Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mcdanielm (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 5 June 2018 (→Link in references vs. External Link: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

David Biddulph, a Teahouse host

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

Editing Images in Person Infobox and Deleting or Renaming New Images on Commons

Hi There! I am a brand new editor (as of today) and I am editing a page on a volunteer basis. My first task is to replace an image in a Person Infobox. I decided to start off in my Sandbox and was able to upload the picture as a test for myself, but in the process ended up actually posting the picture to Commons when I wasn't ready, and the file name is wrong. Also, in the Infobox I really can't figure out how to replace an image. This leads me to questions: 1 - What is the easiest way to update/change an image in a Person Infobox? 2 - How can I delete, replace, or rename an image on Commons?

Please excuse any terms I might be describing incorrectly - I just started this a few hours ago!

Thanks in advance.

Angela — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADLangille (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ADLangille, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. You have not uploaded any images to commons, or saved any sandbox edits, at least not under the user name ADLangille.
  • Often the simplest way to correct a file name at commons if the file is not yet being used anywhere is just to re-upload it under the correct name.
I tried to re-upload with the correct name several times but I received a message that states the file us already uploaded and I am unable to continue. Might this be related to the file being marked for deletion (which I am ok with)? Everything I have tried to do so far is in my sandbox, and not using a Person Infobox, however the photo I need to ultimately edit is on an existing page. --ADLangille (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many infoboxes support a |image= parameter. Code such as image=FileName.jpg (replacing "FileName.jpg" with the correct name) will often work, but check the documentation page for the particualr infobox tempalte you are using, as they do not all work in exactly the same way.
  • Be sure that the image has been released under a free license that permits anyone to reuse it, otherwise it will be deleted from commons fairly promptly.
What should be my approach if the person in the image has provided me with the permission to use the photo? The photo is indeed commons:File:BF headshot.jpg as mentioned below.--ADLangille (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you asked the exact same question on the help desk. In future please don't do that, it can waste volunteer time and cause confusion.
I hope this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ADLangille: You uploaded commons:File:BF headshot.jpg. In most infoboxes the way to use it would be |image = BF headshot.jpg. See commons:Commons:File renaming. If you are specific in questions then we can help better. If you had named the infobox you are trying to use then we wouldn't have to say |image= may be the way to go. If we knew who "BF" was then we could have made the rename request or a Commons editor with the required permission might already have renamed it. Now we have to give more general answers. User:PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful. What is the best way for me to be specific with indicating the page? Will a link to the page suffice or is there another method? --ADLangille (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter, the image in question is of one Bruce Friedrich, and it has been previously published on a website marked "All rights reserved". Hence, I nominated it for deletion at Commons. Google reverse image search can answer many questions. John from Idegon (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ADLangille: I'm answering several posts here. Both the page and image should be linked to be specific. You haven't saved any sandbox edits so I guess it's about File:BF headshot.jpg and the code in Bruce Friedrich. We prefer wikilinks like these but url links would also have been OK on this page. There is a system to detect whether an identical file with another name has already been uploaded. I guess you encountered that. It is not related to the file being nominated for deletion. The article infobox currently says |image = Bruce Friedrich.jpeg so a replacement would be |image = BF headshot.jpg. The infobox code starts {{Infobox person so there is documentation at Template:Infobox person. There are many other person infoboxes in Category:People and person infobox templates. Don't try to rename the image while commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF headshot.jpg is ongoing. The photographer usually has copyright on an image. Are you sure the subject has the right to have the image published with a free license? See commons:Commons:OTRS. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this public domain?

I'm wondering if the map from here is pd. On one hand it's a government publication so I'd say yes, but on the other hand it credits the PaleoMap Project so I'm hesitant. Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for asking the question. I suggest asking at WP:MCQ, a question board specifically for copyright questions and so will be watched by folks knowledgeable in that area. RudolfRed (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77:This should help, although it won't answer your specific question. It does make it clear that being on the USGS site does not automatically mean it is pd.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hey team!!

Never saw this page until a link was recently sent to me by one of the editors.

I was wondering if you could please help give advice, one of the other editors gave guidance before and I worked on it, but clearly still need a bit more amending!! I have submitted the following page John Steven Novak. The comment was it was paid advertising [I'm not getting paid, and I know that John also doesn't get paid through online channels - I know he runs via referrals only in his line of work]. Just for context, I met John at function for the organisation I sponsor and had a following conversation that was very inspirational which can be listened to on my podcast here = http://www.betterskinbetter.life/004-uncovering-the-secret-sauce-to-achieving-your-goals-with-john-novak. As you’ll see, I’m a writer for my own blog. This is why I put up the COI even though I don’t work for John and had the one interview. Listeners have been contacting me for his profile hence the wiki. I put this in the COL not sure if it comes up though.

Ok I'd like to delve into the specific detail - as it's my first wiki I'm keen to get it right and could you point me in the right direction? Can you outline exactly where I've gone wrong and what you think I should do?

Appreciate your feedback.

Rebecca Rebecca J Mason (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Draft:John Steven Novak. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That draft needs more than "a bit more amending". If I had the task of creating a Wikipedia article on Novak, I would discard all that you have written and begin again. You have provided more than 50 references, but few of them (maybe none, I haven't checked them all) are to the reliable independent published sources that Wikipedia requires. Your first step should be to go through those references, discarding all those that are not reliable, all those that are not independent, and all those that do not have significant discussion of him. That includes books written by him, and articles based on what he has said or what his colleagues and associates have said about him. If you end up with three or more acceptable sources, rewrite the draft based only on what those sources say. Maproom (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized image

Hi, I hate to be a whistleblower but this is concerning me so I need advice. I've been working on Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 and recently an editor has uploaded an image (PR-GTD at GIG.jpg) into the infobox which, whilst being fully suitable for the requirements, does not appear to have been uploaded through Wikimedia Commons using the correct process. When asked, the editor simply replies "I emailed the owner and he gave me permission." Please refer to Talk page. I've checked the Gol 1907 category in WC and I'm pretty sure it's not there in the repository and I suspect the permission has not been logged through the correct channels. Any advice would be very welcome thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rodney Baggins. You are 100% correct to be concerned about this issue. But you will have to pursue the matter at Wikimedia Commons. Although it is a sister project, it is a separate project with its own administrators. We can't do anything about it here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, I will do that. Rodney Baggins (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in Art Nouveau. I have found several articles that have a "page does not exist" flag attached to a reference.

However a page often does exist but on the French Wiki or others. Can that link be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbotkin (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alexbotkin, it is both technically possible, and allowed, to add Wikilinks to articles in other language Wikipedias when there isn't a suitable English article. But an article in a foreign language will not be very useful to many readers, so it is helpful to mark it as a foreign language. I recommend using the template {{ill}}, which will link to a foreign article and label the link with the language; but if an English article is then created with the same name, it will silently link to that instead. See WP:ILL for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All — I can't seem to find the answer to this (probably not looking in the right place) so thought I'd ask those in the know...

