maintain an atmosphere of civility, which means to treat others with respect, even when and especially when you disagree. Wikipedia encourages you to be bold while editing, so don't be afraid to make big changes, but don't be alarmed if your additions get removed at first. If this happens, that's when you want to discuss it with the other editor on the talk page. I would also give Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot a read—it has some good tips on, well, how to stay cool when the editing gets hot.

I know this is a lot to read, and I apologize if I overwhelmed you. If you take nothing else away, take this: we're all here to build the best encyclopedia possible, but we sometimes disagree on how to do that; it can be easy to take comments that disagree with you personally, but remember that the goal is improving the encyclopedia, not to attack you or other editors. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse again! Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources tag from past dates for new articles

Hi, I came across this - Ashtapailu and Yūki Tabata. Both of these articles have been created recently but have a "primary sources tag (past dates)". How is that possible I am unable to understand ? Looks suspicious when looking at the page history. Just a thought, is it purposely done by author while creating the article, then too author should put the current dates (of post article creation). Please clarify...I come across these often. Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peppy Paneer. Yes, it does look rather curious, doesn't it? Without asking the page creators themselves, I'm not exactly sure either. It might very well be that the creator is aware of those issues to the page and intentionally adds those tags to inform other editors of those issues. But indeed, the "date" parameters do say they were added some time in the past, before the pages were ever created—Yūki Tabata says "August 2012", so it could be that that was a typo. Another possibility might be that the pages are recreations of formerly deleted pages, and the page creator is copy-pasting the former deleted page with the maintenance tags still on it. In any case, Ashtapailu has been deleted and protected against creation, and Yūki Tabata appears to me to might satisfy section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion (no indication of importance). Mz7 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC), revised 22:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, I'm not sure about A7 for Yūki Tabata. While it only consists only of an infobox, it does mention that Tabata was the creator of Black Clover, a notable manga, and it could be argued that that is a claim of significance. I would feel more comfortable if we opened a deletion discussion for that article if notability is in question, but I'm digressing now from the point of the original question. Mz7 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have fairly high confidence based on the first edit and seeing the lack of deleted contributions, that this happened because the creator (smartly) went to another article on a comic book creator to crib the specific infobox, but then copied {{BLP sources|date=August 2012}} placed above it without a space, which easily could be taken for part of the template code.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Aha! That makes sense. Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Mz7: & @Fuhghettaboutit: Yes these could be the several possibilities. Thank you both of you for clarifying. Peppy Paneer (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this

What is the teahouse?Icy monster gun (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Icy monster gun, and welcome to the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly place for new editors to ask questions about Wikipedia so that more experienced editors can answer them. --Rubbish computer 19:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Icy monster gun:, welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse!This is a place where the community, admins and editors hangout. If you have any doubts about editing or want to learn about scripts, tools or anything, these kind gentle men will help you out! Komchi^✉_☆ 17:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles continued to get deleted regardless of citation amounts

Hi, I am working on two Articles for Creation that keep getting deleted. I have added so many references and both of the people are highly notable academics and business leaders. I can't figure out how to make them more "notable" when I correctly reference that their work has been cited over 7,000 times and published in major scientific journals. I list all of their positions (held in highly esteemed universities) and list their current positions. Can anyone help me? This process is so frustrating because clearly the information I have about them is correct! Draft:David V Schaffer and Draft:David H Kirn. Eloisekirn (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Eloisekirn:. At Wikipedia, neither merely being "correct" nor existing are sufficient for a stand alone article on a subject. The subject must have been the subject of more than passing discussion by reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight that are not closely connected with the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

and note that citing a paper is a very different activity from writing at length about the author of the paper, Eloisekirn. The trouble is that even if 7000 people had cited a single paper by somebody (I know that's not what you're saying, it's just for the sake of example), the only thing that that would allow an article about the author to say is that they wrote that paper; nothing else - not even that it got 7000 citations (that would be WP:original research). A Wikipedia article needs to be based nearly 100% on material that has been written about the subject of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Should citations come at the end of sentences only?

On a lot of articles, I see citations in the middle of sentences rather than following the period of the sentence. This is often used when listing multiple facts from different sources like Tom eats only pieref, Bob eats only cake"ref", and Jane eats only cobbler"ref".

I would think that, though putting the citations directly on the cited facts makes finding sources more easy, all three citations should be at the end of the sentence rather than inside the sentence tagging specific facts. Surgenski (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In my experience it depends on the material. If one ref states a fact that is not contained within the others (or may even be contradictory), it can be very misleading (perhaps even inappropriate attribution) to have them all listed at the end. It is perfectly acceptable, of course, if all three state the same fact and you are simply adding multiple sources for the reader's benefit.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

An example I came across was a sentence stating how two sides of a debate viewed a given argument. It was a very controversial topic and an active article. Editors were constantly checking references. Since the two parts of the sentence were saying very different things, the references had to be clearly placed to make it clear each of the two controversial statements was supported. Placing both at the end led to some reversions, if I recall. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Citations can certainly be placed mid-sentence. It looks best, if you ask me, if they follow punctuation marks such as commas. See MOS:PUNCTFOOT for some examples of this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Improving notability

Hi, my article has been rejected thrice and I was looking for some help. I think I have resolved the coatracking claims, but I'm struggling with improving notability. I've added a 'contributors' section to show how it is notable compared to other journals but don't know what more I can do. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Also, would the journal's blog or ISSUU online page help or would that be considered unreliable? Thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Praznath Amiya96 (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You could add the publisher and where it was published, both of which I found just by Googling. I would remove the "Publications" section just because it adds nothing to the article that can't be said in one sentence. That section makes it look like you are just trying to take up space on the page. You could also add some other information about the publisher. You could also look for sources that use this journal as a reference to find more relevant information.

There's not a lot available about this journal, and I do not know if it is notable -- but there is more information available to you through simple searching than you have included in your article. If you do not mind, I could make some edits to your draft. Surgenski (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "there is not a lot available about the journal" is pretty much the definition of content that does not merit a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

...or, of course, that it predates the internet.)Jabberwoch 19:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I've taken the advice into account and removed the 'Publications' sub-section and added in information about the publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiya96 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieving article from Speedy Deletion

Please help me with... retrieving my speedy deletion page title Elle(blogger) I will work on it to correct the mistakes. Can you help me. thank you so much in advance. There wasn't notice from the Anthony Bradbury who didn't considered such thing can be edit and be filled up for the missing purposes. Thanks. Help me retrieve to make it right. DDAENT (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 DoneI think you are helped out by Onel5969 - Komchi^✉_☆ 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I get permission to post album covers?

I have posted three articles for the EPs of the band Big Big Train, and supplied art work from the official BBT website. I have obtained permission from Greg Spawton of BBT via Facebook to post the artwork, but as it doesn't have the necessary Commons license, I see that the artwork has been removed.

How do I go about getting permission that is acceptable to Wikipedia, or can that only be done by the band or original artist? Will an email from Greg suffice?

Faroutsider (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Faroutsider. Would any band in its right mind (collectively) release its album cover art under a Creative Commons license allowing anyone, anywhere, at any time, to reuse its artwork for any purpose, including selling T-shirts and posters without permission, and without sharing a penny of the profits? I think not. That makes no sense at all. So, forget about a Creative Commons license in this case.

Instead, if the albums in question are notable, we can use a low resolution version of the cover art under the legal doctrine of Fair use without interfering with the copyright. This grants no rights to re-use the image in any way, and its use here is limited to that one article. See WP:NFCI for complete details. Permission of the band is not required in such a case. Just do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This was done in 2010 for File:Big Big Train From The River To The Sea.jpg and File:Big Big Train The Infant Hercules.jpg so you should be able to use a similar format - Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your Opinion/Vote

Hi, Im in the process of usurpating the username Frigid and am looking for an arctic themed signature. I have decided on one type but which order of colors looks best. Please vote 1 or 2. If you have any cool suggestions too, I would like to hear them. Im posting this in a few places and am going to choose the one with the most votes. Thanks. Here they are.

