Wikipedia:Teahouse

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

• Learn more

Cullen328, Teahouse host

Experienced editor?
Become a host...

Question archive »

Ask a question

New to Wikipedia? See our introduction for new editors, or try The Wikipedia Adventure as a comprehensive guided tour.

Blocked

Blocked on Wikimedia? How do I resovle that? Bri39 ({{User talk:Bri39|talk]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri39 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bri39, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't see any trace of you being blocked. Where are you seeing that? --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth/Bri39 shows a block at MediaWiki.org. Most users never edit there anyway. Can you just ignore it? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit problem

I made an update on the Slate Creek records page and no it shows a cite error. I have spent over an hour trying to figure it out with no luck. Could you help?27raccoons (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, 27raccoons, and welcome to the Teahouse. I removed an empty ref tag, that was it. Drop by again, if you need more help. — Sam Sailor 20:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Grammar ?

Could someone explain to me the following style for a caption: "Jammu division with all districts (red font) and sub-districts, as on Nov 2012. Only Indian-administered areas shown."Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Srednaus Lenoroc, and welcome! Where do you see this? — Sam Sailor 20:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It is in Jammu Division#Districts.Eddie Blick (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not remember off hand but I changed it to "in" for the date and the person said that it was good faith something or other when they reverted it. It is a caption for a map.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You were reverted because you changed the wording of a filename, Srednaus Lenoroc, and there's no such file as File:Jammu division with districts as of November 2012.pdf. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the caption remains wrong.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good reason to fix the grammar of the caption then, without breaking the filename. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I just edited the caption, Srednaus Lenoroc, as you could also have done. There is nothing wrong with editing the caption, but changing the file name in the article without actually moving (renaming) the file itself stops the image from displaying. I am sure that was not what you intended. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

So the reverting editor was too lazy to do the correction?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Srednaus Lenoroc: in all likelihood they simply noticed that the file name was incorrect, and so corrected the file name. They did not realize that your intention had been to modify the caption. -Darouet (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

So they made a move without understanding the whole situation?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Really, the onus is on you to not make mistakes when editing, rather than on others to try to work out what your intention was. If you do make a mistake, another editor is perfectly entitled to revert you. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a new term to wikipedia with references. Can anyone help me to improve?

Hi there, I just added https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessment_culture to Wikipedia and I included a bunch of references. Can anyone please help me to improve this post? I realize that I have used a lot of print references and only a few web references. thank you! Radditor (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(a) You've written a dictionary entry not an encyclopedia entry, (b) you need to use secondary sources not primary sources and (c) when citing a book you need to give page numbers. More specifically you need to differentiate it from organisational culture and differentiate 'culture of assessment' from 'assessment culture' 130.195.253.79 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Never any original work?

My Law of Omnificence is the unification of nuclear forces the quantum and more than the Grand Unification or Theory of Everything. It literally explains everything. I'm shocked that my draft was declined due to it being original work. Are you sure Wikipedia doesn't want to be the publisher of this? Last chance type thingOmnificence (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Omnificence. Please read Wikipedia:No original research, which is a core content policy. In order for a theory about physics to be described in Wikipedia, that theory must have been published elsewhere and then discussed extensively in peer-reviewed physics journals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Referencing, published books of subject, notability

The person I am creating one for (Dr. Robert L. Zorn) has published many books and I have referenced notable ones to the book sites on Google Books...is this all I need to do or is this not enough for it to be listed? A received a comment from a review saying "Unless there's major book reviews, he's not satisfying our standard" Does this mean that even if it is a published book it may not be able to be listed? ThanksKatebech32 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Katebech32. For Draft:Dr. Robert L. Zorn to be accepted, you need to demonstrate that he (or his work) has been the subject of coverage in independent sources (rather than just the author of sources such as books). See Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Is my old account considered a sockpuppet?

I created an account a long time ago, that I used for like 1 day, but forgot the password. It's completely inactive, but I created another account (my current one). So, is this sockpuppetry? NewByzantine (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey NewByzantine. In short, no. Policy doesn't prohibit the existence of multiple accounts, but rather the misuse of those accounts. Like yourself, I also have an old abandoned account. Many others have alternate accounts for various reasons, such as a pseudonymous account for editing in sensitive areas, for those who use their real name for their main account; accounts for testing purposes; or accounts for sometimes purely comedic reasons. As long as you're not using multiple accounts for some nefarious reason, you're just fine. TimothyJosephWood 16:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That is very cool. I may even decide that I've got strong enough masochistic tendencies to create one and sign up for new page patrol! DennisPietras (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The official policy is at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Don Gregorio Anón

Hi and thank you for your assistance.

The article I recently finished was deleted. Could you please allow me you input in how to make eligible for inclusion. As I am new to your site, I could really use your guidance to see if I am up to the challenge of contributing further information on those artists who have influenced and supported me.

Thank you!

BLAN-JU (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The process for this is described at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. 130.195.253.79 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

deleted article

Please inform me why my page/article about Branko Sotirovski is constantly deleting. I tried to follow your rules, i've deleted some adverting and promotion material, and leave only raw material, and my article is constantly getting messages that has been deleted. what should i do? Branko1Sotirovski (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Branko1Sotirovski. It looks like it was deleted for being overtly promotional, but also because it did not make a credible claim of significance. In order for a person to have their own article on Wikipedia, they need to meet our standards for notability. If a person does not yet meet those standards, then it is probably too soon for them to have their own article.

Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from writing autobiographical articles, since it is exceptionally difficult to write an article on yourself in a way that satisfies our policies on neutrality. If a person is indeed notable,then they will likely eventually have an article written about them, since we have thousands of volunteers writing new articles every day. But as an individual, your job is simple to be notable, and the article will eventually follow. TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

How to transfer an article from German Wikipedia?

Dear Wikipedia experts,

can you tell me: are there any Special issues with transfering an article, which I wrote some time ago on German Wikipedia into English Wikipedia?

Would be glad to get some advice! Thanks!

Paddy Pillow (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paddy Pillow. There's nothing wrong with translating pages over from non-English projects. In fact, it's a really great way to contribute content, especially in niche subject areas. However, you should include Template:Translated page on the talk of the new article, so that contributions from others can be properly attributed. This is kindof a technical legalistic thing, since the way that content on Wikipedia is licensed, requires that reuse or modification of content includes attribution to Wikipedia. So in this case, you're attributing yourself, which you don't totally have to do, but you are also allowing for attribution of anyone else who may have contributed to the German article, which is required. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There's one thing I would add to Timothyjosephwood's advice, Paddy Pillow: each Wikipedia is independent, with its own rules and policies. Don't assume that because an article, or some text in an article, is acceptable in dewiki, that its translation is automatically acceptable in enwiki: the criteria for notability, or the judgment of a source as reliable, could be different. In fact, some things come down to consensus, and the consensus of editors might happen to be different. Your translated article will be treated like any other new article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sites for review/verification?

After receiving valuable feedback here I have been working more on the two pages: Dreaming of Denmark and Michael Graversen. Making them more neutral and finding correct citations/quotes. Are they ok to send for review/verification? KlausJensen (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no process which you need to go through to "send" them for review/verification. Those 2 pages, along with nearly 15 thousand others, are listed at Special:NewPagesFeed awaiting the attention of the limited number of editors with the "new page patrol" user right. The backlog is currently about 4 months and increasing, but if you are lucky they may be patrolled earlier. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Poem

Can I create an article on the famous poems ???? Sawongam (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, SawOnGam. Welcome to the Teahouse! The answer to your question is maybe. Fame is subjective. However, if the poem you want to write about is notable, and there isn't already an article on it, then yes you can. Notability is shown by the poem having been written about in detail in multiple reliable sources. If you want to be specific about what poem, we can give you a more specific answer. John from Idegon (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What Hapens after a page is edited

I submitted my draft for 'Lancelot Cooper' on 4th Feb but after it was given several minor edits it has remained untouched with the standard notice about being patient at the top. It is now over a week since submitted and I wonder what happens next. My editor stated that it needs to be 'curated' whatever that means. It is a bit frustrating given the hard work I have put into the article Alantaylor17 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Alantaylor17. Articles for creation currently has a backlog of about 600 unreviewed drafts, so it is really just a matter of being patient. AfC is a good way for newer users to get feedback on their article prior to publication, and also to protect articles that still need a little work, from being nominated for deletion. However, if your first few articles sail through AfC without any problems, then you are probably safe to start skipping the process all together and start publishing them directly.

I would only note that, reading through your draft, there are a few places where you...kindof...start to write as a writer rather than writing as an encyclopedia. So for example, "describe in some detail" is a phrase that would be perfectly appropriate if you were writing a chapter in a book, since it expresses more-or-less the author's opinion on the source in question. But, it's not really the way that an encyclopedia should write about something, since an encyclopedia is really supposed to be kindof a "neutral-editorial-robot" (my own words) and report just the bare facts, and as much as possible do so without weighing in on how they feel about what the sources say. TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a host?

I had been made host twice but when i relogin the page says to again become a hos. So what`s the problem. Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003 (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for trying to help. If you were a more experienced editor you would know how to look at the page history of the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing page, and you would see that your name was removed, along with many others, because you do not have the experience to be a host. At present you have 52 edits, 35 of them to articles. The host page now has 30/500 protection to restrict it to editors with more experience. You are, of course, welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia to build up your experience. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

How to change the title of a Wikipedia Article?