When I create a wikilink where the linked word is in plural, but the article name is in singular, what's the best practice? I know that creating a link with animals gets to the right article (Animal) via a redirect, but is that optimal? Should I instead write out the link fully as (square brackets) animal | animals (square brackets)? Or is there some pipe trick etc. to be employed here?

TIA — DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is to put the correct name of the linked article inside the square brackets and then append the 's' outside the brackets. Example:
[[animal]]s
You will find that the whole word including the 's' is underlined so the link appears to apply to the plural word.
Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hello DoubleGrazing and welcome to the Teahouse.
Simple plurals and other suffixes can be appended to links like [[animal]]s to produce animals. This is the preferred method, since it does not require the redirect to exist. Of course, if the plural requires a spelling change, you can't use this method.
When choosing between a redirect and a piped link, it's preferred to use the redirect if that redirect already exists. While it's not hard to create a new redirect, I advise waiting to do that until you have more experience.
All of this is covered in MOS:PIPE and MOS:NOPIPE. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for your helpful answers, Rodney Baggins & — jmcgnh. As expected, it was of course all explained somewhere, I just should have looked more thoroughly. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30/500 policy

It seems right on the heels of my previous question, I've also another:

Regarding the 30/500 rule of the extendedconfirmed status, is the 500-edit-requirement global or per-project? The reason for asking is that ATM my global edit count is (just) over 500, but my highest project-specific one is <500, and I still don't have the extendedconfirmed access.

And a related supplementary: if the edit count is project-specific, is the status also? In other words, once I become extendedconfirmed for one project, does that give me the access for all projects, or only that one?

Thanks, DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing. The requirement is per wiki, e.g. the English Wikipedia, and only gives the right at that wiki. extendedconfirmed only exists at a few wikis. Wikipedia with all languages together is called one project so "project" is the wrong term here. You don't get extendedconfirmed at other Wikipedia languages if you have it at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that, PrimeHunter, and apologies for wrong use of the terminology, still learning the ropes after ten years... :) Cheers, DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

how to make bot in whole wikimedia project (not all of them) because if I make bot account, it can be blocked. So how is this. Khris249talk 11:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a bot in some Wikimedia Foundation, it can not.Khris249talk 13:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information about a writer

Dear Teahouse,

How can I write about and present my information about a writer on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metricon01 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrovul Ciocănești

Hi, is there a guideline on disputed geographical regions? Ostrovul Ciocănești is was an unsourced article that after looking into it is such a place. If there is a guideline I'll follow that, otherwise I think I might AfD to get some consensus to delete, keep or rename. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KylieTastic. I'm sorry you haven't had a direct reply to your question. However, I see that both you and Maproom have since added citations. As a result, I've removed the 'unreferenced' template from the article. I think you've taken the correct path by not bringing the page to WP:AFD, but by working to improve the article and (as far as I can assess) show non-English language sources that support the dispute. I'm not personally aware of any guideline on covering disputed areas - though there may well be - but I would suggest the usual rule would apply. Namely, that articles should always be written in a neutral manner, presenting the sources from all sides of any disagreement, and avoiding expressing any personal opinions or bias. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me who added the citations, I can't read Bulgarian or Romanian. But I would oppose the article's deletion. The island exists, and its sovereignty is disputed. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my Draft:WakingApp

Hi there everyone! I created an article and it was declined... im not sure why because i followed all the guidelines. Is there someone who can help me? maybe I should place links in Hebrew since its an Israeli company? Thanks Mashsegli (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will need links to reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. I've only checked the first seven, but they all seem to be to articles based on press releases, and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mashsegli. Are you editing as an employee or investor or PR person for WakingApp? If so, please comply immediately with our mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Then, read and study Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I saw that three of your references are to press release hosting site PR Newswire, which is a red flag for reviewers. Press releases contribute nothing to notability, and neither does any coverage generated by press releases, or blog posts, or any coverage by unreliable sources. Remove all of those sources from your draft, along with any content backed by such sources. Hebrew language sources are OK, but only if they are truly independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this company. The quality of your sources is much more important than quantity. Far better to have references to five solid reliable sources than 20 mediocre and unacceptable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page view statistics

So recently I enabled page view staistics and almost reached 500 billion views but it was from a page all the way back in 2002 and I made mine in late 2016 or 2017. so now locked out of my phone with no other communication access i cant access the page view stats. Last time I went online with my phone I saw only a handfull. How do i enable it from an xbox360?DOWNTOWNJIzMBROWN26 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DOWNTOWNJIzMBROWN26, welcome to the Teahouse. I know what page view statistics are but apart from that I don't know what you are referring to with "enabled" or the huge number 500 billion. Maybe Wikipedia:Pageview statistics can help. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rockin' Rebel

I need clarification on what a Reliable source is.

Okay, Deaths in 2018 lists the death of Rockin' Rebel and there are multiple sources stating the same thing, although I realize all of them may not be WP:RS, why would multiple outlets report the same thing if it weren't true? There seems to be confusion as to what is a reliable source so the page has been protected for administrator editing only, which still, according to the article, has him as alive, yet the entry in Deaths in 2018 remains. So what needs to be cited to satisfy WP:RS, despite multiple reports and if there isn't a verifiable source, then should be be removed from Deaths in 2018? Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snickers2686:, here's what we know at this point: CBS Philadelphia (a reliable source) reported that a couple in Chester County, PA were found dead. Police have not released the names of these people or confirmed the cause of death but they did say they are not looking for any other suspects and the public is not in danger. Facebook and Twitter reports that these two individuals were the former wrestler were picked up by Wrestlingnews.co, which you added to the article. As explained previously, that site is not a RS, not least because they refuse to say how they linked the events in Chester County to the article subject. That report was later picked up and repeated by other wrestling blogs and similar web sites but it is still all the same report. The repetition of a non-reliable source's story does not transform it into a reliable source. There is still no official identification of the individuals in PA nor official cause of death. We do not need to race ahead of the sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m about to make a source but how?

I’m just a new editor on Wikipedia and made a new article that will be published soon. But I need help with citing sources? What do I have to type in? Please reply as soom as possible. HorsesARENiceRide me to my talk page 17:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HorsesAreNice, welcome back to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. I think you will find all the guidance you need at this page called Help:Referencing for beginners. It takes a bit of reading, but inserting references correctly is really important to support the things you say. Both of our two editing tools have a "Cite" button which offers you a range of templates to fill in - be it to a book, website, newspaper or journal. In the Visual Editor, the Cite button also gives you a pop-up screen which includes the ability to automatically generate a reference from an ISBN number or a url from certain types of website. Hope this helps. Regards form the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hey HorsesAreNice, good to see you back in the saddle and returning to the Teahouse.
Looking at your contributions, I see where you started the draft as an unreferenced stub and other users have been filling in some sources. If you have sources to include, you may want to take a look at referencing for beginners to get you started.
And, happy birthday wishes. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete an image

hello i uploaded an image and got a message of it being a copywrite...not my intention to upload a copywrite image ,, now how do i delete it???thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid999111 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homophones

Lase and laze are two different words that sound alike, but have different meanings. I heard the word in a news broadcast about Hawaii volcanos. I wanted to learn more, so I entered "lase" in the Wikipedia search box, which brought up the article on lasers, but no mention of volcanos. After searching in many other places, I finally found the Wikipedia article on Laze (geology).