1.Frigid^(Talk)

2.Frigid^(Talk)

Thanks again, Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikipenguin 8. I see that you have only been an editor here for a couple of days. Therefore, you may not yet be aware of the essay WP:FORUMSHOP. In brief, "forumshopping" is a type of behavior where an editor asks the same question in several different locations. This is highly discouraged. There is an expectation that new editors will focus on improving encyclopedia articles, not asking for votes on the style of their signatures. When I made a signature, I just did it. That is my personal opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the forum shopping policy applies here. That's about trying to shop for opinions in regard to Wikipedia:Consensus, and consensus isn't required to change one's own signature. Still, I agree that you don't need to ask about this, Wikipenguin8 - just go ahead and change it, if that's what you want. Personally, I'm not a fan of signatures that don't match usernames, but I don't think there's a rule against it. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Cullen328, I wont this again. Im glad I got an answer though and didnt choose myself because one person said that they would be able to read my username better if it was the second one because of the contrast and thats what I was looking for so I think Ill choose that. I was up towards midnight last night editing and I just needed a quick break so I worked on my signature so that wasnt all I was doing. And Cordless Larry dont worry, I hate non-matching signatures too. Im in the process of changing my username to Frigid. Ill keep all this stuff in mind, sorry I was a disruption. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WP: policy on minor edits that achieve little

There are so many little policies and I've not been in often to remember where they all are. Saw something that said not to do an edit that was so minor that nothing was achieved by it.

[[1]] changed a lot of references that had already been bot altered, to change the refs from trove.nla to the shorter nla.gov with different / in the url

each link, while being noted by trove as the cite ref for the article, would link back to the article with the full url trove.nla

whereas, they could have been all expanded using the given trove wiki cite refs to show better detail on each ref entry.

so where's that entry on minor edits to not do and should i suggest that this wasn't a needed thing to do ? Dave Rave (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Where did you read that one should not "do an edit that was so minor that nothing was achieved by it"? Wikipedia:WikiGnomes commonly do that. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dave Rave. Please remember to assume good faith. If you want to know why the editor did that, go to his talk page and ask him. He mentioned something about "persistent links" in his edit summary. Perhaps he knows something you haven't considered. Thst would not surprise me, as he has been here longer than you and I put together. John from Idegon (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I had no prob with the edits, trove's cite is the shortened version, but when used it goes to the url that was edited away from. and if you're going to use the short persistent link from the trove cite, why not use the trove cite from the same.

THe wiki help was sort of "don't do an edit that does nothing" like changeing a '100 ft' to a '100 &nbsp: ft' for the hell of it, though that example isn't the best, but for the display of the page it makes no difference. Dave Rave (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

the user used AWB to make under the code changes that make no change to the rendered page

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser rules of use #4 Dave Rave (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible for Wiki Users to see a declined article submission?

Hello,

I'm writing today to know if it is possible for a wiki user to see a declined article submission?

I submitted an article about 1 month ago concerning the an artist/photographer, Adam Marelli. Unfortunately, the article was declined. However, one month later the subject, Adam Marelli, was contacted on his public Facebook page by someone claiming to have seen his recently declined article submission. Said person was offering their services to help get a successful resubmission.

Is it possible said person soliciting services was a wiki editor that reviewed the original submission? Has anything like this ever happened before? Is there something we can do to prevent this from occurring again in the future - specifically on our resubmission of the article?

Thank you in advance. Lifegami (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. AfC submission drafts whether never submitted, pending review or declined are visible to anyone, although typically less easy to find in search engines. This allows other users to pitch in and help out. However, this has led to issues and scams such as what happened in your case. There are banners about this on various pages related to wp:Articles for Creation. In short, bona fide AfC reviewers will never ask for money to help with reviews. Fellow editors acting properly will communicate with you on Wikipedia (for example on your talk page or the draft's talk page). If you wouldn't mind, please inform the project of this incident at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk so it can be addressed. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lifegami (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lifegami. Yes, anyone who is interested can read Draft:Adam Marelli (Fine Art Photographer) at any time. Although draft articles may not show up high on search engine results, they are available to any internet user who is motivated to find them and read them. This is a collaborative open source project, so it is not possible to prevent people from offering to help. If the editor in question was asking for money, please be aware that our Terms of Service do not forbid paid editing but they require that paid editing be openly disclosed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It has already been discussed at the AFC help desk, on this thread. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Happy Squirrel and Cullen for you prompt response.

I was not aware of this detail. It has been duly noted.

I will certainly report this case.

Thanks again.

Lifegami (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The account bearing the same user name as the person identified as the solicitor has been indefinitely blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Tamsin Kendra was doing this all over the place, including Facebook and by email, in some (if not all) cases pretending to be me (hence the notices on my user and talk pages). I have reported it a couple of times at WP:COIN.--ukexpat (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion questions and concerns

Hello Denniss. Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Template:Danny Dean Phillips. (TW)

• Your first article

I was under the assumption that I could go with step 7 and that I could start a new article in my Sandbox first as a draft article. My question is should I create the article in word before using my user space to avoid deletion, or is there something I missed? I don't plan on creating my article in one day, I want to take my time and do a good job, then have someone like your review it for me. I was technically going to enter my citations and reliable sources at the end.

The notability guidelines I followed but I am taking my time and did not enter my references and reliable sources I only had one sentence up. I am not creating a page on myself or group either. I picked my subject randomly for a school project over summer break. From all the research and references I have gathered my subject is very notable and worthy of a page and has been since the early 80's.

I suppose I should of went the template userspace draft route, any suggestions on an easy way to draft an article first, then review, then go live after its perfect?

CyrStJames (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi CyrStJames. Somehow you created the draft in the template namespace rather than as a user space draft, and from there it was deleted under WP:G11. I have restored and userfied it to User:CyrStJames/Danny Phillips. Although even in your user space it still can be deleted, we give much more leeway there for you to take your time to work on it. It was obviously not your intent to create a template, but that's what occurred. Since article draft content like this had no place as the content of a template, its deletion resulted. You can work on it now and don't worry about the mistake. We do not punish good faith errors.

However, I do have one serious concern. The first line is very short, so I would not classify it quite yet as blatant copyright infringement, but it does appear to start off in almost identical manner to existing write-ups on him, at his website/linkedin page and other places. Please understand that you must not copy and paste previously written content (nor take copyrighted content and perform surface modification). As we often tell people: "You may use external websites [or other sources] as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the assistance. The first sentence is where I stopped last night. I started reading the articles: Wikipedia:Writing better articles and was stumped on how to rework the Lead section starting with the first sentence since whom ever wrote the one on the personal page basically captured it. CyrStJames (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Improving my draft

Hi, My draft has been declined three times and I am wondering what I should do to improve it and get it approved. Thanks for the help! Iceprincess95 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this refers to Draft:Edward (Denny) Emerson.--ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Iceprincess95 (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iceprincess95. I have completed a copyedit. From the comments, an overriding concern is more and better secondary, independent, reliable sourcing. Have you looked at the sources that come up upon Google Books and Google News searches: [2] and [3]? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help! I haven't looked tried there yet. At the moment I am trying to gain access to magazine archives. Thanks!! Iceprincess95 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Article declined because of inline citations

Hi,

My article, Draft:Chris Rogers, was declined because of issues with inline citations. I've done my best to clear up the issues and am wondering what are the next steps to getting it approved.