I am editing an article that should be titled "Central Valley Christian Schools" but the title of the article is "Central Valley Christian High School". Is there a way to change the title to make it more accurate? Williamvb99 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Williamvb99, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is called moving the article. I've done this for you, as very new users don't have the functionality. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it! Williamvb99 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Template maintenence

I want to combine cells in a table on the page New York City English. However, I try to use "rowspan", and I end up with a mess. Does anybody know how I should use "rowspan"? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi LakeKayak. I guess it's about the collapsed tables in New York City English#Vowels. Help:Table has some documentation of rowspan but it can be tricky to get right. I often need several previews. I don't know exactly what you want to combine but if you post a diff to an attempt or save it in a sandbox like User:LakeKayak/sandbox then we can probably guess what you want and see what is wrong. You can also describe in words which cells you want to combine. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

How do I do that?LakeKayak (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: If you want to post a diff then you first have to save your attempt, and revert it if it damages an article. Then click the "View history" tab, click "prev" at the edit, copy the url from the address bar and save it here. Or instead you can copy the wikisource from the article to User:LakeKayak/sandbox and save your attempt there. That page can always be reached on the "Sandbox" link you probably have at the top of all pages. You could also save your attempt in this section but if it's badly misformatted then it may damage the following sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The main body of an article is not cited

Hi, I am editing a page titled "Moros". The main body of the page has no citations, and non of the info can be found online. I have not gone to my local library and researched the deity, so it could be found in a book. So do i delete? Or leave it in case it is from a book? Please help, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, GrecoRomanNut, and welcome to the Teahose. Any information that is uncited, and that you find challengeable in any way, can be removed. Opinions as to whether simply being unsourced is grounds for removing, or do you have to also doubt the neutrality or factuality of the content in order to remove it, vary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay thank you, I will put a template on the page that says that it is uncited until I get to my library, which has a considerable amount of history books. Thank you, Finnusertop for helping and getting back so quickly. GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GrecoRomanNut. The article in question, Moros, has five references, all available online. Therefore, adding a template saying that the article is unreferenced is not appropriate, and so I have removed it. The first step is for you to read the five cited references to see if they support the unreferenced parts of the content. If so, add them to those sections. If not, Template: Citation needed is a better template to use. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I know. I am aware of the 5 references. But they are all at the very beginning of the article. The "Moros in Mythology" section is unreferenced. I only put that template because that section had no sources. I was just talking about that section, but there was no template for just one section. GrecoRomanNut (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

GrecoRomanNut, see Template:Unreferenced section. Also Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for an overview of Wikipedia's multitude of article improvement templates. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you GrecoRomanNut (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use guidelines?

Hi! On the President of Guatemala page, there are a few former presidents that are missing a photo. I'm wondering, would a photo taken from, say, a local newspaper be considered fair use in this case? Or would the fair use claim be valid only for the actual article on each president, and not for the list of presidents? FlyingAce (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FlyingAce, and welcome to the Teahouse. The latter is correct. The photo of a person only comfortably meets WP:NFCC#8 in a biography about that person. Use in a list is almost certainly against WP:NFLISTS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@FlyingAce: Additionally, photos of any person still living generally fail WP:NFCC, since a free photo could still be taken (although there may be some exeptions). RudolfRed (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Finnusertop and RudolfRed. That makes sense – most of the ones missing are still alive. I'll see if I can find any photos that meet the free use guidelines then. If I were to use Google Images for the search, I would need to select "Labeled for reuse with modification", correct? FlyingAce (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, FlyingAce, but be sure to also check what the exact license on the page containing the image is. And don't be surprised if you don't find any suitable images. My experience with Google's free image search is that the vast majority of results are images that are already on Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

How can I bookmark pages?

I was wondering if there was a simple way to save pages for personal reference. For example I am learning french I was wondering if I could save the french IPA page in a folder of french "notes". I came across a page suggesting the user page could fulfill this purpose, but am worried someone could vandalize it. Sorry for the dumb question I'm new around here.

Pandagod2025 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Pandagod2025, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not meant for keeping your own references. This is better done on your own computer. However, any lists you want to make that can help improve Wikipedia are allowed. You can make such a list on your user page or a subpage of your user page (example sub page User:Pandagod2025/list). Other people generally do not edit your user page. All versions of a page are always stored in the history of the page. Any vandalisme can be undone. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pandagod2025. While I agree with Taketa that storing bookmarks on your own computer makes sense, there may be reasons to store them in Wikipedia (eg if you use several different devices), and it seems to me that there are several heads of WP:UPYES which allow you to keep them on your user page (or a user subpage). --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia articles, how should non-English references/ sources be used?

In English Wikipedia articles, how should non-English references/ sources be used? English readers may not be able to verify the references/ sources in languages they cannot understand. What are the Wikipedia rules on this issue? A ri gi bod (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear A ri gi bod, references in other languages are allowed. The guidelines do not make a distinction between different languages. The article needs to be in English, the references can be any language. When you use a reference in a different language, preferably indicate what language the reference is in. This can be done by using, for example, Template:link language. I hopes this answers your question. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, A ri gi bod. Welcome to the Teahouse. You are as stated above free to use foreign language sources, but if English sources are available, those should be used. We only use foreign language sources when there are no equivalent English sources. John from Idegon (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Languages – only English pages?

Dear experts,

as far as I could see, only the language pages in the English Wikipedia bear the banner from Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. Is this coincidence, or does the Project imply, that only the 'language' pages, and not, for example, the 'язык' pages, should be part of the project? Would it be allowed to add the banner to non-English languages pages?

Best, Dont-you-love-it-when (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Dont-you-love-it-when,

welcome to the Teahouse. WikiProject Languages only works on the English language Wikipedia. You should not add their banners to pages on the Russian language Wikipedia. The Russian language Wikipedia is a sister website with their own community. They have different editors and projects. The Russian language Wikipedia currently does not have this project and people would not have any use of English language banners. I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Taketa,

thank you, that was exactly what I wanted to know!

Best, Dont-you-love-it-when (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with creating an article

I have been attempting to creat an article to include in the list of historical socities (Ireland). I have been practicing in sandbox, but someone appears to have removed it. Can you help. Ards Historical (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ards Historical, welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was renamed and mhas become an article. You can find it at Market House, Newtownards. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing Citation Links

Hi, I am new here and have a concern. I am trying to amend links within reference and citations in articles that are currently directed to my company website. I did not add these links in the first place, other users and contributors have and there are lots of them. I want to know whether it is ok to change the reference links, these links will be out of date very soon and therefore will no longer work. I am not trying to promote the website that I work for, nor am I trying to increase any external links, just wanting to make sure the correct links are in place. There hundreds of links that will be invalid and I am trying to change them before the redirect stops working. Can I do this?? I have been told that I am spamming, my work in editing these links has all been deleted, wasting my time. If this is not allowed, then that is fine I will stop doing it, but all these links will fail soon and I wanted to keep the pages up to date. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks User: Rachellebaxter Rachellebaxter (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rachelle! The reason I believe User:Thisisnotcam (who will now be pinged to this thread) left the warning ({{Uw-inline-el}}) at your talk page, is that in your edit to Mentmore Golf and Country Club, here, you didn't just change the existing URL in the citation, but also made the following change in the main text of the article "...by the website Top 100 Golf Courses" → "...by the website www.top100golfcourses.com". You also did not leave an edit summary in relation to your changes, which makes it much easier for others to understand changes made. For example, Thisisnotcam said in his or her edit summary upon the first revert "No need for the links". Had you left an explanatory edit summary, the user would have understood the reason for the URL change.

So my two suggestions are: do not change any prose text listing the name of the website in the body to refer to the URL, and when you change just the URL in the citation, leave a helpful edit summary—something you can copy and paste many times if the same change is being made, like "Change URL in preexisting citation (not placed by me). Though this link currently works, it will go dead soon. I am aware of the COI guideline and am solely fixing the URL already here, not adding it myself. The "COI guideline" I am referring to is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi FuhghettaboutitFuhghettaboutit, Thank you for clarifying for me. I will not amend the text and will leave a note in the edit summary. Thank you for your help. I was just trying to make sure we were correctly cited and reference, but being a newbie, it is not an easy task. I just wanted to make sure that I was ok to change the incorrect URL's as the 301 redirect that we have in place at present will be removed soon and the thousands of links that are in place across wikipedia will be dead. I appreciate that some might consider this a conflict of interest as I work for the company, but none of these were added by us and it felt right that where we had been cited that these should either be correct or removed altogether. Many thanks again. Rachellebaxter (talk)Rachellebaxter (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome Rachelle. Done in a non-promotional manner, this is certainly a helpful task. I probably did not emphasize it enough. Using a transparent edit summary that acknowledges the COI but explains how you are avoiding promotion is probably crucial to being successful or avoiding problems in doing it. You have to understand the raging firehose of promotion coming at us all day, every day – that makes reverting apparent promotional edits, especially when unexplained, an easy call for many users.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I confused about my "watchlist"? YES!