I thought I would help others by creating a disambiguation page called Lase (disambiguation), giving readers a choice between lasers and Laze (geology). A few days later the page was deleted, with the log entry:

21:41, 30 May 2018 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Lase (disambiguation) (G6: nothing is disambiguated. "Laze" has no relation to "Lase" whatsoever) (thank)

My question is, "What can be done to help readers, who know what a word sound like, but don't know the spelling, especially when the word has homophones? Do they have to rely on Google?"

I will watch this spot for a reply. Comfr (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think homophones are really the province of our sister project Wiktionary. See wikt:lase and wikt:laze for details. There is no need to rely on Google. I suppose we could have a note on each page if this is a common confusion, but what about lays?. I don't think Wikipedia needs to give spelling lessons. Dbfirs 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we can't do anything within Wikipedia to help readers find these types of articles? Comfr (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{Distinguish}} could be used in this case. kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I couldn't remember what the disambiguation note was called. Since these are technical terms, I think the disambiguation notes would be appropriate. Comfr, would you like to add them since it was your idea? Dbfirs 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If {{Distinguish}} is used on Laser then it should lead to Lazer. {{Redirect}} is used for other meanings of a redirecting term but Laze could be added to Lazer#See also. I also discovered Laše which should be findable from Lase. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added {{Redirect}} to Laser. Thanks for your suggestion. Comfr (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Video to my Wikipedia Page

Hi I would like to know how to add a video to my page and how to give permission to Wikipedia. I am the creator of the video and would like to donate it to Wikipedia.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77B0:5180:1503:94DD:BE63:E0C8 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous IP. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question. Providing that you created all the video content yourself, and that it contains no copyrighted images, graphics or soundtrack, you can simply upload the video from a registered account yourself to Wikimedia Commons. However, you will first have to convert the video into a format which is acceptable for Commons. (Mpegs and AVI files are not OK as they use copyrighted/licenced technologies). To convert small videos into an acceptable format like WEBM, I use free online tools like ZAMZAR and upload the WebM file to Wikimedia Commons using this link. These free tools often have a file size limit. So, for large videos up to 2GB (or even up to 20Gb) we have a special conversion/upload tool here. It's not the most user-friendly tool in the box, but it does the job! I hope this gives you the information you need. Let us know if not. Just two final things, please sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~, and remember that we don't refer to 'my page' on Wikipedia as everything is in the public domain here and free for anyone to use - even content on our userpages. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spam / vandalization

Reading the article on truck manufacturer Kenworth in the english wikipedia I found an anomality regarding ownership of the company. Checking the edit log I found that someone had been inserting numerous incorrect text in several articles. Since I not familiar how to correct this spamming I ask any interrested to fix this.

You find the users "contributions" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.244.147.149

Some has been corrected bu there are several that has not been corrected. This "contributor" has been warned at least once last year, but this may he got on a spree once again.

With regards / Ratatosk (maybe a future contributor after retirement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.214.149.72 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting those incidences of vandalism. I've reverted the Kenworth example. Are there others remaining? Dbfirs 11:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is exemplifying in a math article original research ?

A mathematical formula is exactly the sum of its all possible examples.

An affirmation like (x+y=y+x) is nothing else than an abbreviation for (1+1=1+1) and (1+2=2+1) and (1+3=3+1) and (2+3=3+2) and so on.

Exemplifying, in mathematics, is just like choosing a cake on a plate, normally the closest to you. You are not the chef but a humble client. I personally not see exemplifying as original research.

Please, I very need help in this issue ! Thanks-full, Nboyku (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nboyku, welcome to the Teahouse. Like Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations, it depends how complicated it is and other editors may disagree, both about whether it's original research and whether the example is correct. There may also be concerns about relevance. Do you have a real example in mind? I don't think anyone would say it's original research to state that 1+2=2+1 is an example of x+y=y+x. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to PrimeHunter's reply that whenever someone asks for citations, it's the duty of those who wish to keep challenged content to provide them: WP:MINREF. There is no point in arguing does something need citations or not if citations have already been asked for, or if it's likely that they will be. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PrimeHunter, I understand the complexity point (if you are in a three star restaurant you are not a humble client, but you have to respect eating rules), I totally agree. Finnusertop, the rule you say is really deep, make plenty of sense, the user asking input is the god around here; I totally agree, thanks !

The example I have placed is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_species#A_simple_example_%E2%80%93_labeling_the_Fano_plane The reason that I had was to bring back on earth the "fancy" stuff in the article. The theory in the article is exposed in one a "fancy" book and tenth of "kitchen" article that are the result of a collective organized work. Personally I consider the article misinforms. It is not fair for someone to read the article, to eventually pay an expensive book and finally, after spending time and money, to discover in the "kitchen" writings some "fundamental bijection" between species and good old permutation groups. This is my reason for exemplifying. It is the simple and effective way to warn to the reader.

Let now suppose that someone ask me to cite; I will have to decline, to retract the example and then to retaliate with about twenty citing requests (as fancy the main book is, the article reaches the sky). It's the end of the article.

Whatever will be, thank you for assisting, it helps me a lot to bring some order in my thoughts. Nboyku (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deducing from (x+y=y+x) that (1+2=2+1) is not original research, because it is obvious. However, the material at Combinatorial_species#A_simple_example_–_labeling_the_Fano_plane is very far from obvious. It is, to me, totally incomprehensible. If it is to be kept in the article, it needs to cite at least one source – maybe https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01202372/document would do?. Anyway, the proper place for this discussion is not here, it is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nboyku, I replied at Talk:Combinatorial_species#Warning with specifics on this and related issues another editor already addressed to you there. Here, I will only add
Please think 20! times before following through on your threat to "retaliate with about twenty citing requests" to "end the article" when you lose your fight - that would be a childish reaction to a simple citation request and treated as such. Math articles frequently summarize a few authoritative reliable sources without repetitive inline citations; however, a specific example taken from a text would best be cited inline for copyright issues, as well as credibility. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Maproom, thank you Paulscrawl, I have already the replacement plan for the actual example with a well documented one, the case occurs. (better than retaliate, huh ?) It will be less "juicy" but it will bring to light the good old permutation groups.Nboyku (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just chiming in about the "routine calculations" exception. My understandings is that it was originally intended for really basic article writing, such as computing a percentage of wins for a basketball team from the number of games won and lost, but it was stretched to include any simple calculation where "simple" is understood in the context of the article. For instance, this portion of our article about the ideal gas law is probably not "simple" to an average person, but it would be considered "simple" in the context of the intended audience in that part of the article (that derivation appears in pretty much every textbook about statistical physics).
The linked section (Combinatorial_species#A_simple_example_–_labeling_the_Fano_plane) seems obscure to me, but the real question is whether it is a well-known example used everywhere in the field. If it is not, then you absolutely have to cite it or remove it. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tigraan. I am working on it and I appreciate your criteria. Anyway, I have just remember another aspect. The main book constantly leaves to the reader a heavy load of tasks (not routine ones) in proving theorems and propositions, either by explicit inviting the reader or by transforming them in not solved exercises. Right now the wiki article contains affirmations that are not documented - since they are left to the reader, and not documentable - because this would imply either SYNTH or OR.
thanks for your time. I have rechecked and the derivation chain ( X7/PSL(2,7)a )'" = ( X6/S4d )" = ( X.P4bic )' = L4 + P4bic is explicitly mentioned in literature, exactly in two steps like in my example, together with the cycle indices. I even did not a syntheses by using transitivity. I wonder what is more obscuring, leaving them like that or adding a picture (that is in the spirit of the area) and bringing Fano and Klein to help.Nboyku (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-block