Ardenarnold (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The major issues that were raised were the lack of inline citations, which are required in biographies of living persons, and of notability information, which is required in all articles. I think that you have added the required inline citations. The mention of Nextel does seem to be relevant to notability. I suggest that you Google on him and see if he has any other significant achievements that add to his notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Article I submitted that is being challenged and is up for deletion

Need some help with an article I submitted that is being challenged and is up for deletion. Can you assist me? Rexweiner1 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be easier for people to advise you if you were to give a wikilink to the article in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DAX (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would be my guess. Or maybe not as it's not up for deletion...--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That almost certainly is the article, because, while it is not up for deletion, one of the tags warns that it reads like a press release, and, in extreme cases, may be tagged for speedy deletion. My advice is to rewrite the article in the formal neutral tone required for an encyclopedia. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or anything else. Remove any promotional language. That is my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Userbox box questions

Attn Please click edit next to this header to read this post as my examples are screwed up outside of edit mode.

I was looking into putting userboxes on my userpage. But I would like them enclosed in a userbox box. The only template that I have seen makes them appear in a vertical column like this ([ U ]=Userbox)-

______________
|  TEXT HERE |
|            |
|[    U     ]|
|[    U     ]|
|[    U     ]|
|[    U     ]|
|____________|

I would like a template thay encases them horizontally instead of vertically so like this-

__________________________________________________
|                   TEXT  HERE                   |
|                                                |
|[     U   ] [    U    ] [    U     ] [     U   ]|
|________________________________________________|

Could someone either refer me to an existing one or create me one if they have the expertise?

Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've added <pre> and </pre> tags to the comment above so that the text appears the same as it does in the edit window. CabbagePotato (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Credible Edit on Wikipedia page was deleted

To whom it may concern,

I had submitted an edit of a reference which was leading to a broken link, to have it re-directed to the right link, on the wikipedia webpage page Industrial computed tomography. Unfortunately, it was highlighted as spam and deleted. The initial link had been live on wikipedia for well over 4 years. Could you please assist me in how to move forward to have this error fixed and the rightful source of information referenced accordingly? I appreciate your time and efforts in advance, thank you.Jgarant (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that your edit has been reverted, the next step is to discuss it with the other user at their talk page. Please see WP:Bold, revert, discuss.--ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Jgarant, one reason your edits were reverted is that you used your own website as a reference. This can be seen as a conflict of interest and it is better to keep your activity as a Wikipedia editor separate from your business interests, even if you think you are being helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Prevent my page from being deleted

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

How can I improve this article? Chandra100n (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chandra. You cannot, and no article should be here. There are no reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of Aura Event Planners that discuss it in detail and so threshold basis we look to to assess whether a topic warrants and can sustain a verifiable encyclopedia article cannot be met. An encyclopedia is not where nascent topics are first exposed to external and independent publication, but where we write about things the world has already sufficiently written about, that have become mainstream knowledge. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My ArTICLE WAS DECLINED

Hello Teahouse, Please can you help me. I got a message that my article was declined. REASON: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.Runciecwc (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RunciecwcRunciecwc (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Runciecwc, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several problems with your draft article at Draft:Runcie C. W. Chidebe. As the rationale for the decline suggests, it isn't written in a suitable tone for an encyclopedia article. Specifically, it is far too promotional and not written in a neutral tone. The following sentence is a good example of this: "He is changing the way Nigerians think about cancer by creating cancer awareness and providing free breast and cervical cancer screenings". Your username also suggests that you may well be Runcie Chidebe. If that is the case, then the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Autobiography, which states: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community". Can you confirm whether you are indeed Chidebe? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.

I strongly agree with you that the article is not Neutral. Thanks for your insights. However, please can you check the again, before I submit it for REVIEW; It has been grossly edit now.

ThanksRunciecwc (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Runcie_C._W._Chidebe It has been reviewed197.210.224.61 (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Some talk pages start with a large message in a box: "This is a part of Wikiproject ______" How are they added? Action Hero 04:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Action Hero. Such a message is added by placing a template at the top of the talk page. It's usually of the form {{WikiProject _____ }}, but precise information about the form of such a template should be included somewhere on the WikiProject's "home page" (e.g., under "Project templates" on Wikipedia:WikiProject United States). You can then go to the template's page itself for information about its use. Deor (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was my edited article declined?

It is relevant to the topic Central Bicol. It is also encyclopeadic.Ian Basallote (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ian Basallote. Two reasons. First, it was completely unreferenced. All content on Wikipedia must be based on previously published sources per WP:V. Altho not every single thing must be referenced, an article with no references will never be approved. Second, it appears to be akin to a phrasebook, or a translation dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. John from Idegon (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a Post vs. Writing a Post

I've never written a post before and I wondered if it is a better practice to put in a request for a post with possible source links, or to write it myself?Laurakostur (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laurakostur, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that by "post", you mean article? That's what the encyclopedic pages are called on Wikipedia. To answer your question, if you feel that the subject you want to write about meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which are explained at Wikipedia:Notability, then you should feel free to go ahead and create it. There is guidance on how to do this at Wikipedia:Your first article. To make it easier, you can also use Wikipedia:Article wizard. That will give you the option to create the article as a draft, where it will get reviewed by an experienced editor before being added to the main article space on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you want an article, you are better off to write it in draft space than to request it, because you know what you want it to say. If you just provide all of the sources, someone may or may not write it, but WP:Requested articles is very very backlogged, and it might not read the way you want it to read. If you write it in draft space, then it will be reviewed, and you will be told what you need to change to make it acceptable, so that you will have more control over the process. So there are two reasons to write it yourself in draft space. First, the backlog in Requested Articles is terrible, while the backlog in Articles for Creation is manageable. Second, you will have more control, subject to critical review, than if you just provide the sources and bare facts. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

First Mainspace Edit

This isn't exactly a question, but I recently made my first mainspace edit. I was wondering if someone could check over it and see if it is okay. I edited the page John Dee. BluJay (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BluJay.The most important thing that any new Wikipedia editor needs to learn is that we summarize what reliable, independent sources say about various topics, and then we cite those sources. You are saying that John Dee, a historical person, has a "large role" in a work of fiction. But you provided no reference to an independent, reliable source saying so. How do we know that the role is "large" or worth mentioning in an encyclopedia? You did wikilink to the work of fiction. Our article there also says that John Dee is a major character, but it also provides no reliable source verifying that. I suggest that you do one of two things: Either provide and cite a reliable, independent source backing the claim that his role is large, or remove the claim. It is exceptionally important that every single substantive assertion we make is verifiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I understand. BluJay (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

How to remove error messages in article

Hi everyone! I have been working on a non-profit's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychopathological_Association). In March, this article was flagged for need additional citations and possibly not meeting the notability guideline. Since then, I have expanded the article using multiple references and I feel the organization meets notability. However, I do not know if I am allowed to remove these messages or if that is unethical? I am still getting used to the wikipedia methods and I do not want to make any unethical changes. Please advise! Thanks! BHinNJ (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "unethical", but you are prudent to ask if the changes will be considered disruptive. My advice is to ask on the article talk page, Talk: American Psychopathological Association for consensus, and that is the usual approach to tags. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BHinNJ and welcome to the teahouse. I put a reply on your talkpage.CV9933 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Desparately need help RE: image use permissions

Hello. I've recently published an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_G%C3%B3mez_G%C3%B3mez) in mainspace concerning an artist. Said article contains photos of artworks by the artist which can be found here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Rmark1030&ilshowall=1) But I have failed to supply all that is needed to verify my permissions to use the images in the first place (and, worse) to protect the artist's copyright while specifying the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. I took the photos myself, but didn't paint the paintings in the photos. Do permissions need to come from the artist, himself? Does permission need to be attached to each image separately? I'm pretty sure I can work out how to use the template for permissions. I'm equally certain the Spanish speaking artist will have a very very had time with them. Please help. Thank you. Rmark1030 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rmark1030. I am not saying it is impossible, but I cannot imagine any normal circumstance where a working artist would wish to give up all rights to such multiple major works of theirs, but for attribution. Do you understand that a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, if it were given by Senor Gómez (and yes the release would have to come from him; see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), would allow (irrevocably, forever) anyone in the world to take his images publish them anywhere, sell prints of them, collect them in a commercial book for sale, modify them in any way and so on, and the only thing they would need to do is provide credit to him? I am saying you cannot "protect the artist's copyright while specifying the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license" because doing so would release almost all rights to the works but for credit, and it is very rare indeed for any artist to do such a thing.