Hi again! I've delayed asking this question because I thought I should be able to figure it out myself, but, alas, here I am. I've got this page on my watchlist, and I do see some indications of activity here on my watchlist, but I swear I don't see all the changes here. It doesn't really matter to me for this site, since I look at it regularly, but I worry that somehow I'm missing changes to other pages on my watchlist. Am I just a confused newbie, or are watchlist notifications only sporadic? If I'm confusedd, don't be reluctant to tell me - I can take it! Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of deleted articles and "revdev" deletions, your watchlist should show all pages that have changed recently (depending on how the search parameter is set for you - I think it defaults to 7 days). There is a setting which shows or hides edits earlier than the most recent change: look for it on Preferences -> Watchlist. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually the default is 3 days. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. In addition to the responses above, be aware that by default the Watchlist shows you the latest changes to your chosen pages; it does not list all the changes to them. (I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at by "I don't see all the changes here.") If you want to change that, go to Preferences > Watchlist (as jmcgnh said) and tick "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent". --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: Also note that both Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and the top of Special:Watchlist have many options to hide specific types of edits. If "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" is disabled and the most recent edit is of a type you hide then you do not see an older edit instead, you see nothing. See more at Help:Watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! DennisPietras (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Inclusion of day of the week in dates

What is the WP standard?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost never done. Welcome to the Teahouse, Srednaus Lenoroc. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Then what is the reasoning for when it does appear in WP?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Srednaus Lenoroc. If you look at WP:DATES (which is part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style), it lists all the acceptable date formats - none of them includes the day of the week. Having said that, if there was a situation where the day was especially significant to the meaning of the article, I would probably add it - but that's just me. Did you have a specific situation in mind where you were considering using the weekday? --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Srednaus Lenoroc. Please see the disambiguation pages Black Friday and Bloody Sunday for lists of many articles about events where the day of the week was an important element of their notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There are also likely many articles in which days of the week appear because they were added by editors who didn't realize they weren't needed, or because an editor copied the dates from source articles and didn't remove the included day of the week. I usually remove these when I see them. Even in cases where the day of the week is important, most often the importance is explained in the text of the article, and the referenced sources aren't necessarily created the same day as an event happens anyway.—Anne Delong (talk)

Black Friday and Bloody Sunday brings up a somewhat different issue--they would not be examples of day of the week (DOTW) as they are titles but as they identify the DOTW it would be superfluous having already establishing DOTW when mentioning it to include in a date for the event to include the DOTW. But then when situating a subsequent event should the text be solely by DOTW, the date or both?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

One place it is not okay to remove days of the week is within quotations. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me the following style: "Jammu division with all districts (red font) and sub-districts, as on Nov 2012. Only Indian-administered areas shown."Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Edits? How to cite a source that isn't a website? What to do about outdated sources?

I made a simple update to the article on Clam AntiVirus, and changed the information regarding the amount of virus signatures in the definitions database to the current amount, as well as updated the database "latest version" number on the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clam_AntiVirus

The information I got is no longer available from the links cited for the original sources, as they are dead links. I got the information from ClamAV on my Linux system, which has the latest database installed. The "freshclam --version" command to prints out the version information, and the number of definitions is stated when you check for updates.

I couldn't find this information on the website anymore, and I don't know how to edit the sources for a non webpage or book souce properly, so I'm not gonna try to. I thought I'd just let it be known that the original reference no longer exists, and I got the updated information from a different source.

TheNH813 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheNH813: You could put the information on the page, then put <ref>Retrieved from ClamAV on the [[Linux system]] from [[User:TheNH813]]'s computer.</ref> after the text, saying that you got the information from your computer.

Another way would be to put {{Citation needed|date=February 2017}} after the information put in.

I hope this helps.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

00:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checks Facts: Thank you for the information. You have answered my question exactly. TheNH813 (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheNH813: If the links are dead, you can search for the link on http://archive.org and you may find an archived version of the page being cited. Then you can replace the dead link with the archive link, to fix the problem for future readers. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Good call. I'l look into that.

I have a new question now: Someone reverted my changes saything the the program itself is not a verifiable reference.

01:15, 11 February 2017‎ Ahunt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,578 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (Reverted. That is not an acceptable ref, because it cannot be verified. See WP:V and WP:OR. You need a proper ref to change this.) (undo | thank)

Why would the program itself not be considered a verifiable reference? You can get this information out of the source code or the installer packages, or by using a command on the program itself. That is an external reference, and it could be verified by anyone with ClamAV installed, on either Linux, Mac or Windows. Did User:Ahunt not understand my intentions, or did I do something wrong?

TheNH813 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, TheNH813, some users don't have the program, for example using a chromebook (as I am) or other device that does not allow that program to be used. You might just have to take a screenshot and upload it to the file wizard.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

02:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the help. I'l make the changes and be careful to cite the references correctly this time. I figured out the links on the other references weren't dead, but lead to a completely different page. Will update them to web.archive.org ones for time period correctness. TheNH813 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, TheNH813. I'm sorry, but I don't think that Checks Facts is giving you good advice. In order to be verifiable, information must be published. The output of a program is not (in general) published, and cannot be used. Uploading a screenshot is probably an infringement of copyright, and in any case may not be used as a reference, because its provenance is untraceable and uncheckable (how can the reader know that it is a genuine screenshot and has not been doctored? That is why we insist on reliable published sources, that is, sources that have a reputation for fact checking). --ColinFine (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I'v been trying to find an external source that isn't a screenshot or inside the definition files (which you'd need to open in a appropriate text or hex editor to view). The ClamAV website dosen't mention it anywhere, unlike it did for the original numbers from quite a few years ago that I updated. Also note, the screenshot would be public domain, no copyright issues. Both the terminal emulator application (XFCE4 Terminal) and ClamAV antivirus are both GPL (GPLv3 to be specific I think) licensed. But yes, I'v been reading the Wikipedia guidelines a bit more after the second time it was changed. This time around User:Ahunt left the updated information I put, as I at least attempted to cite a source, and they marked it as "needs citation". That was a red flag to me I was doing something wrong (two reverted/modified edits), and i'l respect the current state as is, and not perform any further edits as of now. At least until I have figured out a good external reference to replace the "needs citation" with. If I don't find a source, or it's never cited, I shall completely leave it alone if that happens. TheNH813 (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheNH813: Sorry for giving you the wrong info. Still learning here.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

11:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thanks for pointing this out. I'm still learning the mechanics of Wikipedia, so your post has helped me as well. I apologize for giving TheNH813 the wrong information.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

11:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Who (or what) makes the home pages for Wikipedia?

Hi, the question just occurred to me to ask if there is a special committee who makes the front pages, or can anyone add information? Any information answering my question would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}.

23:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Checks Facts, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a bit of both, actually. There are talk and project pages (much like this one) dedicated to coordinating content on the Main Page. There are trusted users who do this regularly and have authority, but anyone can make suggestions. You can find links to the different projects for different sections (In the news, Today's featured article, Did you know, etc.) here: Talk:Main Page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop for your reply. Wikipedia teaches me more things every day, and it never ceases to amaze me.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

00:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

help build band page?

We ask for help building a Artist page for the band LIBRARY OF SANDS! We cite UK music magazine UNCUT as a reliable journalist source: top 13 2013 playlist & 2 songs top 15 2015 playlist. Band website has press kit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicbyshineywater (talk • contribs)

Hello, Musicbyshineywater. Unfortunately, your question indicates that there are several things that you don't understand about Wikipedia:

1. There is no such thing as a "band page" or "artist page". Wikipedia has articles about many subjects, some of them bands and artists. These articles do not belong to the band or artist, who has in fact no control whatever over their contents; and Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the band or artist, or their friends or associates, say or want to say about them. We are only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them in reliable places. So very little that is on their own website would be of any use in writing a Wikipedia article.
2. Not all subjects are suitable for an encyclopaedia. Because we rely on independent sources about the subject, it follows that if such sources do not exist, then there can be no article: the Wikipedia term for this is that the subject is or is not notable. If it is not notable, then there is no point in anybody wasting their time trying to write an article about it.
3. I indicated above that the subject of an article has no control over it. In fact, the subject, or anybody closely connected to the subject, is strongly discouraged from writing or editing such an article, because their Conflict of interest is likely to make it hard for them to be sufficiently neutral.
4. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind.
5. Shared accounts are not permitted. Each user should create their own account.

For further information, please see the pages I linked to above (all the blue links), and also Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the '(+x)‎' number next to contributions for?

I see numbers such as (+569)‎ next to my contributions, what do they mean? 0wl (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC) 0wl (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC) /. That is the number of characters that were added or removed. A + means you added 569 characters to the page. A - would mean it they were removed. 2017 RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that signifies how many bites were changed between the two versions. (*beat me to it*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:55, 10 February 2017

Thank you for the quick answers and replies! Ahh ok, that makes sense, cheers.0wl (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@0wl: Be aware that this figure only shows the net change in size, and may not indicate how extensive the change is. Large sections of the article could be changed, leaving the overall size almost the same.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Some views/skins of Wikipedia colorcode the contribs. If the number of bytes didn't change, the text is gray; if bytes were removed it's red, and if they were added it's green. That's what it looks like on my watchlist.White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition, if the change increases or decreases the page size by at least 500 bytes, then it is displayed in bold. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A super editor removed an update I had done but I own the copyright how can I contact them to explain?

Hi All, I joined yesterday and added a couple of things to two pages. One was removed as it may have infringed copyright on another site. I do own the copyright to the notes that I added. How can I contact the person who removed it to explain? Thanks DEditorwcn (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Editorwcn: You will need to license the material in a way that allows for reuse for any purpose. See WP:IOWN. You can leave a message for the other editor at User_talk:Wiae, per the note on your talk page. RudolfRed (talk)

It looks as if your user name is not permitted on Wikipedia because it represents a website, unless, of course, you are the sole owner of that website, which seems a possibility, and the only thing you have to be careful about (once you have formally released copyright) is to avoid advertising your website here. You could remove the copyright notice from the website if this is what you wish to do, but it might be simpler just to rephrase your contributions here. Dbfirs 22:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Editors who hold the copyright to web sites very seldom understand what is needed in order to copy from their web sites to Wikipedia, which is that it is necessary to release the content for use by all in the world under a copyleft. Most editors do not want to do this. Also, most copyrighted web sites contain non-neutral content that will be edited ruthlessly in Wikipedia if it isn't deleted due to copyvio. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply. I am the owner and one of the editors of WCN, but can change the username if required. Wiae has responded as well so I need to think and rewrite additions. Some of the features on my site are from experts and learned sources in their fields so need to know whether to know I can reference those sources. So far I have only removed some old links, a link to an octopus site and a copied a paragraph. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorwcn (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a self-published website does not count as a WP:Reliable source. If your experts have published the same material in other independent publications, then you should cite those, not the website. It would be best to summarise in your own (different) words what you are citing, then the copyright issue does not cause a problem. If you are the only person who will be editing with your username, then I don't think it will be necessary to change your username. Dbfirs 23:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I can think of quite a few super editors but none of them would describe themselves in this way. If anyone has told you they are a super editor then, take it from me, they're not. Thincat (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits' replacement

How can I know that my edit is wrong or right? And if someone changes my right edits... How can i change that? I recently edited colloids ....... My edit was rigt but still changed. My source was NCERT science book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohamms (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sohamms: Discuss this on the article's talk page at Talk:Colloid RudolfRed (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sohamms, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is very important that you cite your sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you look carefully, you will also notice that you were wrong by a factor of a thousand million. I'm sure your source didn't say what you wrote, though it is clear what you meant to write. The information was already in the article. Dbfirs 22:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Source editing by default

Whenever I click an edit link on an article, it opens visual editor and I have to switch it. How do I make source editing a default? Holy Goo (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you go into your Preferences, on the Editing section, about midway down is an 'Editing Mode' dropdown - select 'Always give me the source editor' option. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thnaks Holy Goo (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I being followed?