Why is it a UW? 70.21.180.130 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UW stands for "user warning". John from Idegon (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 70.21.180.130 In addition t John from Idegon's above, Uw-block - is a message that warns user their have been temporary block from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

create an article

how can i create my own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajkumar Pittala (talk • contribs) 09:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dheerajkumar Pittala: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is actually the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You would be better off to learn about Wikipedia first by editing existing articles, to get a feel for what is being looked for. You should probably use the tutorial located at WP:ADVENTURE first. However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article to learn about the process and then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review. Understand that it will take time and patience, and that it may take a few tries. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

references

Hi, I'm a new editor and I've got a problem with my page. I translated the Dutch page of the Montessori Lyceum Amsterdam into English. But they say that I have to add reliable sources. I used the same sources as the Dutch page even two more. And I don't see a template at the Dutch page about adding more reliable sources. Can somebody help me to remove this template? Because I'm afraid they remove my page. Mabelwieman (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mabelwieman. All information on Wikipedia needs to be directly supported by a reliable sources. You should cite everything in the article, not just a few things. Failing that, those unreferenced bits may be removed (this doesn't necessarily mean that the entire article should be deleted). – Finnusertop</(talk) ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mabelwieman. It's important to note that each language version of Wikipedia has its own rules and policies, and there is arguably greater scrutiny on the English Wikipedia than the average edition - although it sounds like the article on the Dutch Wikipedia could do with flagging in the same way that Montessori Lyceum Amsterdam has been here. Please also note that when you translate a Wikipedia article, you need to credit the original version by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation. ;Finnusertop</(talk) 18:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Finnusertop, thanks for your respond! Now I understand why the Dutch page hasn't got the same problem. And if I'm correct, is my page already linked to the Dutch one. But maybe you can check that? There is only still one problem, because I translated it I don't know from which sites the information is coming from. I tried to research but that didn't always work. Have you got any tips to find the references? Mabelwieman (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Mabelwieman, the pages are linked to one another (in the sidebar), but that's not enough. You should use the following edit summary when you translate: Content in this edit is translated from the existing Dutch Wikipedia article at [[:nl:Montessori Lyceum Amsterdam]]; see its history for attribution.
What you describe is often the problem with translation. Sometimes what you translate is poor quality. Then it might not be worth it to translate. Content comes under scrutiny in the English Wikipedia more often than elsewhere, so you should only translate referenced material.
As for finding references, it can be tricky to find out what sources (if any) were used to write an article if they weren't marked down. You can try Google, newspapers, or books in the library. Sometimes the only option is to remove such material. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oke, thanks for your tips Finnusertop! Mabelwieman (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

page deleted

hello ....so there was a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Banat,,,, which i helped to contribute too.,,,now when i try to access it it seems to have been deleted, i only can read it in cached mode( on google page right click URL and click cache) why is the reason a page gets deleted??? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid999111 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Farid999111. As mentioned in the red box at the top of that page, it was speedily deleted because, in the opinion of the administrator who deleted it (User:DGG), it was unduly promotional and didn't indicate the significance of the subject. – Joe (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Farid99911. I do think it needed to be deleted for the reason specified, but I made an error. I was deleted it without giving another administrator the chance to review it. I am permitted to do so--we call it single-handed deletion. But I have always said that it is not a good idea to use this ability except in really extreme situations, so I am instead going to restore it--but restore it as a draft, where it would have some chance of being improved into an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Huff-Slush 17:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (Huff slush7264) and I would like to know how to make a proper link. If I try www.*source*.com, it doesn't work. I would like to know how to make a proper link. Thanks, Huff-Slush 17:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huff slush7264 (talk • contribs)

For the formatting of references, please read Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To star wrting

I want write about my place so how can I create new page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavadmn (talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can read our policies and guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest and not writing autobiographical material.
Beyond that, if you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing misinformation on a subject - problems adding 'references' and 'external links'.

I am new as a contributor and I have found misinformation, some of which I have been able to successfully edit. I have spent considerable time trying to add the external link properly and as yet have been able to properly place references. I am not finding the process very user friendly and I am asking for help in adding references and external links. I am sending a request to the historical society that has researched and published a more accurate account of my relative's life (the subject in question) to see if I can put that account, verbaatim on Wikipedia . . . if they agree, will that be allowed? I have pictures and much more to contribute, details that have been in my family for over 100 years. I just want an accurate account on this site since many take it to be 'the matter of fact'. I would appreciate any and all help. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Sheran relation (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nicholas Sheran relation, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that all information in it should be verifiable from a published source. If the historical society in question have had the information published in a reliable source (or if they have published it themselves, and have a reputation for editorial control in their publications), then the information may go into the article, and should be cited to that publication. If they have not published it, then it may not go into the article. Unfortuately, this may mean that certain information which you know to be factual can never go into the Wikipedia article, if it is not verifiable
Once the society have published it, by default it will be copyright and you may not reproduce it directly in Wikipedia (apart from explicitly quoting short passages, and citing the source). It is possible for the copyright owner (the writer, unless they have specifically assigned it to the society) to release the copyright in such a way that it may be reproduced directly in Wikipedia, but doing so will grant anybody the right to reuse the material in any way for any purpose, and they may not be willing to do this. See donating copyright materials for more information on this.
In any case, it is possible that material that they publish will not be suitable for direct use in Wikipedia, because it may not be neutral in tone. It might be - it depends on the intention of the writer. But it is very much more common in Wikipedia to write in one's own words, summarising what is said in the published sources.
As for the photos - these would be welcome, but again the question of copyright arises. If they are old enough, they may be in the public domain, and you can then upload them and use them in an article. But if they could still be in copyright, Wikipedia will assume that they are copyright in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. See Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Movie studio

I'm trying to write an article about a movie studio that is not very well known. Due to this there is barely any information about the studio. I wrote a draft and sent it in for submission. Almost immediately, they rejected it due to lack of information and refrences. What should I do know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanr (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvanr: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If this movie studio is not written about with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, I regret to say that it will not be possible for their to be an article about it on Wikipedia at this time. Its mere existence is not enough to merit an article here, it must be shown to meet the notability guidelines for companies written at WP:ORG. I am curious as to how you came to write about this studio if it is not well known. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, I recently saw a movie with the studio's name in front of that movie. I researched it not finding a lot of information on it. Nevertheless, I still wanted to attempt writing an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanr (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is Amorphophallus Titanum a legit user?