I think you already know this from what you said in your question, but all these images need to be deleted from Commons as the licensing is false. In short, yes, you did not become the copyright owner because you took a photograph or scanned a two-dimensional image, anymore than you would own the copyright to Stephen King's The Stand if you manually re-typed it. I suggest you go to each of the image file at the Commons and add to the top of the page and save something like this:

{{copyvio|1=I am the uploader and photographed this work but am not the artist. I had thought by taking a photograph of the work I became an owner of the copyright, but I now know this is not the case}}

--Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. OK. The CC-BY-SA 4.0 does not suffice. That's clear enough. However, there must be a way to show works of living artists that is less perilous. I certainly did not and do not believe that photography transfers ownership of the image to me. Is there no license that DOES retain the artist's copyright for him -- to say, for instance, that use is acceptable with permission? Rmark1030 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rmark1030: not on Wikipedia or Commons because the image use policy of both (and all other WMF wikis) is that as much as possible images should either be copyright free or licenced for any reuse. That's why the Creative Commons licences that include non-commercial (NC) and no derivatives (ND) terms are not permissible licences on Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rmark1030: One small piece of advice for future occasions. It is better in your question to use a wikilink such as Alberto Gómez Gómez, rather than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_G%C3%B3mez_G%C3%B3mez. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Since no action has been taken, I am nominating all these images for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

edit

I would like to know the best way to submit an up date on Premarin. Your current information is dated and incomplete22:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileen durham (talk • contribs)

Hi Eileen. Go to the talk page of the article, at Talk:Premarin. Click the New section button and supply a title for your post in the field below "Subject/headline". In the editing box below that, explain what is dated, what is incomplete, what you would change or add specifically, and what reliable source (see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) can be cited to verify each fact you want to add or change. Since that talk page is not high traffic, after you're done posting, you might drop a quick note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology, to the effect that you've made suggestions for improvements to the Premarin article, and link to your post at Premarin's talk page, to make it easy for those seeing that message to visit. The link would take this form [[Talk:Premarin#Exact Name (including capitalization) of the title of your post]]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

centering photo in infobox

Hi there- I changed the photo on Paul Steihardt's page, but am unsure how to center it. It does not show up properly on my mobile device. What to do? Sleepy Geek (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Sleepy Geek, sorted it for you. KylieTastic (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it ever okay to add descriptions/citations of one's own published work?

I am an academic researcher (in computer science and cognitive science) and I often see wikipedia pages about topics on which I have published work.

Sometimes I think that a wikipedia page would be more accurate and informative if it included descriptions and citations to more related work, and because I know my own work and the work of my collaborators best, it is sometimes links to my own work or that of my collaborators that I think should be added.

My understanding is that I should never edit pages to add descriptions/citations of my own work. So I have not done this. But is this understanding correct?

If it is, then is there an accepted or conventional way for a researcher to bring the possible edit to anyone else's attention, for possible inclusion? Or is the only appropriate behavior to drop the matter, and leave it to someone else to possibly notice the connection and add it in the future?

Leespector (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leespector. Welcome to the Teahouse. One option in these circumstances is to post on the relevant article's talk page, making a suggestion about the use of a source but also declaring that you have a conflict of interest. The relevant policy here is outlined at WP:SELFCITE. As you'll see, it doesn't actually say that you should never add citations to your own work. Instead, it says that this "is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Leespector. If you are a published expert in a specific field, then you must be familiar with the work of the "top ten" experts in your field, in addition to you and your collaborators. So, if your goal is to improve the encyclopedia, then you should be summarizing and citing the works of all recognized experts in your field, as opposed to just the work of you and your team. If you conduct yourself in this fashion, for the clear and indisputable benefit of the encyclopedia, then I doubt that any informed editor would criticize an occasional disclosed self-citation.

When a published writer cites only their own work in a singleminded fashion, especially when they make little or no other attempts to improve the content of the encyclopedia, other editors may see such an editing pattern as spamming. Hint: We are not kind to spammers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Old pictures without a formal source

In Facebook, there are some groups that show old photos about my city and other cities in Mexico. But the problem is that when I want to upload them to Commons I can't say that they belong to me, but also I can't give the information about the source. What is clear is that copyright is over because those photos are older than 100 years. Does anyone know a solution for this. Thanks. CoroneldelNorte (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CoroneldelNorte. How do you know that the photos are older than 100 years if you have no information about the source? Is it possible that they might be 90 years old? I am not familiar with Mexican law on such matters but my guess is that it is very similar to U.S. law. If the photo was published before 1923, copyright has expired. But an 90 year old photo taken and published in 1925 may well still be copyrighted. And even a photo taken well before 1923, but never published until recently, is still subject to copyright. It is not the date that the shutter was snapped but rather the date when it was first reproduced for view by the public that determines when the copyright period begins. So, if someone scans great-grandpa's ancient inherited unpublished photos and posts them on Facebook, the copyright is fresh and the heir owns the copyright. This is why it is so important to have accurate information about the origin of a photo before uploading it to Wikimedia Commons, or anywhere else under a Creative Commons license. You are legally certifying the copyright status, and that should not be done lightly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear explanation and help Cullen and Fuhghettaboutit. I will check more careful the copyright issues. Thanks again. CoroneldelNorte (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A Better Tomorrow

In this page, if we look at the bottom, there are four templates, First three are blue and the the last is red.Is it possible to give any color, we want? Most templates are blue, where as this one is red. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Best_Film_HKFA Action Hero 11:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. As you can see, it has a part where it says |basestyle = background:#CD5C5C;;color:white;. The part that comes after 'background:' is the background color. -Kurousagi 12:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Action Hero:, to add - yes you can edit templates to make them any colour you want but remember this will affect all pages that template is used on, not just the one you might be interested in. So before making any huge changes it's the type of thing to discuss at the template talk page first. Nthep (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Action Hero: All templates in Category:Hong Kong Film Awards templates are red. I don't know whether there is a reason for the color but if you want to change it then start a common discussion about all of them, for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

re Trebisch Lincolns son `John`

John Lincoln was charged together with Maxwell-Stewart with the murder of Richards at Trowbridge Wilts, Christmas 1925. Based entirely on a rather dodgy written confession by Lincoln he was hung.Maxwell-Stewart was discharged and re arrested for burglary.Much consternation as many felt that by hanging the son the Establishment was `gettig at` Trebisch to pay off old debts.He had certainly been a thorn in the flesh for years. Trebisch tried to enter England to see his son but the establishment decreed that only if he could get to a British port before the day of execution would such a request be considered. This was physically impossible.The local MP during the trial promised to help in any way he could but suddenly changed his mind. Collection of money for an appeal donated by his fellow soldiers was suddenly squashed from `on high`. Speeches were made by highly placed politicians denigrating the feeling` which seemed to be prevalent that certain persons convicted of a heinous crime had in some way been badly treated`. A general feeling of unease surrounds the episode. Is this an appropriate addition to the Trebisch Lincoln entry? Pat Ladd86.171.146.165 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It needs citations and a little editing, but other than that it's fine in my opinion. (Even though finding the citations will probably be the hardest part.) -Kurousagi 10:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The citations are always the hardest part of Wikipedia. Finding them isn't easy for old historical articles. Formatting them isn't easy. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How to edit a picture?