Hi, do you ever feel like you are being followed? 0wl (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello 0wl: If you're referring to someone following your contributions in Wikipedia specifically, yes, that does occur here. You can read up about it at WP:HOUND, and for more information, WP:HARASS. Justin15w (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Justin15w! 0wl (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

However, not every editor who claims that they are being stalked, hounded, or harassed really is being harassed. An editor's editing (whether from an IP address or from a registered account) is a matter of record, and another editor can view it and can view the changes made. If editor A has, for instance, a habit of making non-neutral and unsourced edits, editor B may reasonably view them, and may, within reason, revert them and discuss them on the article talk page. The essays in question will explain what is and what is not harassment. While harassment does happen, unwarranted complaints of harassment also happen, especially if the editor who complains that they are being followed or harassed has been making unsourced or controversial edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Permission of editing

Sir, Do I have permission to edit any page anymore? I've edited in Bangla Wikipedia. But now I can't edit any page in both Bangla and English Wikipedia. Would you please help me answering the reason of happening such problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imrozkhan001 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Imrozkhan001, you have obviously managed to edit, or your question would not be here. Which page were you trying to edit? It may be that the page is semi-protected, which with the number of edits you had, you possibly could not do - now that you have ten edits, try editing it again. If there is still a problem, please come back and tell us which page, and what messages you get. - Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh - and please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Imrozkhan001: Some of your edits were reverted. See the note on your talk page: User_talk:Imrozkhan001. RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why my photo - Which I took - keeps getting rejected.

Everytime I try to upload a photograph for which I hold a copyright or that I actually took I receive an error message saying that the website cannot tell if the photograph violates the rules. How do I fix this please? Aquariusveritas (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aquariusveritas. It looks like you've uploaded four images to Wikimedia Commons, and none of them are currently marked for deletion, so it's not sure what you're referring to, unless it's a photo which has already been deleted, in which case only administrators may view and retrieve it. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you own the copyright to those photos with professional watermarks, then you need to read our policies on paid editing, editing with a conflict of interest and against using Wikipedia for promotion. If the photos with the professional watermarks are not the ones you're talking about, then those are copyright violations which gives us plenty of reason to worry about the other photos. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Aside from a possible "conflict of interest" (please read the linked guidelines above): if the license or copyright of your uploads is questioned, please see Commons:Commons:OTRS describing the process to verify your copyright and free license via mail. You'll also find some guidance about when this verification is necessary and when not (f.e. unpublished amateur photos with a credible claim of authorship are - usually - accepted without such an additional verification). Also, watermarked images are generally discouraged (see WP:WATERMARK). Please put a suitable attribution on the image's information page instead. Hope these additional details help. GermanJoe (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

are colloids heterogenous

the NCERT[Indian central board of education] book shows that it is heterogeneous but wikipedia is showning homogeneous??????Sohamms (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Sohamms! The Teahouse is really more for help editing for new users. Your question is best asked at the Reference Desk. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance! —Non-Dropframe _talk 18:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

how do i watch videos on wikipedia?

I have a hard time viewing videos and audios, what should I do?Nathan Koata (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you link to a video you're having a hard time watching? Could you also explain what you mean by a hard time? Does the video work at all? -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 12:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey there! Watching videos is very ease. Just press the play button. It seems you are having problems with your pc. Try to check it!

Thanks! Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Importation and translation of articles from de:Wikipedia

I requested the importation of the article "XY" from German Wikipedia. My importing administrator worked fast and created the sandbox page User:Username/XY for me to translate it. Now I think I'm done, except for the section Authority Control - that is not for me to fill in, is it? What's annoying is that "Weblinks" automatically shows "Username/XY" instead of just "XY" - how do I get rid of that? Apart from that I'm obviously a little dumb. Only thing that needs being approved in case of importation is translation... where do I submit it? Any ideas? Arigo (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Arigo. User:Arigo/Harald Sicheritz is not at present an article (in article space) but a userspace draft: that's why it has the User: prefix. Xaosflux put it there because an article in German doesn't belong in enwiki article space. When it is ready, you can move it to Harald Sicheritz (currently a red link, because the article doesn't exist). However, don't do that yet, because the draft is not ready. Enwiki's policy on biography of living persons requires far more inline references than the two you currently have. Please see WP:REFB.

In fact, what I would advise is that you don't move the article yourself, but when you think it is ready, you add {{subst:submit}} to the top, which will ask for a review (which may take a few weeks). If the reviewer accepts the draft, they will move it; if not, they will give you some feedback about what needs to be improved. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Arigo: The article username/xy is in your user space. You want to move the article to main space. Your account should have permission to move articles. However, you may want to get the article reviewed first, because to me it looks like a biography that is under-sourced, therefore not yet ready for main article space. I have put an AFC tag on your draft so that you may submit it for review after you finish working on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My request for IMPORTING AN ARTICLE FROM DE:WIKIPEDIA was denied by saying "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". That means an approved article in de:Wikipedia, which was ONLY TRANSLATED, is not a reliable reference? That means, the different language versions of Wikipedia are that independent that one has to start from scratch in every language? If that is so, I've just learned a lot about the wonderful idea of having a global encylcopedia... Maybe it's my bad, but I could not find a specific path to submit a translation. Again, I'll be glad to read substantial comments on this rather important general issue. Arigo (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

neutral policy

Hi, i looked up the 'chiropractic' article. I found it very biased towards a negative viewpoint, and not at all helpful to someone trying to understand the treatment method. I'm not generally one for alternative medicine, but my wife and I, and other friends have found it very effective at relieving back and joint pain. I can't see a simple way of editing the current article to make it more balanced and useful. Is it possible in wikipedia to have a separate article on the same topic, giving an alternative point of view? Andrewgl7 (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Andrewgl7 and welcome to the Teahouse. Personal experiences are not suitable for Wikipedia: instead, it aims to summarize the best avaialble information from independent, reliable sources. We do not publish other articles to give alternate views, but rather each article should give appropriate balance to each claim that is supported by such sources. If you have such sources, then please feel free to suggest them on the Talk page of that article (Talk:Chiropractic}. Or if you are looking for an article that explains the techniques that are used, you might find Chiropractic treatment techniques of interest. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

thank you Gronk, your suggested article was just what i needed. Is it possible to refer to it in the Chiropractic article that appears when you put the term into a search engine? Andrewgl7 (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It's linked in the third sentence of that article: "The main chiropractic treatment technique involves ..." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Template for organisation article

I'm new to Wikipedia, but have written a couple of biographical articles, and would like to move on to articles about voluntary organisations.

What is the best template to use for such groups?10:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRAS (talk • contribs)

Hello, FRAS. I'm guessing that you mean "template" in the sense of "way of organising the whole article". Wikipedia doesn't have templates in that sense. I was going to refer you to the Manual of style, but while it has guidelines for many kinds of article, I can't find one for organisations. My advice is to find a Featured article about a similar organisation, and copy its structure. --ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I've selected the Toronto Observatory article to base my work on.

Stupid question: how do I copy the whole article to my sandbox to work on?11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRAS (talk • contribs)

@FRAS: Open the source article, and click the "Edit" button to display the source code. Select it all and Copy (Ctrl-C on a PC). Then Cancel (so you don't make any changes to that article), open your Sandbox, click Edit and Paste (Ctrl-V on a PC). This will put a copy of that whole article into your Sandbox. Then there are a couple of other things you should do: add at the start: {{Userspace draft|date=February 2017}} {{NOINDEX|visible=yes}}. And add a colon in front of each of the category statements (towards the bottom of the article) so that the user page does not show up in the category trees (which of course is reserved for actual articles). --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Page Speedy deletion

Dear Teahouse memmbers, the article I've created was deleted due to the comment:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person It appears to be a clear copyright infringement

Now, when I got these comments I wanted to ask if this content can be public at any case? It is a text about H2020 Project that is being implemented in 4 EU cities and proposes new open government solutions and applications..

Regarding the second remark: copyright problem - I can edit text.

I would be grateful if you could answer if I should keep working on this, or this content Wikipedia finds inappropriate in general? Thank you very much in advance. Tamara at WeLive (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tamara at WeLive: Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry it looks like we've got off on the wrong foot, but don't worry - the issue you describe above is very common, and thankfully rather easily resolved. I'd like to invite you to "try again" using the Article Wizard - this tool will guide you through creating a draft, which will then be reviewed by an experienced editor. Before doing that though could you read through these quick FAQ? As for the copyright issue, please ensure that when creating the draft no copyrighted material is present. On behalf of The Teahouse I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia and wish you good luck in your editing -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 09:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Tamara at WeLive and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not an admin, so I cannot read the deleted article or any comments you made on its talk page to resist the speedy deletion. I can only go by the comments that remain visible.