This user has engaged defamatory editing and vandalizing a section (Fenggang Yang and the Center on Religion and Chinese Society of Purdue University) of the article John Templeton Foundation. Is this user a paid agent of some political entity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixhill (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[I have taken the liberty of wikilinking the relevant article and section in your post above for the convenience of others.]
There is nothing to suggest that Amorphophallus Titanum is any less legitimate a user than you, Phoenixhill: he appears to have only began editing on 2 June 2018, but you yourself apparently only began on 23 May 2018.
You and Amorphophallus Titanum appear to disagree over article content, and I notice that two other Users have on your own Talk page criticised some of the edits you have tried make to the article, and still more Users in addition to Amorphophallus Titanum have reverted some of your edits. It is not obvious to me that Amorphophallus Titanum's edits are "defamatory", but this is a highly specialised area of scholarship, and I am suspecting that a Real World scholarly (and/or political) dispute is spilling into Wikipedia here.
Disagreeing over content is not Vandalism. You should both/all discuss the matter (calmly) on the Talk page of the article, where I notice Amorphophallus Titanum has already responded to a complaint by the longer-established User Ian Johnson (some of whose phrasing is oddly similar to yours above). You might also want to consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.160.23 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Phoenixhill is probably the same Ian Johnson or Yang Fenggang himself trying to delete academic criticism from Wikipedia.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to point out that while 90.202.160.23 is correct in saying that AT is not a "less legit" user than Phoenixhill, it certainly is not because of the time duration either of you has been editing Wikipedia. You both are just as "legit" at the longest-term contributors here (as long as you play by the rules). It does happen now and then that long-term contributors get away with something when newbies would not, but that is a flaw in the system. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Phoenixhill's most recent edit to the article was to delete an entire section, while leaving an edit summary describing the edit as "moving" it. That does come close to vandalism. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That user is becoming really disturbing. Now he clams that I made "assault on a living person" while I just quoted published information about the subject.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure that Phoenixhall is Fenggang Yang himself or a person related to the Templeton Foundation. In the article Fenggang Yang he keeps adding the allegation that critics of this scholar are all communists. In the article Templeton Foundation he keeps deleting entire sections which have strong academic sources, including the Centre national de la recherche scientifique of France.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

account

how can i open up my wikipedia thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssebbi abraham (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ssebbi abraham, Greetings and welcome to Teahouse! Just log in at top right corner of Wikipedia web page by inserting your user name "Ssebbi abraham" and your password. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... but Ssebbi abraham has already done this to ask the question, so I wonder what they meant by "open up"? Dbfirs 08:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To "open up" can mean to start, "my" is a reference to himself, ergo this could be a rather poorly worded way of saying "How do I start a Wikipedia article about me?".If so, here are links to WP:COI and WP:WIZ. 109.146.136.16 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article that seems promotional and not notable

Hi there! This article, The PM Group, seems like it's written as an advertisement, mainly by two editors who probably have a conflict of interest since main or only contributions are to this article or to articles relevant to the surrounding geographical area of the business. I've used the links in the notability template to check if it's notable, and it seems it probably isn't. I've left the advert/notability templates on the page for now (didn't combine them to multiple issues so someone could have a chance to prove me wrong and prove it notable via the links), but I'm not sure what to do now. I don't want to scare anyone away by sending it for speedy deletion, and I don't have the experience to judge if it should even be deleted. I'd love to get some feedback/help! Thanks! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 04:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Originalmess. You certainly got it right about one of the editors having a conflict of interest - in fact, I'm convinced it's an undisclosed paid editor. The other one appears to be a single-purpose account - which in itself isn't necessarily a problem - but they deleted maintenance templates and added content about awards. Not a conclusive COI diagnosis but it shows potential signs.
The referencing is also a problem. The first two references look legit but they're behind a paywall. The others are either primary sources, press releases or the sites of the business's clients. The Telly Awards look like they've been around for a long time and are possibly notable, but I'm not sure if that is enough depth of coverage to lift the article above the notability threshold. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at it Drm310 - you're probably right on the paid thing. On the sources for the Awards section - I'm sure they received them, but I've checked every link and can't find a mention to the group on all but 1 of the links. The NBA article seems possibly legit, but that's also not enough to make it into the notable section. I saw you left the templates on the page/user's talk, so what now? originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 05:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind getting a third opinion from one of the other contributors here before making any decisions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Help in editing

Can I add the official web address in my Wikipedia page? If yes, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Almesh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, official websites are appropriate to link to in articles about companies. The link is appropriately placed in the "external links" section of your draft article (User:Michael_Almesh/TIEMCHART).
However, its subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia. Unless you can show that with sources that simultaneously (1) deal with the subject in length, (2) are independent and (3) are reliable, nothing you can do will lead to it being accepted. You used external sources rather that the company website, which is a start, but still not enough. Most current sources seem to be comprehensive directory listings or social profiles; the only one that's kind of good is [1] but it reeks to much of a press release copy-pasted into an article to really be worth much. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Almesh: BTW, please do not use boldface markup ('''...''') in section titles. Section headers are displayed in boldface by default, doubling it makes the page look inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing article

Hi guys, I want to ask about this article submitted : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reza_Visual_Academy . I see that the article only gives information in a neutral point of view (no advertisement, no compliment...) and provides reliable sources (Le Monde, National Geographic, webisite of UNDP and UNHCR, national press...) . I would like to know if there is something to be improved so the article could be approved. Thanks a lot ! Dothien0103 (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened draft. Still needs work. David notMD (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page rejection query

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Isaac_Newton_Academy

I'm curious as to why this got rejected?

I've never been particularly bothered about editing or adding content to wiki, but I'm in the process of a lot of data management with my business at the moment. It's an education based industry and I'm having to find a lot of data on school's. I've been pretty pleased being able to cross reference and check my data with wiki entries and have come across a few newly built school's which haven't been added here yet. I decided to break up my working day to add one of those schools to wiki. A good deed, community helping, giving back or whatever you want to call it. I have no affiliation to the school posted (I live 200 miles away and have never stepped foot in that part of London before) but it might help out someone else who needs to search this information down as well.

Given that the school is brand spanking new how am I supposed to find more references than I have done? I filled in the school details box which includes a link to the governments Department of Education website where it lists that school. I included an Ofcom report link (the single authority for reviewing school's in the UK) and a link to the school's website. I added a link to a news article about the school's very first GCSE reports as history and to a third party teaching platform called TES which had listed the school on it's website. And I even managed to find out the architectural firm that built the school and referenced them. I also linked to other wiki pages.