I have found a picture in an article which contradicts (incorrectly) the text of the article in that it contains an arrow for direction of rotation pointing in the wrong direction. The picture is a .png which would be simple enough to edit. Is there some way other than copying / editing / deleting original / inserting edited copy? I am a complete noob at this.Thurb (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No- since there is no built-in editor in Wikipedia, you'll have to download it, edit it then update it. -Kurousagi 10:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Thurb and welcome to the Teahouse. As mentioned above, there is no image editor in the Wikipedia. If you want to change a picture, first you have to make sure that it is a free picture and not one with a limited copyright. You check the picture's page at the Wikipedia or the Commons for that. This picture is an example of a picture that cannot be altered since it is published under the fair use criteria, look at the license. After that you download it to your computer and do the necessary changes, then upload it as a new picture but state the original picture as the source for the new picture. Look at these two pictures as examples: before and after as an example. After the upload is done, you can use the new one in the article. This way the old picture is still "intact" should there be some need for it again. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 14:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Re.: reliable sources

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing an article abour a living person and I need your help. The situation is, that there is certain number of articles about the person, which are available on line. There are also some other sources. The person has peers letters, which are, of course, not published. There is also a number of newspaper and magazine articles, which are not available on line and which may also be important in establishing a person's notability. Can these two sources be used in any way? Regards Kur Kur Kerdirichi (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Which magazines/newspapers those are matters. If they're something like a personal-run community newsletter, I'd say it's not a really reliable source. Also see WP:Reliable. -Kurousagi 08:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kur Kerdirichi, without pronouncing on the quality of the individual sources - it is not necessary that a source be available online for it to be used as a reference. Newspaper and magazine articles that exist only in paper form are just fine. Anything unpublished, however, can not be used; if those letters you allude to have never been published in a book, journal or similar, they do not constitute reliable sources, as their contents cannot be verified.--Elmidae (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What is Wikidata item?

What is Wikidata? In my watchlist sometime I see updates like "Wikidata item changed", what exactly happens if Wikidata item is changed? Some of my newly created pages has "none" Wikidata item, while my old pages have "Wikidata item", if Wikidata item doesn't get attached to any new article then what happens with that article? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Human3015. See wikidata:Wikidata:Introduction. Wikidata is a separate wiki which can be used to store data about a subject and links to pages about the subject in different Wikipedia languages and Wikimedia wikis. Many pages at the English Wikipedia have a corresponding page at Wikidata, called the Wikidata item for the page. Click "Wikidata item" in the left pane of an article to see its Wikidata item. An article doesn't need a Wikidata item but if it has one then it can sometimes display some data from it without having the data in the source of the English Wikipedia page, and links to other Wikipedia languages are usually coming from the Wikidata item. "Wikidata item changed" in your watchlist just means something was changed in the Wikidata item for the page. Wikidata and the English Wikipedia have separate watchlists but Wikidata edits can affect the English Wikipedia. To see what was changed, click "Wikidata item" on the page or the Q number in the watchlist, and then click the "View history" tab on the Wikidata page. Apart from changing the list under "Languages", the change rarely influences the English Wikipedia. I have a large watchlist and have disabled "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. Don't worry about creating or attaching a Wikidata item for a new page. If your old pages have it then it's because somebody else did it. If you click "Add links" under Languages and enter a corresponding page in another Wikipedia language then it automatically creates a Wikidata item. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Images of Actors

Those actors and actresses who are dead have their young pic in Wikipedia. Those who are alive, they have their latest pic. Should actresses above 70 and living, have their young age picture at the top right box in Wikipedia? Action Hero (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the most recent picture should be used. If none, there should be a caption under it notifying the reader that this is a young picture. -Kurousagi 08:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Action Hero and welcome to the Teahouse. I can give you part of the answer. With older actors there are often no other pictures available for the Wikipedia than those from their younger or more active years. Sometimes because that was the only time they were photographed for public use, and sometimes because the copyright for the more recent pictures has not yet expired. Actors that are alive today are frequently photographed at events by fans and people who upload their photos for free use on the Commons or with free use tags on social sites, making it easier for editors here to keep the picture in the article updated. "Younger" pictures are often included in the article and following the timeline of the actor's career, Clint Eastwood is a good example of this. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No link to Television City, Hollywood, CA?

I was searching for "Television City, Hollywood, CA" where many pre 1980 Game Shows were filmed.

I did not find an entry, but "CBS Television City, Hollywood, CA," is mentioned in the lengthy Glen Campbell article. The mention of CBS Television City, Hollywood, CA is not a link.

This is my first time posting -- do not want to screw anything up by trying to create a link for "Television City, Hollywood, CA"

Any suggestions?

Michelle Michelleintx (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Michelleintx, and welcome to the Teahouse. When a subject is legitimately mentioned in a Wikipedia article but there is no Wikipedia page for that subject, but there should or might be such a page, one can insert a wiki-link just as if the target article existed. This will make a "redlink" which will link to the article when adn if it is created, and which may help motivate some editor to create the target article. Redlinks are generally considered a good idea, provided that they are to targets that might plausibly have a legitimate Wikipedia article. Or of course you could yourself try to create such an article. If you do, i advise reading Your First article, the Golden Rule of Wikipedia, and Referencing for Beginners. Then I advise using the article wizard. DES ^(talk) 03:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with DES as to the advice for the general case, here we do have an article, at CBS Television City. I've created a redirect to it from this longer, plausible search title. Because of that, it can be linked directly now, but even where no such redirect existed it could be linked by piping the link in this manner: [[CBS Television City|CBS Television City, Hollywood, CA]]. The text to the left of the pipe ("|") tells the software what to link to, and to the right, what to display. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Bullies, Gangs and Teams