It looks like there are several problems that must be overcome. First of all, based on your username, you appear to have a conflict of interest with respect to the article's subject. This means that you would be strongly discouraged from attempting to write such an article. Second, it appears that this may be the first article you have tried to create; creating a new article on Wikipedia is a much harder task than most new editors anticipate – most Wikipedia hosts recommend that you spend considerable time on Wikipedia improving other articles and learning the ropes before attempting to create a new article. Third, while there is no particular prejudice against creating an article on this subject, it has to be created using independent and reliable sources. In doing a quick search on Google, I am not seeing that the project has been written about in major newspapers or magazines (perhaps I'm not looking in the right places), but these are the sorts of sources that are required to establish the subject's notability. Unless it contains these sorts of sources, an article cannot be accepted on Wikipedia. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

How to upgrade an article from stub to class Start or C

The article in question is Thomas Elphinstone Hambledon, a fictional character. IMHO, the article has achieved class C or at least Start. The instructions on the Talk page refer to templates that I cannot find, probably the Talk is out of date.

The article ends with {{novel-char-stub}}. Changing "stub" in the template to to "start" or "C" gives a red error on the Preview.

Should I just remove the aforesaid template? I would like to assign a quality class, but perhaps that only applies within certain projects?

FYI, the article has no templates at the start, and the complete set at the end is: {{DEFAULTSORT:Hambledon, Thomas Elphinstone}} [[Category:Fictional secret agents and spies]] [[Category:Series of books]] {{novel-char-stub}}

The #1 issue is to get it out of stub class; it has been expanded & has several valid refs. D A Patriarche, BSc 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, D A Patriarche. The text of the article is definitely beyond the stub level, but the article has a glaring shortcoming - a complete lack of inline references. There are a few references at the end, but they are not properly formatted as footnotes. I suggest that you read Referencing for beginners, and reformat the references properly. Once that process has been completed, I see no problem upgrading to Start class. By the way, the edits needed to upgrade take place in the wikicode on the article's talk page, not on the article itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the refs were not properly inline, thank you. I figured out how to upgrade the project class on the Talk page. I was overly enthusiastic in rating in "C" in view of your comments, I will revert it to Start. I'll do some work on the article. Once again thanks for your prompt response.D A Patriarche, BSc 02:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche (talk • contribs)

Autobiography

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How can I get my Wikipedia page to be acceptable when submitted Because it's about me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayemartha (talk • contribs)

Hello, Tayemartha, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have taken on a very very difficult task. It's difficult in at least three ways. 1) writing a new article on Wikipedia is much much harder than people imagine who have not spent time getting used to the way Wikipedia works. 2) Writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral, and it's hard to do that when you are the subject. 3) Promotion of anybody or anything is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia; but looking your draft, it seems to me that promoting yourself is what you are here for.

Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:YFA. Then, if you wish to continue, read WP:IRS, and find several reliable sources that are completely independent of your, and talk about you in some depth. (They do not have to be in English). If you cannot find such sources, they it is best to give up: no article about you will be acceptable, however it is written. If you can find some sources, then you are Notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and there could be an article about you. Rather than trying to write it yourself (you would need to forget absolutely everything you know or think about yourself, and just write it from what those independent sources say), it would probably be better to ask at requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Temple

i have no documentory evidences please help me my article temple history of sri sengamala nayagi ammman temple, palavangudi. it was very old 400 years back thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazhini606 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Yazhini606. I've moved your question to the top (which is where new questions go on this page, but not anywhere else in Wikipedia) and given it a heading.

I'm afraid the answer is that if you haven't any documentary evidence, then we cannot have an article. Where do you know about it? Are there not books or reports or magazines that you have read? They don't have to be online or in English; but they must have been published, by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking. Personal knowledge is not acceptable, because a reader has no way of checking it. Please see WP:42 and WP:IRS. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

yazhini 606 Iam need your help for my article the temple history of sri sengamala nayagi amman temple, palavangudi iam the new creator first time thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazhini606 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

iam a new one creator please help me to publish my article THE TEMPLE HISTORY OY SRI SENGAMALA NAYAGI AMMAN TEMPLE, PALAVANGUDI IAM NEW PLEASE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazhini606 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Yazhini606 and welcome to the Teahouse. I've moved your other questions here to this section. I'm sorry you had so much trouble getting our attention. I hope ColinFine's reply is not too disappointing. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

If you do not have any answer then its better that you should try to not write it in the article but if you have a spoken or written explanation than feel free to cite it there. Thanks!

Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Is consensus needed to remove vandalism that is behind semi-protection?

On the day after the election, someone put on the top of the article "List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots" vandalism appeared as so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots&oldid=748639737

Then, someone saw it and assumed a good faith contribution was simply put in wrong, and fixed it into the tag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots&oldid=748648513

stated that: "(no idea if it is or isnt but this is how to tag it)"

Then shortly afterword, the page got semi-protected. So now the vandalism from the ip editor (it is also their only ever contribution) who is obviously disgruntled about the election (and thought implying there should be more assassination attemps now that Trump was chosen) is stuck behind a wall unable to be removed.

I tried in the talk page requesting an edit, but the person said that I should establish a consensus. Well how do I establish a consensus to remove vandalism, on a page that probably doesnt get huge traffic? Why should I need conesnsus to remove vandalism?

The person added it as their only contribution ever, the day after the election, with no supplied reason to add the text. Didn't even tag it correctly.

So I want to let other editors know, so they can establish a consensus and remove it. I don't know where to ask for editors to look at something so I am here. I can't edit the page.Odsnvdosijsdof (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To make it short:

Day after election, someone added to list of assissinations page "Article is incomplete" as first contribution and no reason to add this text. It was later turned into a tag, because somsone assumed it was in good faith.

When requested edit to remove it, they stated I need consensus to remove the tag. (despite the request edit page stating consensus is only needed for controversial edits)Odsnvdosijsdof (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The article is semi protected, so you will be able to edit it as soon as you are autoconfirmed (4 days and 10 edits). I'd say a concensus would be needed to retain it, but please refrain from using the term WP:VANDALISM until you better understand what it is. There is no indication it was entered in bad faith, which is a needed component of vamdalism. John from Idegon (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Vandalism can certainly be removed (and should be) while an article is protected, but this does not appear to be vandalism. It has been in the article for three months and the article was not protected for that whole time. I don't think the tag is need either, but at this point the approach to take is to raise the issue on the talk page. Meters (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see that John had removed the tag. No object from me. Meters (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear it was a bad faith edit. Here is a list of indications:

1. Day after contentious election, an IP editor adds text to a page about assassinations stating that the article is incomplete. His edit stated "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." EXPANDING IT. That is not how the tag is supposed to read. 2. It is their only ever contribution. (not bad in itself but combined with other reasons does not help the case) 3. The article was already being heavily vandalized in this period (hence why it was soon semi-protected) 4. They didn't add the tag correctly (if they were aiming to add a tag) 5. They gave no reason on the edit summery why they did their edit 6. They gave no reason in the talk page why they did their edit

Can people just add tags whenever they want without any reason on wikipedia, ? How clear can this joke be, the person is making a joke that there are missing assassinations and that the list "SHOULD BE EXPANDED" (because trump was elected)

But I will concede that it makes sense from the narrow point of view, that if there is a new president, they have to expand the article to show that incident at his rally. But at that point, he was still not president, he was president-elect so it wouldn't belong.Odsnvdosijsdof (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Odsnvdosijsdof, you should probably familiarize yourself with WP:AGF. It is, after all a pillar policy here. Surmising what another editor's motivation may be is usually a waste of everyone's time. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Source Question

Through the resource exchange, I had two users track down a couple sources I needed. The sources I needed were only available to me through the Philadelphia Inquirer archives which required $2.95 per article. They were able to find these sources through search engines and microfilm.

My question is how do I reference these sources in the Wikipedia page I am attempting to write? As of right now, I only know to link sources to online articles. How can I cite/source these properly? (I'm hoping this makes sense) JRose1317 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@JRose1317: I think you can use {{Cite news}} for this purpose. Also check out WP:REFB that is a good resource on learning how to handle referencing. RudolfRed (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JRose1317. The important part of a citation is the bibliographic information which should allow a reader to find it even if the link goes away: things like title, author, title of collection or journal, organ (or website), publisher, date, ISBN. Providing a URL is a courtesy to make the reader's life easier, but it is not required - and it is quite acceptable for it to be behind a paywall. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Do deleted articles' history and talk pages get preserved for admins?

Sorry for what might be a dumb question - when articles are deleted, their histories and talk pages disappear, at least from the view of ordinary editors. Sometimes that's a little frustrating when trying to understand in detail (more than AfD provides) about why a page was deleted. Can admins still view these things? I'm asking because a) there might be times I'd consider asking a friendly admin to give some information about what a page looked like pre-deletion and b) since I've started to involve myself a little with AfD and PROD I've had conversations on talk pages for articles that are at risk of deletion and I'd like to understand if they're available for future reference by admins in case that would be useful. Mortee (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mortee. Yes, admins can view deleted articles and talk pages (and restore them if need be). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. As it should be. Thanks for letting me know. Mortee (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirm and upload

Hello, when will my account will be confirmed? And how I can upload new pictures on wikipedia? Thank you. Finisher27 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Finisher27: Welcome to Wikipedia. Your account will become autoconfirmed when it is 4 days old with at least 10 edits. You can look at WP:UPLOAD to see how to upload images. If it is a freely licenced image, the preference is to upload it to Commons. RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-free images

Why are "non-commercial use" images considered non-free on Wikipedia? RedPanda25 19:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Red. Wikipedia allows commercial reuse of our content so it's not enough that it can be displayed here at wikipedia.org. See the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free content. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for getting back to me, that makes sense. Here's one more question about image licensing:

• Suppose Person A publishes an image under CC-BY-SA.
• Person B makes a derivative, attributes Person A, and publishes it under the same license.
• Person C makes a derivative of the derivative, and publishes it under the same license.