I'm very confused by the reviewing process. I was sure my first draft to be proposed would have been accepted as the first draft with further and more comprehensive edits to be made as and when they were appropriate.

Please look at some other school pages on wiki and tell me how different they are. I've seen some with less information than my first draft proposal.

(I really am hoping that my linking to those other school's won't see those extremely useful resources withdrawn from the site. Please don't do that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adw-joe (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adw-joe. Welcome to our Teahouse, and thanks for coming here with your question. I confess, myself, to not quite understanding why your draft was rejected by Graeme Bartlett. It is quite short, and not unduly promotional in my view. There has been a common-held misbelief that English Wikipedia regards schools above primary level as automatically notable. Whilst it rarely deletes not-for-profit schools at WP:AFD, please see this guidance on school notability and also a recent community consensus view (RFC) added to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for a bit more information on this.
So, after all that waffle, what would I do? Well, I'd carry on creating articles like these, if I'm honest. I might take care not to appear to be accidentally over-selling the school by focussing on details about its exam pass rate. It is accepted that reliable sources to local schools are often only ever found in local media, so why not add these? In history, I would put the founding and then the Education Estates Award close together. School passes are less part of its history than something that happens yearly. I think the fact that an Italian media outlet (and our own Daily Telegraph) took notice of the conceptual idea which won a national TeenTech award for colour-changing condoms is meritorious for this article. Whilst the school ws not covered in depth, it was the school and their student who were responsible for it. See here and here. You have its opening reported by the Ilford Recorder here. Whether the Daily Mail can be trusted, has already been debated. But this story appears to highlight to schools very small catchment area in an overcrowded area. Hoping this is of some assistance, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I want to understand i was thought to be maybe promoting

Hello In the name of Jesus Christ:

My Name is Bishop Chris Harris I was told what I was doing was a conflict I don't understand why I am only corrected what I did wrong I am not on here for and worldly desirer I he to help out because I found out about a spilt that happened between the one Orthodox Church from Alexandra and Know they call themselves Autocephalous Greek International Orthodox Christian Church Canonical and they are moving between countries they are partially in America I am learning this would mean I think they would be considered in full communion or where I put them in Churches unrecognized do to various deputes under Eastern Orthodox Church Organization so if anyone could help and tell me what I should do. Also I put them in Western Rite because they are doing that as well but I put them with the Celtic Orthodox French Orthodox There was three should they be put there or with the mainstream communion like Antiochian and ROCOR please help me because I not good at this yet thank you

Yours Truly Bishop Chris HarrisBishopchris35 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishopchris35 and welcome to the Teahouse. I appreciate that you are trying to add genuine information to Wikipedia. As explained on your talk page, you have a conflict of interest in adding your own church, so it would be better if you suggested improvements on the talk pages of articles. If you want to claim that your church is affiliated with an organisation, then you need to provide good evidence, and your own website does not count. Your church is not mentioned on the official website of the organisation you claim to be part of. We do not want to suppress the information that you want to add, but we do need WP:Reliable sources for claims. Dbfirs 12:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Registration Form for both Africa and as well as here in the United States I have them PDF files and tried to down loud it on the Computer because it would not down load the file. What should I do what is suggestion on that situation. I know the Metropolitan Archbishop and Exarch of all Africa Patrick Mkhize. The Archdiocese of South Africa has Put the Article in the Newspaper as he has just been received his Ordination there and the media and the Biggest Newspapers put him in there I have pictures of the newspapers as well. The papers he is in I mean these Newspapers are Inkazimulo and Umafrika they are some of the Biggest ones there is that a enough Proof for now or what should you have me do. I know the Church has the day to go in front of Constantinople I'm 3 years time for him to make a decision of which he says if we are in full communion because we splitter the Church which they had said yes of right know we are in communion and we will also receive a letter from the Exarch of Constantinople of saying we are in communion with them we should have that soon I didn't know if I should have put us in communion with them of unrecognized with various deputes. I also thank for taking the time to help me I sorry for the misunderstanding I was not trying to promote us what so ever. It will not happen again but for the proof how can I upload if its not letting me do so I can attach it. Please help me with problem I am trying to correct and I will send you all the proof. Thank you God Bless you all (user:dbfirs) thank you for the understanding I thankful you guys are here to help
your truly
Bishop Chris Harris
Ps cant I do a Page on the Patriarch Francis Christopher M Maier because I know what is best is that aloud to do because if that ok and you guys can check it Bishopchris35 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would you have me do get ahold of the Patriarch French Orthodox Church and the Celtic Orthodox Church as well and get letters I write to them for there correspondence But I was asking because we are technically still in communion with them mainstream Orthodox since we split from them because of what was going to that why I asked should I put with mainstream or wait until I get the official letter from them and scan on computer and have it done then thank again God Bless you all. Bishopchris35 (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just ask them to update their website to include your church? We are not able to check original documents here at Wikipedia, and anyway, these would be WP:Primary sources. We prefer WP:Secondary sources such as reliable published newspapers where the information has been published. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing that website that you tried to add, perhaps a year or so ago, and at the time came to the conclusion it was indistinguishable from a hoax church. No online references to the church at all. One can form a church with a few friends and meet in your living room, it can be a real church, but it's not a church that is notable, in the Wikipedia sense, if nobody independent of the church has chosen to publish coverage about it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked as a sock.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translating page

Hey! Sorry if my question is too basic. I'm learning as I go. I want to translate an article that's only available in Spanish. I'd like to translate it to English but although I read how to do it I'm not sure I understand. I tried and messed it up so I just reverted to avoid harming the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yu Jing Hao Tse (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yu Jing Hao Tse, this is actually a good place for basic questions. The basic answer to your question is at WP:Translation. If you need further help after reading that page, you know where to find us. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to request a page to be protected?

Hi, how does one request a page to be protected? I want to have the page Electronic Entertainment Expo 2018 protected from ip users as recently there has been a lot of edits made by those kinds of users that are unsourced and/or unconfirmed for the expo. I noticed that non of the recent reverted edits have been made by autoconfirmed or above ranked users. Can someone protect the page? The expo will be held from June 12th to 14th, so the protection should last until at least the end of the event, as until it happens, there are still many unconfirmed things for the event and still lots of room for speculation as those participating have not all announced everything they will show off at the expo. Also, how might I request a page to be protected in the future so I don't have to ask here again next time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greshthegreat (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Greshthegreat: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Without looking at the page yet, I can say that you can request page protection by visiting WP:RPP and following the instructions there. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rennie Parker

Who is Rennie Parker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.235.210.81 (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, and it isn't really about understanding any particular subject matter in the articles. According to List of compositions for viola: T to Z and Ian Venables#Works list, a Rennie Parker wrote the words for a violin composition. Were you looking to write an article for that Rennie Parker? --Habst (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

some rules missing from the Standing Rules of the United States Senate

The Standing Rules of the United States Senate page contains a link to a Wikipedia page for each rule of the U.S. Senate, but there are one or more rules for which the page does not exist, such as rule XXIII.