Hello It's clear to me that people have passionate views here and elsewhere. When an article is created and tends to support a particular point of view that is controversial, it would seem to welcome more dialog. But I'm finding that when editing a controversial topic, I get reverted quickly without explanation or with inflammatory reasons. For example "reverted - POV Pushing" or "Reverted - promotion of bad citation" - when the citation is not bad, and when my POV is just my POV and I'm not pushing it? It seems that there will be teams of people working together to wear me out, where one comes in and deletes, then another, then another. I don't want to go out and get my own team of people because that's against the rules, but clearly Teams of thought police do exist within articles and why aren't they held to the same standard? Otherwise Wikipedia just is a place that people sit on top of their work with their friends and makes it look like Wikipedia supports one side of a controversial topic. Example LGBT parenting (see talk page where the Research section was started by me as an IP user and review the editing history, specifically by Roscelese). Thanks, Cityside. Cityside189 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, first, once an editor has concluded that there are tag-teams of bullies, it is impossible to persuade them that there are not. However, I fail to see any evidence that you have actually had that experience, unless you had that experience, before registering your very new account, if you were editing as an IP. It is true that some editors routinely revert edits by IPs. That shouldn't happen, but it does, and the answer is to register an account, which you did. I fail to see any articles that you have edited where you were reverted with the sort of edit summary to which you refer. You may be concerned about Mark Regnerus, but you have taken that article to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was a reasonable step. I regret that the editor who volunteered to act as the moderator has about the same amount of experience as you do (very little) and should not be moderating. We are trying to deal with that situation. However, I fail to see where there has been tag-teaming or editing by gangs. I am aware that IP editors are often dismissed. While undesirable, that is not due to teams or gangs, but to some editors simply having contempt for IP editors. You did the right thing in registering an account. Also, you won't improve the acceptance of your edits by having a reputation for complaining about bullies and gangs. There are occasionally bullies and gangs in Wikipedia, and we have procedures for dealing with them. I see that you have read the dispute resolution policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting reading might be m:Why a cabal is perceived. Eman235/talk 01:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you Robert and Eman. Am I wrong? OK, let me think about that. My experience that led me to worry about this was the LGBT Parenting article . I edited the article with a properly cited research quotation, reliable and verifiable, it was labelled as a bad study. I tried to include information about the controversy, it was deleted with "POV pushing". I gathered enough information before reverting my own edits and went to the talk page. It started seeming like any information contrary to the view of the article would be deleted. So that's the experience I speak of, and the edit summaries show that. Thank you for your compliment about going to dispute resolution, that was the only way I thought of at the time to get help. I'll get better at this over time, I'm sure. The disputant didn't think it was worth taking to dispute but he wasn't answering me on the talk page fast enough, and not having enough experience to be patient and that there is no deadline. Thank you for the information on the moderator, I just looked at his talk page and see he was just registered, so yes, I think maybe someone with more experience can help me. Can I request that this person recuse themselves? I'd like you, Robert, to read over my latest edits on the dispute resolution board and tell me what you think. I'm not going to develop a reputation for complaining about bully and gangs, but I did share my opinion that Roscelese a bully on her talk page, which I would also like you to look at and tell me your view of my messaging her there (I don't know any other way of messaging people). Overall I have come to like Wikipedia and the nearest thing to this was when I was in graduate school in 1992, when we had listservs, on VAX/VMS computers. And did the discussions happen then!! Having some time on my hands I wanted to check into this Wikipedia that I have used routinely for at least a decade. I respect it. And I grew briefly disillusioned when my "perfectly good work" :) was deleted unceremoniously! How dare they!?!  :) Anyway I would appreciate more of your insights. I'm fairly impressed that more tenured users take it very seriously. Well if you have the time I would appreciate it.Cityside189 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is LGBT parenting. I see that two editors reverted your edits with the comments that you note. I don't see any reason to think that they were acting as a team, let alone as bullies, and by making that claim here you have made Wikipedia a less friendly place. They may have just disagreed with you, or they may have been contemptuous of IP editors. It sometimes appears to IP editors that they are being ganged up on, when what is really happening is that some editors routinely revert IPs. I see no evidence of an attempt to discuss on the talk page. It is unfortunate both that you have taken this experience as evidence of tag teams, gangs, and bullies, and that you have muddied the waters by raising that claim here. I hope that you can learn from your mistake and not infer the existence of tag teams and bullying from ordinary Wikipedia behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Your use of the word "censorship" on the talk page was not helpful. The use of the word "censorship" to "win" a content dispute is common but is very seldom productive. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, anyone at WP:DRN may request a different moderator. In fact, this happened just a few sections above the one your issue is in, see WP:DRN#Talk:Miss Cleo#WP:NPOV issue, where i happened to be tangentially involved (see my talk page if you like).

I haven't reviewed what happened at LGBT parenting, but I generally agree with the comments of Robert McClenon just above. Tag teaming does happen on Wikipedia -- I have seen it -- but not nearly as often as people claim it does. it can feel like tag teaming when two or more editors take the same view, but it is often just legitimate consensus, and sometimes it is just a widely shared bias. DES ^(talk) 03:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have learned from my mistakes. And I see your special expertise in this area from you talk page about the crisis on wikipedia. Will there be additional evolution of the policies to take into account? Perhaps new users should have an assigned mentor for a while before jumping into editing. If some high percentage of time is spent fixing, for example, vandalism, then it would stand to reason that new users like me being assigned a mandatory supervisor for a while would help prevent the kinds of mistakes I (and undoubtedly others) have made. Is there a way to fix the fact that I have raised this issue in the tea house and made it less friendly? Cityside189 (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, Any new user may request a mentor. Few do. And if most did, there wouldn't be enough qualified mentors. Moreover, I have tried in the past to mentor users unwilling to accept advice. That process is highly frustrating and time-wasting for all involved. New users who are mostly interested in adding facts about relatively non-controversial topics may not need mentors, the occasional question at a help page or note on a talk page may often be enough. Users motivated to ask for a mentor are more likely, IMO to benefit from one.

Wikipedia policies are always undergoing change. At any given time there are usually several open proposals for formal change, as well as various informal processes leading to change in policies and procedures. If you have specific proposals, feel free to discuss them and perhaps eventually propose them at WP:VPP. My talk page is always open to you, if that is of any help. As to the climate of the Teahouse, any given posting rolls off into the archives where few read it in a matter of days. Don't worry too much. DES ^(talk) 03:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure: I can't close this thread because I am involved. Will someone please close this weird thread? The filer and the unqualified DRN moderator have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

quick Question

how can I put picture of the day and userbox side by side please.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You can do that by putting {{Pic of the day}} under the userboxes instead of above. Eman235/talk 00:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fruit Nd Nut: The above means that it's {{Pic of the day}} that will move down when there aren't room for both in narrow windows. If you want the userboxes to move down in narrow windows then you could put this at top:

{{Float-left-begin}}
{{Pic of the day}}
{{Float-left-end}}

PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding last message

I sent User: Des a reply to his offer of help (please see message Titled Error made haven't had a response yet!!!--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have now responded in the section below. Sorry for the delay, Fruit Nd Nut, but it was only a few hours. DES ^(talk) 18:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Something wrong with diffs?

Probably not the right place to ask, but...

I was looking at the revision history for RuneScape and noticed something very odd. When I click on the "prev" next to the 19:27, 24 July 2015 revision by Maths314 (which leads to this), it shows the 19:21, 24 July 2015 and 19:27, 24 July 2015 revisions, as expected. When I click on "Next edit", it shows me the 19:27, 24 July 2015 revision... and the 09:26, 4 January 2004 revision by 144.132.201.77.

I don't know if this is just me or if anyone else has this issue. Anyways, any thoughts are appreciated. CabbagePotato (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• All I can say is what I see CabbagePotato - and that is 20:27 for both the history list and the "Revision as of.." - odd one getting 19:21! KylieTastic (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, CabbagePotato. According to the page logs: 7 August 2015 Graham87 restored page RuneScape (4 revisions restored: history merge four edits from early January 2004 whose content was merged into this article ... they fit snugly between the old text and the merge) History merges, especially when some of the revisions are very old, can have this kind of effect. This is because the revision history sorts by revision ID number, not by date, but in a history merge sometimes old revisions are assigned new IDs. This is a known bug, ask over at WP:VPT for more detail. Mostly one can just not worry about it. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: That seems to make sense. Thank you! CabbagePotato (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel and CabbagePotato: Indeed. In this case the revisions have out-of-order ID numbers because they were deleted before Wikipedia was upgraded to MediaWiki 1.5 in late June 2005. In this case they were deleted in August 2004 to make way for this page move (admin-only link to logs). Graham87 02:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Help linking portal images

Hi Tea house team, Can someone please help me with linking portal images? I want to link this image to the Serer people portal and this image to the Serer religion portal. Would someone please show me how to do this? For example when you place Portal|United Kingdom to Wikipedia articles the UK flag appears. I need to know how to link the above images for portals Serer people and religion. Any help would be immensely appreciated. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Tamsier I assume you mean the image when using {{Portal|Serer people}} and {{Portal|Serer religion}}

In which case you need to request the changes Template talk:Portal - Start a new section add {{edit template-protected}} at the top of the request, a polite request and list the two requests...