My question is, should Person C attribute Person A, Person B, either, or both? RedPanda25 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: Both. commons:Template:Derived from allows up to 25 file links although multiple links are probably mainly used for collage-type works and not chains. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Embedding 3D models

Hi!

I would like to know if it is possible to embed 3D models of heritage artefacts in a Wikipedia page. I would like to embed some of these https://sketchfab.com/britishmuseum/collections/digital-pilgrim on the pilgrim badge page.

Thank you for your help!

Amy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeffs0 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, Amy. No external files of any kind can be embedded into Wikipedia pages: all media files must first be uploaded to Wikimedia commons or (if they are non-free) to Wikipedia. In order to do so, they must be suitably licensed (which most images on the web are not) and be in a suitable format, which I suspect those images are not (but see Help:Upload). You could possible put a link to that site in an article, provided such use met the conditions in External links, but it would not embed the image in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How to report an admin account?

Hello, in Arabic wikipedia many fake informations like (fake number of earth layers, fake benefits of drinking camel urine...), and sadly most of Arab admins reject any scientific modification that conflict with the Quranic science, and there are a lot of non-encyclopedic articles that talk about fake miracles of Quran, Hadith...etc, that no one can even discuss or critic, or he may get blocked!, ex: الإعجاز العلمي في بيت العنكبوت ، الإعجاز العلمي في السنة النبوية ، الإعجاز الكوني في القرآن ، الإعجاز الفلكي في القرآن ، نبوءات رسول الله ، الإعجاز الغيبي في القرآن الكريم ، الإعجاز العلمي في القرآن

Arabic wikipedia is similar to an Islamic forum, what can we do with such admins? Moußsa (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Moußsa. I'm sorry to see that you are having some conflict with other at ar.wiki. Unfortunately, en.wiki has no authority over what happens at ar.wiki, and since the vast majority of us likely to not speak the language, we aren't even in a position to comment on the state of affairs. I'm afraid you will have to deal with your conflicts as best you can with other Arab speaking editors on the Arab language project. TimothyJosephWood 18:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss this on the English Wikipedia would likely be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Moußsa. The equivalent page on the Arabic Wikipedia is linked on the left-hand side of that page. That might be worth a try. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Direct link. TimothyJosephWood 19:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Although if the problem really is with most admins, then reporting the issue to admins might not be successful. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Are there international equivalents of the arbitration committee who would act as the escalation path for issues like that? Mortee (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation. But for what it's worth, when users come from other language Wikis and bring reports of armageddon, it's usually because there's a bit more to the story than what is being told in English. Not much we can do about it anyway. Individual projects have to take care of their own, and if it's not going to get the WMF sued, they're probably not going to have a strong onion about it. There's only about 300 employees worldwide, and their not in the habit of getting involved in content disputes. TimothyJosephWood 20:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that's what I would have assumed. I was just curious if the structure was the same. Thanks for explaining. Mortee (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Moußsa. There is one place here on Wikipedia where discussion of developments or problems anywhere in the Wikimedia movement in any language is appropriate. That is the talk page of one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales. His talk page is User talk: Jimbo Wales. I suggest that you prepare a post there that identifies two or three of the most clear-cut examples of the problems you see, along with links and brief translations. I also agree that contacting the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco is appropriate. They have at least one Arabic speaking employee. Another possibility is a Facebook group called "Wikipedia Weekly" which has members interested in such broad issues, including many administrators and WMF employees. Such communications may not immediately solve the problems you see, but they may allow you to connect with people willing to take a much closer look at the problems you perceive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm gonna go ahead and ping @Werldwayd: and @Meno25: as active editors listed at Wikipedia:Local Embassy to see if they can help at all. TimothyJosephWood 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: This is a content dispute between Moußsa and ar:User:باسم regarding the article ar:الإعجاز العلمي في القرآن specifically this revert in the article and this revert on the talk page. I can see that Moußsa's addition to the article was written in an unencyclopediac way. (For example, his added text used English Wikipedia as a reference which is incorrect as Wikipedia can't be a reference to itself.) And the said article already contains a full section criticizing the concept written in an encylopediac way with references. (Section 7 of the article, titled "المعارضة" which is Arabic for "Opposition", and all its subsections.) Also, he repeated the article content on the talk page. Talk pages contain discussions about article contents not the content itself, so, I can see why his edits were reverted on the talk page. On the other hand, I don't know why باسم hid Moußsa's edits. Such edits shouldn't be normally hidden. Overall, I see that Moußsa's complain is unjustified and I would be happy to discuss this issue with WMF officials if they want to step in. --Meno25 (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response

Most of Arabic wikipedia sources are English or non-Arabic sources because Arabic sources are so poor!, ex: أمارلس Those aren't the only non-encyclopedic pages in Arabic wikipedia, I can report here more than 100 pages, thanks Moußsa (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Moußsa: I realize that may seem like a lot, but the English Wikipedia, with over five million entries, has tens of thousands of unencyclopedic articles that need fixing. That's just the work that needs to be done. TimothyJosephWood 10:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Another point to consider is that the Arabic Wikipedia may be bound by the laws of the country that hosts that wiki's servers, and if that country's laws prohibit criticism of the prevailing religious dogma, then the wiki can't violate those laws.

Conversely, the English Wikipedia has a constant stream of people from Arabic-speaking countries who complain that images of Muhammad are prohibited, not realizing that the English Wikipedia is not bound by Islamic rules. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the Arabic Wikipedia hosted in the same place as the English Wikipedia, Anachronist? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I have no idea. In any case, any editor is still subject to the laws of the country where they reside... and not all countries grant a right to free speech like the US does. I'm not saying this is the case for the OP, I don't know Saudi Arabia's laws, but I'm just throwing the idea out there as an explanation of why the ar-wiki admins are acting as censors. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, though I'm not sure that we know that the OP is editing from Saudi either. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

someone is messing with the scooby doo page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooby-Doo_%28character%29

look under his character profile 66.210.57.238 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this vandalism out. I see several editors are on the case, reverting the changes, and warning the anonymous user who keeps making them. If they continue, they will get blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Scooby Doo (character) is now semi-protected 1 month so that anonymous IP editors cannot edit it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Anachronist: I recently took a look at the page, and it doesn't appear to have been semi-protected. Am I looking at it wrong? Thank you.

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

23:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checks Facts: Yes, try editing it while logged off and you'll see. Even if you try editing it while logged in, you should see a pink message at the top. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Now I see it @Anachronist:, thank you

Checks Facts _{will happily talk}

00:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Userboxes

I've just been having a small, kind of dumb problem. I have made a Babel Userbox and a normal one. But for some reason, they sit side by side. Instead of one above the other. Is there a way to fix this? Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bel-Shamharoth - Wikipedia:Userboxes#Grouping userboxes has a number of options - does this solve your problem? - Arjayay (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have done that, the problem is that. I can't group the Babel and the Userboxes together, unless I am missing something.

Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bel-Shamharoth. Probably not the most elegant solution but it seems to work. TimothyJosephWood 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the help @Timothyjosephwood: Much appreciated! Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bel-Shamharoth, check out the type of markup I use on my user page under "personal stuff". Instead of trying to alternate userbox top/bot templates, you can open an close tables in order to label different groups of user boxes. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

One more quick question @Timothyjospehwood:. How do I make the new sections like you have? I can't find the button where you do that. Like in pages like User:Talk. Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bel-Shamharoth: Sure thing. New sections are created on user pages just like they are on articles by including the title of the header in equal signs, like this: ==HEADER NAME HERE==. Using three, four, or five equal signs will make smaller level headers. For lots of general information on formatting for Wikipedia, you may want to check out the tutorial at Help:Wiki markup. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! You've been really helpful! Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

multiple authors on a publicaiton

Hi,

I am doing my first article on an archeologist. She wrote a number of books, two books she collaborated on with other writers. How do I reference that? I have been researching on my own in Wikipedia but cannot find anything.

thanks MauraWen (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey MauraWen. What you probably want is Template:Cite book, which can either be input manually in the text editor, or can be automated (if you're using a non-mobile device) by clicking "Cite" in the edit window header, and selecting "Book" from the Templates drop-down-menu. The citation template supports AFAIK an unlimited number of authors. TimothyJosephWood 17:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

List the most important books she wrote under a section called "Works". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How to find a picture?

Hello! I have recently gone through the Wiki Adventure and know the basics of editing. thinking that I am ready to help the community I went and found the list of stub articles. I picked Auxiliary Point, in Nevada as my first project. I really wanted to put a picture of the peninsula in but Wikimedia has no such picture and it said you cannot add pictures that aren't your own. how would I get a picture and add it? Kb10r (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kb10r. See guidance available at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Where do I start?

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, (account made 2 months ago, editing for a while) and I want to know where to start. I have made a very small article in my sandbox, but I think it's too small to submit for review. I know every edit counts, but I want to do a little better than a couple of spelling mistake editing (even though I'm glad to do it!)

Bedsidelamp (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bedsidelamp. That largely depends on what topics you are interested in. There's usually a WikiProject for just about any area of interest. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bedsidelamp Wikprojects are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/WikiProjects_by_changes You can search them from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject DennisPietras (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

How to leave comments on talk pages

I am currently doing an assignment at university which requires us to post comments on the talk pages of our classmates. However, I don't seem to be able to figure out how to do this. Any help on how to do this would be appreciated. Thanks Imcgrouther18 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Imcgrouther18: you go to their talk pages (such as User Talk:Imcgrouther18, and edit them (if the talk page doesn't already exist, you'll get a message either asking if you wish to create it, or warning you that you are creating it, I forget which). You can pick "new section" (which might appear as '+') from the tool bar at the top of the page. Give the section a heading, and then type the text. Finish with four tildes, just as you have here. ee Help:Talk pages for more. --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK to add my own photo of a book cover?