If you click on the link for rule XXIII, it redirects you back to Standing Rules of the United States Senate,which is a bit confusing. In fact, there is an archive of the rule XXIII page in Wayback.

The issue is evidently a little deeper than what happened to the page for this one rule. On the talk page, one person had opined that there should not be a separate page for each of the 40 or so rules, while I notice that other pages have been (as I would describe it) vandalized, the text of the rule having been deleted, with the explanation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, though I might be convinced to agree with this rule provided that there's a comprehensive summary of the rule provided in its place.

To be clear, I have not surveyed the full set of rules, but I think that most pages either have the text of the rule or a comprehensive summary of the rule, as well as a link to the rule on the official U.S. Senate web site.

It is worth noting that Standing Rules are subject to change, though I would imagine that tracking the history of changes to any given rule would be relevant to Wikipedia. I don't know whether rules get renumbered if a standing rule is deleted. That could surely make a mess of things.

I am not looking to create a project to re-organize this, but I'm hoping to get some consensus about whether we should restore this to the state where we had a page for every rule, and what is the proper content of each page (i.e. should the text/comprehensive summary be included). Fabrickator (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

testing Farid999111 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

im just testing signing my name using tildes!!!!!somebody mentioned to me ,a newbie here to sign my name at end ..when i chat here at the tea house Farid999111 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it worked! In the future you can test these things out in the Wikipedia sandbox at WP:SANDBOX, tilde signatures should work on all Wikipedia pages (but remember to only use them on discussion pages!). --Habst (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... and the signature should not be placed in the section heading, just at the end of your message. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with my infobox, its appearing as regular text across the top of my article

What the headline says, will it fix itself?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chg1990 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had malformatted the associated_acts parameter. I corrected it in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You!!! any clue how long it will take to get the article approved? I had a lot of references so i think it will be approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chg1990 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most drafts get reviewed within a few months, and currently nothing has waited for more than 3 weeks. While you are waiting, there are plenty of aspects for you to address. You have many misplaced external links in the body text of the draft, your references are all bare URLs, you have further reference declarations after your reflist template, you have called up a non-existent template, and a non-existent category, and ... You ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article and in the Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature problem

Hi all, I made a custom signature that I like, but is too long to go in the box provided in my preferences. Is there anything I can do besides copy and paste it each time, like I am doing for this question? Thanks! †Basilosauridae❯❯❯talk19:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you could try writing the signature out in one of your userspace pages and then putting it in the signature box via WP:substitution, like at User:Jared/signature. I haven't tried it myself, so I'm not sure if it would be that simple though. --Habst (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Basilosauridae and welcome to the Teahouse. You could use Habst's suggestion for experimentation and recording past signatures (as in Jared's example), but it's not an allowed approach for live signatures which must not involve transclusions. The text box in your Preferences will take signature markup text that is up to 254 characters long (I forget exactly why it's not 255). Your current sig exceeds that by quite a bit. You will have to, just like everyone else, use your creativity to find a way to cram an interesting-looking signature code into that box. There's a penalty for longer usernames because the username has to appear 3 times in the signing code. Four times, if you want to include a contribs link. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Basilosauridae: [[User:Basilosauridae|<span style="background-color:black;color:#ADFF2F"><sup>†</sup></span><span style="color:#00FA9A">Basilosauridae</span>]][[User talk:Basilosauridae|<span style="background-color:black;color:#ADFF2F">❯❯❯</span><span style="color:#00FA9A">talk</span>]] works (251 characters). It's visually a bit long, but it fits in the box. is still too long, but I’ve corrected the errors with unbalanced tags (I think) Dairy {talk} 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be saved in the signature field with "Treat the above as wiki markup" due to unbalanced span tags. Trying to save it gives "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." Basilosauridae's attempt has the same error and cannot be saved if it's shortened. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I missed that. With the </span> it's only 4 characters over, so shortening it shouldn't require too much compromise. I corrected my above comment so at least it's a reference to work from. Dairy {talk} 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, nope, there’s more. 18 characters over. Dairy {talk} 00:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, thanks for your feedback. I guess its back to the drawing board on this one. Basilosauridae (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final result. B^) Thanks again everyone.†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that giving up on the separate styling of the dagger might be something to try. Glad to see you worked it out. Congratulations on a fine-looking sig. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves room for changing the "Talk" color if you want: †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help

who is michael jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas447058 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thomas447058. Welcome to the teahouse. Please ask your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or read the article Michael Jackson... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Update

Good afternoon!

I have been asked to update our company logo as we now have a new font. Since my profile is not verified, I don't believe I have permission to upload it. Does anyone know how else I can go about this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfrasier11 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse Kfrasier11. If you are working for your company and you are being paid to do this, please read WP:PAID. Thanks!Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kfrasier11, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thegooduser is right, but does not answer your question. When you have made your Paid Editing declaration, I believe you can then request an upload at WP:Files for upload. Please read LOGO first, and make sure that the file your want to upload and how it will be used meets all the requirements of the non-free content criteria (I am assuming your company will not want to license the logo with a free licence). --ColinFine (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kfrasier11, I don't actually think you need to declare any paid editing if all you are doing is trying to replace a new version of this logo for the Empire Distribution article. I note the old one appears to have been uploaded to Wikimedia commons under a free (Creative Commons) licence. That seems surprising, but uploading to Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia, can be a good way to provide an image for what we call 'fair use', as ColinFine suggests. Oh, do please try not to post roughly the same question at different help desks. Sometimes you do have to wait a day or so for a reply as we're all volunteers here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

How do I make my own WikiProject?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this page of instructions, which are mostly preliminary. They end with a link to this page.
It looks like you make sure that the project is something we do not already have and is something that people will join. Then you create a WikiProject page just like any other page, but with a template at the top to list it as a project page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of an article's title vs. wording of subject in the article's lead

The article State University of New York at Old Westbury begins with "The State University of New York College at Old Westbury is a public college ..." (italics added). Should one or the other be changed so that the two have the same wording? I had not heard of the school before tonight, but a brief look at its website seems to indicate that it doesn't use the word "college", although the seal contains the word. Normally, a question like this one should be discussed on the article's talk page. Such a question was posted in 2005 with no response, so I thought I would ask here. If I am being to picky, please ignore the question. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an important distinction that needs clarification in the article or the title. The USA uses the words "college" and "university" to mean different things from what they mean elsewhere. So I'm with you Eddie. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer player profille