• Serer people - File:Serer Royal War Drum (Jung-Jung). 19th Century. Jung-Jung From The Kingdom of Sine (in modern day Senegal).jpg
• Serer religion - File:Five Pointed Star Lined.svg

Hope that answers it ok? KylieTastic (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much KylieTastic. Tamsier (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

* Hi Tamsier I see your asked John of Reading the same thing after you response here so I'm assuming maybe you didn't quite understand - So I've posted the request for you with this edit over on Template talk:Portal. So the next admin or template editor who passes by (and may well be John of Reading) should fix that up for you. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. That is most helpful. Tamsier (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

wrong redirection

"Paracycling" and "Paralympic cycling" redirect to "Cycle sport". They shouldn't, because the article "Cycle sport" contains no information about paracycling. Can the redirection for the words go to a more suitable article, such as "Para-cycling classification"?142.150.38.155 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree and have adjusted the redirect targets. Note that any editor, even if not logged in, could have made this change, it did not require any special rights or access. DES ^(talk) 17:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Many users don't know how to edit redirects. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite true and I should have provided that information. Thanks. DES ^(talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right, I did not know how. Appreciate you making the change and providing the info.142.150.38.155 (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@DES Paracycling should not redirect anywhere as there is no really appropriate target article - I will attempt to create at least a stub there as soon as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Band Page

I just tried to make a page for my band and it got speedily deleted, wanted to know why? Thanks Rosco1231 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rosco1231, welcome to the Teahouse. The article you created has been placed under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which means that you didn't provide enough sources or verifications to indicated the notability of the subject. As you created an article about a band it must satisfy general notability guideline or notability criteria for music groups to have a Wikipedia article. Please do not re-create deleted articles unless you think you can address the issues pointed out by deleting administrator. Also, please do not create nonsensical articles such as FleeceBand regarding the same subject as they will be speedily deleted as well. Best,--Chamith (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are an inexperienced editor, it is recommended that you create articles in draft space rather than in article space. That way, when you submit them for approval, if they are declined, you will have comments indicating why they were declined, and the article will still exist, so that it can be improved. If you create an article in article space that falls short of the minimum criteria, as you have seen, it may be speedy-deleted. So I suggest that, in the future, you create articles in draft space. If you submit them and they are declined, you will have comments, and the comments can be discussed with the reviewer, including here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rosco1231. Fleece (Band) merely said that this is a band, and listed the members. It had no sources, and said nothing about why this particular band is significant or important, much less notable. I urge you to read our notability guideline for bands, Your First Article, and the summery of the essentials for an article. After that, If you think you can supply the needed sources to make a valid article, i urge you to use the article wizard which will help you create a page in draft space, as suggested above, and have an experienced editor review it before it is subject to speedy deletion for notability or most other reasons. (However, do NOT copy text from the band's website or other sites. That would be a copyright violation, and would get even a draft page speedy deleted.) DES ^(talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

error made

Please could you revert my error made on user: Rowdy srezan's page please.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Fruit Nd Nut, and welcome to the Teahouse.  Done I suppose you were trying to make a copy of User:Rowdy srezan/navbar for your own use, is that correct? do you want help with that? DES ^(talk) 15:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

that was what I was trying to do so yes your help would be much appreciated Des.--Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is what you need to do, Fruit Nd Nut:

1. edit User:Rowdy srezan/navbar and copy the full wiki code for the page. Don't save any changes.
2. Edit User:Fruit Nd Nut/navbar and paste the code from step 1.
3. Change all references to "Rowdy srezan" to "Fruit Nd Nut".
4. Save User:Fruit Nd Nut/navbar thus creating the page.
5. Edit User:Fruit Nd Nut and change {{User:Rowdy srezan/navbar}} to {{User:Fruit Nd Nut/navbar}}
6. Edit User talk:Fruit Nd Nut and add {{User:Fruit Nd Nut/navbar}} at the top

I hope those instructions are clear. DES ^(talk) 18:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Upgrade with no references

Hi teahouse hosts, several list defined reference errors have flagged up with this major edit but the editor didn't supply any new references and doesn't have a talk page. As it stands, the article seems to fall short of the standard we expect for a BLP but I'm not sure what action is required. If one deleted everything that is unreferenced there wouldn't be an article. CV9933 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably should contact the major editor and ask them about the references. I'd recommend finding reliable ones yourself if there is no reply.

There is also the possibility that the user's IP is non-static- in which case the refs would need to be added manually. (Teahouse guest -Kurousagi 12:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC))

Hey CV9933. There are times when to revert or not is a close call but this was really far from a grey area; the edit had many problems to it, which I've listed upon my revert. Any similarly situated edit you find, one that blanks sourced content, and replaces it with unsourced content – especially in a biography of a living person – adds marketing speak language, and to boot breaks the code of the page should be reverted immediately, with prejudice, and without a second thought. This was also a blatant copyright violation. Based on the copyright violation, I've RevDeleted the version in the history. This can be requested using {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. That was the more comprehensive answer I was looking for. Since there were no new references supplied, I was focused on that element. I figured the tone of the article was therefore irrelevent and I probably didn't spot the copyvio for the same reason.CV9933 (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Living person

Hi, I interviewed the person I'm writing about, how can I use the information I gathered ? Internet sources on his personal life are not available, and my interview is not published...how can I cite them ? Thanks, Kushi-tolom (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kushi-tolom, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since the interview is not published, you can't cite it, and so none of the information from it can be used in a Wikipedia article, unless you can find other sources for it. I'm afraid that interviewing your subject is simply not helpful in drafting a Wikipedia article. If you can get the interview published by a reputable publisher (not on a persona web site or blog) then someone (preferably not you) could then cite it in such an article. (I say "preferably not you" as it is strongly discouraged for an editor here to cite his or her own work).

Wikipedia articles are based on already published information, mostly from independent reliable sources. An interview, even if published, is a primary source and as such must be used with care. Doing one's own interview constitutes original research and is not acceptable as part of the basis for a Wikipedia article. I am sure this will be frustrating, but it is how Wikipedia works. DES ^(talk) 09:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kushi-tolom. One possibility, although it is slow, is to write an article off-Wikipedia, based on the interview, and submit it for publication to a reliable source specializing in the topic area. Once published, your article can then be cited here on Wikipedia. Do so cautiously, disclosing that you are the author of the source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

Can someone fix the formatting of the committed identity box on my user page so the box is just around the text and not on the whole background of the page? Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 08:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs)

 Fixed Someone else fixed this in response to a similar post at the help desk. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this?

What is the teahouse?Icy monster gun (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The teahouse is a place to ask any questions about wikipedia. Welcome! Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 08:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia page - Speedy deletion nomination

Dear.

I am actually a new user in Wikipedia, I have been writing a biography, some hours ago, I requested help to this contact page regarding an issue of getting rid of the username in the title of the page. I would not like the others have access to my login section. However, it takes by surprise that my page was deleted. I do not know the exact reasons, but I am trying to fix the problems. The page is still in the process and I have not completely work all the details.

Could you please help me to recover the page: the username is: Luislaaglobal

Thanks in advance Luislaaglobal (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Luislaaglobal and welcome to the Teahouse. You asked the same question on your talk page where it has been answered, but I'll give it one more shot here. The Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and not a social site like Facebook or Twitter, read about it all at: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Your user page is not for writing a biography on, it is a page where you describe what your intentions here on the Wikipedia are, what you want to write about or things like that. That is why the page was removed and it will not be restored. All this is explained at Wikipedia:User pages. You can also try looking at other user pages and see how they are done. Start by clicking on some of the names you see here at the Teahouse. I think you should read about working here and making articles in Wikipedia:Your first article, that will give you more information. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Luislaaglobal It is not just that the page was a draft biography on your user page, which is not a proper location. If that had been the only issue the page could have been moved to a proper location. It appears to be an Autobiography which is strongly discouraged. And the draft, which i read, makes it pretty clear that its subject (whether that is actually you or not) is not notable in the special Wikipedia sense. See the golden rule. Even if the subject should prove to be notable, the draft went into far too much detail on the early life and education of the subject, which is not what he (or almost anyone) is notable for. Under the circumstances i am not willing to restore the page, although you could ask the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND. However, if yoiu ask, I would be willing to email you the text of the draft. DES ^(talk) 10:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DES, for adding this. I could not see the content of the deleted page since that is for admins only, and I prefer to deal in facts rather than guessing. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources.