Hi, guys. I'm new to contributing / editing wikis here. I just started a few days ago and have only one article draft awaiting review. (This article is about a children's book called "The Voyage of the Arctic Tern" which was written by physician and researcher Dr. Hugh Montgomery -- he has an existing wiki article here.) Am I allowed to add my own photo or scan of the cover of Dr. Montgomery's book, into the article? (I tried searching for such an image from Google Books, but the existing ones are too tiny.) Do let me know. Thank you! SarazadeCruz (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SarazadeCruz - A non-free image, such as a book cover, can be added to an article, but not a draft, please see Wikipedia:Non-free content for the detailed explanation and "how-to". One of the criteria is that that the image must be very low resolution - enough to identify the book, but typically no more than 300 pixels in one direction - most album covers are taken from Amazon, or similar sites, who also have to use low-resolution images - so an image on Google books, is probably ideal. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay! Thanks for the advice.SarazadeCruz (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How to add a phrase for defining?

femme-a-gogues needs defining.

Cmoo46 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cmoo46. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and doesn't contain definitions unless the subject is notable enough for an encyclopaedia entry. You might want to try Wiktionary. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't even know what a Wiktionary is? Cmoo46 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Cmoo46. See https://www.wiktionary.org/. Wiktionary is an online dictionary similar to how Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is generally for articles on topics, but not usually articles on words or phrase in-and-of-themselves (with some exceptions). On the other hand, Wiktionary is entirely about words and their definitions. TimothyJosephWood 16:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

New article upload question

Help!!

I seem to have somehow accidentally included a re-direct in my latest upload (a biographical article on Arthur Kett Barclay).

How do I remove it without deleting all my work? FRAS (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FRAS, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is here: Draft:Arthur Kett Barclay. The redirect to that draft is at Wikipedia:Arthur Kett Barclay. There is nothing particularly harmful about that redirect, so it doesn't need to be deleted, really (see WP:R#CRD).

But if it bothers you, go to Wikipedia:Arthur Kett Barclay and place {{Db-g7}} on it. The draft will be kept. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, think I'll leave it be in that caseFRAS (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding pictures?

I think that Im getting to grips with adding references but Im still in the dark about adding pictures.. Loessperson (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Loessperson, welcome to the Teahouse! Typically, the hardest step for adding pictures to Wikipedia is actually choosing what picture to add. This is because you have to consider the copyright status of the image you are adding. One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is sharing free content, so we want to use only as much non-free content as needed. Free content is work that anyone can use, modify, and distribute for any reason, including commercially. In the United States (where Wikipedia's servers are located), copyright protection is granted automatically to works when they are published, which makes these works non-free. Unfortunately, this prevents us from using most of the images you might find on the Internet. There are generally four kinds of images you are allowed to upload to Wikipedia:

1. your own work, i.e. images that you created entirely yourself
2. freely licensed work, or images that have been specifically released under a copyright license that allows for free usage (a popular example are the Creative Commons licenses)
3. public domain work, or images that are so old that their copyright has expired (anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US), and
4. non-free work, if they meet a very strict set of criteria

If you feel sure that the image you are adding fits one of the categories above, head over to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which will provide instructions on how to upload and supply the necessary information for the image you would like to add. If you are unsure, please feel free to describe the image you want to add here and a Teahouse host would be happy to provide some feedback. Our policy page at Wikipedia:Image use policy has more detailed information on what kinds of images you can add, if you're interested. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

to edit

I want to contibut with wikipedia sameone can help mi? King Ban (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello King Ban and welcome to the Teahouse.

One way to start is to take WP:The Wikipedia Adventure for a spin. It will introduce many of the essentials of editing Wikipedia. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Bullets

Can I know about how to use bullets in wikipediaa ??? 10:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SawOnGam. There is a problem with your signature. Sign with four ~~~~. The easiest way to get a valid signature is to have a blank "Signature" field at Special:Preferences and no check mark at "Treat the above as wiki markup". You can make a bulleted list by starting each line with an asterisk *. See more at Help:Wiki markup#Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Bulleted lists. PrimeHunter 11:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How do i use the Visual Editor to edit a wikipedia draft?

How do i use the Visual Editor to edit a wikipedia draft? Terrariola (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Terrariola, welcome to the Teahouse. VisualEditor works the same way on drafts and articles. The process to create a draft with Wikipedia:Articles for creation starts out in the source editor but you can switch to VisualEditor at any time, also before saving the draft the first time. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am also interested to try Visual Editor, so I tried to use those instructions - unfortunately they seem to be out of date. It points to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Opt-in, which says to "go to the Beta Features section of Special:Preferences and choose the "VisualEditor" item." But there is no such option there: perhaps it has moved ... does anybody know how to activate Visual Editor? --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There are settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide itself says how to enable VisualEditor. The link to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Opt-in is problematic. I guess it's still linked because it mentions unsupported browsers and the link is at: "You'll need a VisualEditor-supported browser; most are. More information can be found here." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have posted about it at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/User guide#Is the enabling VE section out of date? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Y That works! Thanks, PrimeHunter. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not promoting a business but still i am getting notification regarding the speedy deletion.

Hi,

I created the page for Amplus Solar. I am not associated with the company. I am getting notification for article deletion. The article is not for any promotional purpose. How should I change the article so that it is not deleted? Anshikaa003 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anshikaa003. The article is overtly promotional as I read it, and relies on shockingly promotional sources, including the company's own website and press release hosting websites. The article includes an unreferenced and purely promotional section called "Growth Story". So, when you deny a promotional purpose, your assessment seems to lack merit, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328,

I have made some changes. As mentioned by you, I have deleted the growth story section and also removed certain citations. What more can I do to save it from speedy deletion. I am not able to figure out where I am sounding promotional, because I don't intend to. Anshikaa003 (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Anshikaa003, your article is still referenced to the company's own website, plus a story titled, "India’s Amplus Solar is a Soaring Success in the PV Market". That so-called article is the exact opposite of a reliable source. It is overtly promotional and obviously based on company press releases. So, despite your recent edits, the article remains deeply promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328,

I have deleted all the citations that I thought to be from any PR website or that seems to be a company promotional link. I hope the time line table is fine along with the rest of the content. Also, once satisfied that the content is not promotional, can I remove the warning template? Thankyou for helping me, your guidance means alot. Anshikaa003 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Anshikaa003, much of the text you added to Amplus solar is copied from other pages on the internet. That is copyright violation, and is not permitted here (follow the blue link to read about it). It seems possible that you have some personal or professional connection to the company; if so, please declare it on the talk-page of the article, and make no further change to the article itself (you can still ask on the talk-page for any reasonable change to be made for you). I agree with Cullen328 that the tone of the article is unacceptably promotional; whether you think the issue is fixed or not, you may not remove a speedy deletion notice from an article you have created. What you may do (and have already done) is contest the deletion on the talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I have not copied the content from anywhere. I have written it. Though all the facts mentioned about the company have relevant citations. Please let me know how to address these issues. It is my first article and I want to learn how to post relevant and nice articles. Please give me some suggestions & feedbacks.Thanks Anshikaa003 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The evidence on copyright violation disagrees with you. I have moved your reply as you placed it in the wrong section of this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed large sections of the article and added a few sources, should have more content added as fast as possible to assure that the article does not become a rarely edited stub

Terrariola (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all,

Shall i continue making edits like adding fresh and unique piece of content properly in this article or just leave it like that. What steps should i follow to make this one a successful article? Anshikaa003 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Anshikaa003: please see WP:42. Remember that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything which a company says about itself, or which its employees or associates say about it. Nothing - and that includes anything that they say about it in press releases or interviews, even if these are published by somebody else. You need to find substantial discussion of the company by people who have no connection with it, and published in a reliable place. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How do I add a subcategory to a page?

For example, the categorial page for "Middle Eastern Americans" does not have the subgroup "Armenian-Americans" listed. It should, though, however as the U.S. Census Bureau and CIA/World Fact Book list Armenian Americans as Middle Eastern Americans. Plus, other pages on this website has them listed as such. I guess that page (Middle Eastern Americans category) failed to list them.Bzazaian11 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bzazaian11, welcome to the Teahouse. Definitions vary. Middle East#Other definitions of the Middle East says: "The countries of the South Caucasus—Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia—are occasionally included in definitions of the Middle East.[1]". I think Wikipedia does usually not do this. I don't know what is most common in America but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. It could be confusing if Armenians are called Middle Eastern if they emigrate to America but not in other situations. A subcategory is added to a category by editing the subcategory the same way an article is added to a category. See Help:Category#Putting pages in categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has both Azerbaijani and Turks listed as Middle Eastern Americans, just not Armenians...plus Iran is a Caucus territory, as well., but also considered a Middle Eastern one. So you kind of contradicted yourself.