How do i post my Player profile article, so when i search my name on google i find the article directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadou Kalle (talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amadou Kalle. It appears that you might be trying to write an Wikipedia article about yourself which is something that is highly discouraged per Wikipedia:Autobiography. It also appears that you might actually be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about you based upon Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. So, I have posted a message at WT:FOOTY to see if one of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football would be willing to take a look the draft you've created and assess it to see if an article can be written. Please don't create any more drafts or any more accounts (I'm assuming User:360sport) is you as well and just wait and see what the members of WikiProject Football have to say. If a Wikipedia article can be written about you, someone else should probably be the one to write it.
In addition, it appears that you have uploaded a number of images to Wikimedia Commons as your "own work". Some of these have been tagged for deletion/review because their licensing is suspect, so please carefull read through c:Commons:Licensing before uploading any more files. Just for reference, the copyright holder of a photograoh is generally considered to be the person who actually takes the photo, not the any persons depicted in the photo. In other words, just being the person shown in a photo does not automatically make you the copyright owner of the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amadou Kalle: / @360sport:, the footballer did not pass the criteria WP:NSPORTS as only Major League Soccer, North American Soccer League and United Soccer League are considered as Fully professional leagues in the United States. Matthew_hk tc 06:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wikipedia is not a webhost service, draft and userpage of wikipedia had nofollow no index tag for search engines. Matthew_hk tc 06:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding deletion of my page

Yesterday I added a page name "Relationship coach" and I don't know why my page has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangoli (talk • contribs) 06:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangoli: The content itself was promotional of the concept, which in itself would lead to deletion, but the "article" also had the section "List of Best Relationship Coach" with several completely inappropriate links. We require all content to be entirely neutral, and to never promote anyone or anything. The page in question blatantly violated those requirements and promoted both the concept and individual practitioners of it, and so its deletion was entirely correct. We also already have an article about relationship counseling, which is essentially the same thing. We do not ever allow promotional material. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Sangoli. There is a notification at User talk:Sangoli#Speedy deletion nomination of User:Sangoli/sandbox which shows that your user sandbox was deleted per section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, so maybe this is the page you're referring to. I'm not an administrator so I cannot see the content which was deleted, but it does appear that there was a Draft:Relationship coach deleted by RHaworth for the same reason as your sandbox. Try posting at User talk:RHaworth if you want more details as to why the draft was deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Art Solomon

Hello, I would like to have a short Wiki page created about Art Solomon, telling a bit about his life. Art was a well respected Ojibwe Elder and Activist of Native Rights. He has received several honorary Doctorate Degrees, We was selected to receive an Order of Canada award, but he turned it down, because they would not give him the time he needed on stage to say what he wanted to stay. Art has written two published books, "Songs for the People: a Teaching of the natural ways" and "Eating Bitterness: A vision beyond the Prison Walls" Art worked to getting Native Spiritual ceremony's practiced inside prisons in Canada. He also worked with many inmates including Leonard Peltier. there are many other notable things Art has done thoughout his life.

I am Arts Grandson and it says I should not create a page about family members so I would like to know how I could get a page created.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards Christian Solomon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian C Solomon (talk • contribs)

@Christian C Solomon: You would need to present multiple reliable sources (references with a solid reputation for editorial control and fact checking) that are independent of the source (so not interviews, press releases, etc.) and cover them in depth (not name drops, brief mentions, blurbs, etc.). If such reference material does not exist, this individual is not an appropriate subject for an article. If it does, bring it to the attention of other editors to help them write the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again dear Wikipedias

Hi everybody, you're having your tea? I haven'r had my coffee yet because I ran out of it but will go get some.

Roasted coffee beans - just for User:Robertgombos, who has run out!

A few days ago, while reading, I stubbed across an article about the Placido Domingo's Operalia - the most important international competition. Of coerce, haha, I immediately checked ig there is an article on WP about it. It is. So I plan to improve that article as much as I can because it is really important and most of the winners (especially those who won the 1st price) don't have a WP article. Subsequently I intend in my next few weeks (not between 5th and 14th of June - because I need to learn for my masters's degree in Art - but than I'll be free) to see all those red links blue.. I know all BPL policies. I will start with the sopranos for obvious reasons. We need to give them priority. Last night I was checking the WP:V reliable sources and there are plenty of them. I created Adela Zaharia. Because the soprano lives in Germany, many surceases are in German (added all the trans-title). This in not my first article, hoerver, Could you take a look? Any feebdack is wellcomed. (Mainly, I want to make sure to continue of not). This {{Userspace draft}} in the article whic I moved the article from my draft spafe to the Main Space. I don't think this will show up in the NPP broeese not new pages feed... so should stay or may be removed? Sicerilly Robertgombos (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly well above my expectations when reading the garbled English from the above post. So... I say this as friendly as possible, but, come on. Please pay attention to what you write on "backstage" pages (such as talk pages, the Teahouse, etc.) as well. (Did you know there is a preview button to proofread before posting?) TigraanClick here to contact me 07:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertgombos:, I will pay more attention! thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?

are you also a fan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William1066 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William1066. Our Teahouse is here to help editors with issues about editing Wikipedia. Whilst the hosts here are definitely fans of this encyclopaedia, and love to assist people, you haven't actually asked a question we can answer. Is there any assistance you need at this point in time? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

from sandbox to article

please can move from sandbox to article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnanakesse (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iamnanakesse. Welcome to our Teahouse. If I understand you correctly, you want to move User:Iamnanakesse/sandbox, which is an article about yourself, from your sandbox into the main part of Wikipedia? I note you also created Draft:Nana Kesse (Blogger) which has already been declined. So there seems little point in trying to create a move a similar article, when you need to address the concerns raised on your talk page. I should thank you for declaring on your Userpage your conflict of interest in doing this. I've fixed the template for you, so that it now displays correctly. We never encourage people to write about themselves here - they are never independent, and only tend to present 'the good side' of that person. (I would do the same, too, of course!). Perhaps you would read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to understand the issues around this. What you need to do is find sources that are completely independent of you and which have written about you in-depth, warts and all. We strongly urge people never to write about themselves, but to to wait until someone else takes notice of them and writes about them. We suggest that Facebook and LinkedIn are the best types of ways to promote oneself. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning i can't create a wiki account and add content by myself?

Meaning i can't create a wiki account and add content by myself? ... I watched some tutorials on youtube ...the sandbox only serves as keeping your content then later export into article page. Anyway please can you assist me for my account not to be declined again? Please moreover what makes it autobiography? please kindly assist me. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnanakesse (talk • contribs) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamnanakesse: You already have an account. Your account is what you logged in to to create articles. You tried to make an article at Draft:Nana Kesse (Blogger).
Since you are Nana Kesse, this is a problem, because we have rules about editing with a conflict of interest and writing autobiographies.
  • If you were going to write an article about someone else, here's what you would do:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

iamnanakesse can't create an article for himself with the Nana Kesse (Blogger)? meaning onless someone with different does that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnanakesse (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard for someone to be fair ("neutral") when they write an article about themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all!

I'm having difficulty understanding why a web page used as a reference in an article can't also be included in the External Link section of the same article. I've looked at various sections of the Manual of Style and various Guidelines and I've yet to see this addressed specifically. Thanks for your help!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=844526661"