Hi! If someone uses a published news article as a source to cite very specific info on a wikipedia article, while the news article in fact contains information that are scientifically incorrect, but also irrelevant to the subject. Would that affect its credibility? Also, how many credible sources do you usually need to prove anything? Thanks! UnluckyClover77 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent question, UnluckyClover77. The most important thing to remember is that no media source is 100% reliable. Editorial judgement is required. Let me give an example: One strong indicator that a given source is reliable is when they are quick to publish detailed corrections when they make a mistake. We tend to trust such sources. They prove that they are generally reliable by admitting that, in a small percentage of cases, they are unreliable. But it would be wrong to cite an uncorrected version of such a faulty news article in a Wikipedia article

It should be obvious that some news outlets are more reliable than others, and that there is a continuum between the very best sources and mostly unacceptable ones. In general, when a wide range of sources are available to back up a specific claim, it is best to select the two or three sources with the most widely accepted reputation for reliability.

Even the best source is useless if it does not back up the assertion being referenced.

As for "scientifically incorrect", that raises many possibilities. We do not put claims that the moon landings were faked in our moon or Apollo Program articles. But such kook theories are notable enough that they can be described in articles about the conspiracy theory, although we should never state or imply that such theories are true in Wikipedia's voice. As a general rule, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether or not a given claim is "scientifically correct", except in our own minds. We should summarize what legitimate scientific sources say about a claim. If the vast majority of reliable sources say that the claim is hogwash, then so should we. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and good info. What I meant is that the news article in question contains statement A (Which is relevant) and statement B (Which is not relevant to the subject). Of course, the editor would include this news article because of statement A, but what if statement B is scientifically incorrect? And by scientifically incorrect I mean it is relatively easy to find a dozen other "VERY" reliable sources to challenge it. Doesn't that diminish the whole article's credibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnluckyClover77 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, UnluckyClover77. I cannot judge a specific case without a link to the article and information about the claim in question. But I think that the aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" may be relevant. Let's say that a low end "popular" science magazine reports that a notable UFO advocate died of a heart attack at age 87 on such and such a date. It is probably reliable enough for that claim. But the article in the sane magazine one page over that says some guy has invented a gadget allowing cars to run on distilled water? That is an extraordinary claim requiring vastly better sourcing. I hope that helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that will suffice. Thanks again! :)197.135.43.79 (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

RefTools problem

I am a frequent user of the RefToolbar, but since 7 August I have noticed that, when clicked, the templates dropdown menu now disappears behind the large editable text box. Because of this I cannot click on any of the four choices cite web, cite news, cite journal, or cite book. I know that I could go to the actual template pages to copy, paste, and manually fill in the appropriate fields. I mention this just to see of other editors also have this issue. If my explanation of the problem is unclear, I apologize. I will upload a screenshot of the problem to Commons if needed. Vycl1994 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vycl1994. I can't help you with the specific problem with the Ref Toolbar, since I edit "old school", creating my references manually. As long as the toolbar has technical problems, let me recommend Wikipedia:Citation templates, where you can find the code for all the major reference templates on a single page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vycl1994. I would add to Cullen328's advice by suggesting that you ask your question again at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I took a look to see if anyone else had the same problem that you are having. I didn't see anything specifically to do with the RefToolbar. There are lots of editors who patrol that page twho are well versed in the technical aspects of editing. Good luck and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your suggestions. I have posted at the Village pump and will leave a link to the Wikipedia:Citation templates on my user page. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Formatting Sources.

I have had several submissions rejected and to increase the chances that my next submission will be accepted I have attempted to add some published sources to my article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roberta_Grossman

But now the references repeat themselves twice. I don't know how to correct this. I also don't know how to footnote within the article without it turning into an external link.

Please help.

Thank you.

Ahurvitz2 (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahurvitz2, and welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once, Referencing for Beginners, and citing sources. In short, you can add a "name" to a citation in the ref tag. Then you can reuse the name so that the source is cited multiple times. For example, if you were to include:

<ref name=Jones>{{cite Book|first=John |last=Jones |title=The Truth about Smith|pages=25-30|year=1997}}</ref>

you could later include

<ref name=Jones /> (note the closing slash on the ref tag.)

Overall this might be used something like this:

Jones described Smith as "a very angry man". Indeed he stressed that Smith was violent on many occasions.

References

I hope this clarifys the technique a bit, DES ^(talk) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahurvitz2. I believe that Roberta Grossman is almost certainly notable as a documentary filmmaker with a long and distinguished career, and what you need to do is add and use the very best sources that devote significant coverage to her, and weed out the lower quality sources such as blogs. The Ha'aretz article is a strong source, but it is discussing her career in the context of an unreleased 2017 film. Look for similar articles that discuss her in the context of her released films. I have copy edited and wikilinked the draft article a bit, making it fit in a bit better with our established Manual of Style. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ I greatly appreciate your help in getting the draft of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roberta_Grossman into publishable Wikipedia shape. I will continue to see if there are "very best sources" out there to include in her article.

Ahurvitz2 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism action request

An editor is adding a promotional(private) site's external link to AIPMT again and again, even when I've told him to stop his addition. I want him to be blocked from editing if he does it once again. Can anybody ( even an admin on wikipedia) help me please? If you want to help me, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Red Pen (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is that editor's talk page. He seems to have had made such problematic edits earlier also. User_talk:Pranjan21 Red Pen (talk)

Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism might be the solution to your case. Dakar^yammer
_{stuff done} 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Pranjan21, and welcome to the Teahouse. On Wikipedia, 5 warnings are usually given for advertising, as for other nonconstructive edits. In this case you would write as follows:

(on the 1st time, a general note, assuming WP:GOODFAITH): {{subst:uw-advert1|Article}} ~~~~

(on the 2nd time, a caution, with no assumption of faith) {{subst:uw-advert2|Article}} ~~~~

(on the 3rd time, assuming they are deliberately vandalising, warning them about being blocked) {{subst:uw-advert3|Article}} ~~~~

(on the 4th time) {{subst:uw-advert4|Article}} ~~~~

(on the 5th time) {{subst:uw-advert4im|Article}} ~~~~

If they stop before you have given all 5 warnings then you need not worry. If they continue to do so after you have given them all 5 warnings, between edits, you may report them to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, so that they can be blocked by an administrator.

A more extensive list of warning templates can be found here.

I hope this helps. Regards, --Rubbish computer 10:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to Red Pen as it seems you mistook the vandal for the user who asked the question. Dakar^yammer
_{stuff done} 11:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a small correction to the above - uw-4im warnings are not a "fifth level" of warning, but an immediate escalation to level 4 (for intances of particularly egregious vandalism, or if the user hasn't been previously warned but has made a number of inappropriate edits). After a level 4 warning (either uw-4 or uw-4im) the next step is WP:AIV. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Having now looked at User:Pranjan21, I see they have stopped adding promotional links after your last warning to them. If they start again, an AIV report might be appropriate, but for now, a block is unwarranted. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a myth that vandalism warnings have to be escalated through 4 or 5 levels. They do not. Reporters should exercise judgment in what level of warning to issue. While warnings can be escalated through 4 levels, depending on how obvious it is that the edits are vandalism and how blatant and serious the vandalism is, the warnings can be escalated skipping steps. Reporters should also use judgment in deciding how many warnings are needed to report to WP:AIV. In particular, if the edit history shows that the address or account is vandalism-only, it should be reported if the vandalism continues after one warning. If the edit history shows that the edits are largely vandalism, it is worth reporting. Administrators will exercise judgment in deciding whether to block an address or account for vandalism, but will almost always act if the account is vandalism-only or the address is primarily vandalism. (If the address is a shared IP address, then any good-faith users can create accounts.) So you do not need to escalate a vandalism warning through 4 levels, and administrators will not require that warnings be escalated through 4 levels. Go ahead and warn, and if the vandalism continues after a level 2 through level 4, use judgment as to whether to report. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to everybody for his/her guidance :) Red Pen (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon, I just happened upon your paragraph here and it was something I wasnt sure about yesterday so it helped me understand how to warn of vandalism better. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)