Bzazaian11 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bzazaian11: Nobody said Turkey and Iran are not in the Middle East. The Caucasus is only a small remote part of those countries. Wikipedia has millions of pages and I'm not sure which Azerbaijani listing you refer to but I said "usually", not "always". There are simply too many articles, categories and editors for Wikipedia to be completely consistent. You said "Middle Eastern Americans" (plural) in quotation marks. Category:Middle Eastern Americans redirects to Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent which doesn't have have an Azerbaijani subcategory. I now see Category:Middle Eastern American (singular) does have an Azerbaijani subcategory. I'm not sure whether the difference is accidental or deliberate. Maybe it's about country versus ethnicity, or Azerbaijani Americans saying it includes those born in Iranian Azerbaijan. The main category for the issue is probably Category:Middle Eastern countries which doesn't include any of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, but mentions all three in the lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Armenia today is a Middle Eastern country (even though the CIA World Factbook says it is: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/am.html), my point is that the majority of Armenians have Middle Eastern ancestry because the current location of modern Armenia isn't reflective of where most Armenians originate from. You fail to realize that the Caucus portion of Armenia was only a fraction of the country prior to the Ottoman Empire and invader tribes taking over our land. Armenians don't come from the Caucuses, per se, we come from the Armenian Highlands/Kingdom of Armenia. While the Highlands does encompass the Southern Caucuses, it also stretched into Ancient Mesopotamia (AKA present-day Northern Iraq), as well as present-day Iran, and Anatolia. Anthropological studies conclude that Armenians originate from each of these 4 regions. Those that originate outside of the Caucuses have mostly J2 (Middle Eastern) DNA, while those from the Caucuses have mostly R1b DNA (AKA the "fair-skinned" gene concentrated mostly in Europe). Furthermore, the majority of Armenian-Americans identify as Middle Eastern Americans. This is because most Armenian-Americans are of Western Armenian descent, who made up the overwhelming majority of the Armenian Diaspora. They were forced out of their native regions due to heavy persecution from the Ottoman Empire, as well as other invader tribes like Arabs and Persians. These Armenians mostly have origins that can be traced to Mesopotamia, Iran, and Anatolia, and therefore, have mostly Middle Eastern DNA, so most of us have no genetic relation to Armenia's current location. DNA tests show we are Middle Eastern, therefore we identify as Middle Eastern Americans. Here are a few other sources that support my stance: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/partnerships/community/mideast.html http://cis.org/MiddleEasternImmigrantsProfile http://www.ameredia.com/resources/demographics/middle_eastern.html http://www.mearo.org/lesson1.php

Sources of a Wiki Page

Can I uploade PDF files as sources for a Wikipedia Page? Hcastronuevo (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's best to link to the source of a pdf file, and put the link in a reference naming the file and its author and date. If all else fails you could put it on Google drive and link to that; however, the pdf needs to be an identifiable, previously published document to be a source for citation.Jessegalebaker (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hcastronuevo. A PDF published by an organization with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and error correction is acceptable as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article. However, that PDF must be hosted on a website controlled by the copyright holder, or the content must be freely licensed, for example, under an acceptable Creative Commons license. We cannot link to any copyright violating material on any random website. Please read WP:COPYVIOCITE for the details of the guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all the Cullen328 has said, Hcastronuevo, but I don't think he has been sufficiently direct in arguing against part of Jessegalebaker's advice: Do not put a PDF file on Google drive and link to it. If it is not your PDF, this will probably be a copyright violation anyway; but even if it is yours, or its copyright makes this legal, it will still be useless as a reference or external link for Wikipedia, because its provenance is not known: anybody can put a PDF up on Google drive that says anything at all. --ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Re Cullen328, ColinFine: Indeed, there are copyright issues; I've never used Google Drive to source here. But it's possible, if only a photostat is available and the author allows re-posting. Provenance would be established by naming the author, date, original source, and proof of existence (a library catalog record is good); the photostat may show creator info as well. Some genealogy citations may have to be done this way, or refer to reader to the genealogy library where the record can be found. Cheerio. Jessegalebaker (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, Jessegalebaker. The meat of the reference is the bibliographic information by which the published information can in principle be found (eg through a major library). If the information is online at a reliable source, then the citation can include a URL for that source; but it shouldn't contain a URL for an unreliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Re ColinFine: I won't argue with your general view on it. A proper citation is necessary; material lacking this can be challenged and removed. Yet some readers (homebound or not near a library) may appreciate, in addition to bibliography, an immediately viewable copy if it can be provided without copyright infringement; that's the only reason I mention a user's posting it if warranted. Readers share a responsibility for assessing the reliability of claims they encounter. Wikipedia is rife with political bias, edit wars, articles of marginal quality, and other imperfections yet I still treasure it as a resource. Even professional literature is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or free from ulterior motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessegalebaker (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 February 2017 -(UTC) (Thanks, forgot to sign!) Ignore; I didn't mean to be pedantic, or to encourage careless editing.Jessegalebaker (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has both Azerbaijani and Turks listed as Middle Eastern Americans, just not Armenians...plus Iran is a Caucus territory, as well., but also considered a Middle Eastern one. So you kind of contradicted yourself.

Bzazaian11 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

what's the best place to start editing?

I'm new here and looking for a place to get started as a contributing editor. I've read all of the guidelines and links for new contributors, but would like an easy(?) article to start editing. Thanks! Soli58 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Soli58, and welcome to the Teahouse. Take a look at these articles that have been without any sources for more than ten years. Try to find information about those topics and add it to the articles. And, unlike the original contributors, be smart and cite your sources.

This is an "easy" task because there isn't really anything you could break. Most (if not all) of that unreferenced content should have sources, or it needs to go. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Any article is open to editing. Short articles that aren't edited frequently are easier to work on. There's a "view history" tab to check the edits and look at previous versions of the same article, and a "talk" tab to look at other editors' comments or problems with the article. Know your subject and have notes and sources before starting the edit; I compose my edits offline. I've found the markup language difficult, as is the documentation for it, so the article I worked on took 150 edits to do, but computer-savvy users may have less trouble with this aspect. There is a "cite" button that brings up a dialog box whenever you want to put a reference in; this generates the code for it. There are also buttons for italic and bold type. Read WP:5P for more info on editorial policies. But it is open to anyone; you cannot damage Wikipedia because any edit can be reversed and the earlier material restored. Jessegalebaker (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Soli58 I agree completely with Finnusertop, but judging from my experience with Syntelic, getting rid of unsourced content is less satisfying than shoveling sand against the tide. If you are interested in Genetics, there are lots of "stub" articles at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Genetics that could benefit from additions. There are many other projects, as listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/WikiProjects_by_changes that probably have stub articles of their own. Happy editing! DennisPietras (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, your "sand shoveling" consisted of a single attempt to delete that article, which another editor declined. Then, another editor added a source to the article, and it is in somewhat better shape. You were advised that you should take the matter to Articles for Deletion if you had a policy based reason for deleting the article. You have not done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. Looking forward to editing!Soli58 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Using Google books for citations

While participating in the Citation Hunt, I was searching for a citation for an article on Irritable Bowel Syndrome (compelling stuff!), and I found a reference to the section needing citation on the Google books site. Should I just add the link to the Google Books or should I cite the actual book?

Citation Hunt link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en?id=2a6c9769&cat=all

Google Book link: https://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=Musculotropics+relieving+spasm+without+affecting+normal+gut+motility&source=bl&ots=ocW80E8Wm6&sig=L-DQ-6Un3jAW9pDJTDoPj4sfukE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9pdC554HSAhWIv1QKHRaBC6wQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=Musculotropics%20relieving%20spasm%20without%20affecting%20normal%20gut%20motility&f=false

Please excuse the massive query string.

Thanks for any advice CliffLandin (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CliffLandin. I suggest that you use Template:Cite book within the reference tags, and add that Google Books query string to the URL field. Fill out the other applicable fields, and when a reader clicks the book title, it will take them to the Google Books display. Filling the ISBN field will allow the reader to find the book in libraries or for sale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@CliffLandin and Cullen328: this tool makes it super easy for you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: That's a useful tool that I was unaware of. @CliffLandin: When you're using a Google Books URL in a reference, you should drop everything after the page number (as the rest is just search artifacts)— just https://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34 goes to the correct place. Deor (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Finnusertop: @Deor: - Great! Thank you for the help. CliffLandin (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

CliffLandin, Google adds a lot of garbage to its urls. All you need in this case, where you have a page number in the link, is https://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34; for snippet view and unpaginated books in preview, all you need is the book id, up to (but not including) the first ampersand (so in this case, that would be https://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFBgAAQBAJ). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @CliffLandin: there's also a pretty cool tool at http://reftag.appspot.com where you can just paste the gBooks URL into it, and it will make it a fully-formatted Wikipedia footnote. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Need Help I am new to this and it is a mass of confusion to me

Hi , I am Phillip Martindale, PhillipM handle on Wikipedia, and I have been asked by the WM3 Pro Cycling team to change their Wikipedia page to reflect their new status. (They changed sponsors this year from Rabobank -Liv to WM3.) I have tried figuring this out but Wikipedia is a bit confusing to me. At this point I am not sure what to do. I have changed the page several times to reflect the new information and it looks good for a couple of hours but each time it reverts back to the old version. Could you please give me permission to change this page to reflect the new status of the the team or tell me how to do it. They have asked me to do this and it is not good for the new sponsors to have the old team information online. Can you please help me with this and tell me what to do. I am desperate to help them. My Wikipedia handle is PhillipM and I started changing the page sveral days ago. I have done this three times and each time it goes back to its old page. Please help me

Thank you

Phillip Martindale [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipM (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @PhillipM: on Wikipedia we have a policy that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and should not be promotional in tone. This means that anyone with a conflict of interest (e.g. someone who is tasked with updating a Wikipedia page on behalf of the subject) is strongly advised to stay away from the topic. It seems to me as if you have managed to get the facts into the article, but you've also included some promotional language, by quoting the sponsors, which is a perfect example of why it's so dangerous to edit under a conflict of interest. --Slashme (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PhillipM. A good place to alert editors to the need to update this article would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling. That WikiProject is pretty active, so I'm sure you'll get a response. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the part that I considered promotional. In general, to see what is going on in an article, you can take a look at the "history" tab (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WM3_Pro_Cycling&action=history ) and you can see exactly who has been doing what, and if they filled in the edit summary, you can also see why. For example, User:Theroadislong was the one who removed a lot of text that you had added, with comments like "entirely unreferenced and promotional in tone". When you find that your contributions to an article are being undone, you should go to the article's attached talk page (e.g. Talk:WM3_Pro_Cycling) and discuss the matter. If you specifically want to draw the attention of another editor, you can alert them by using the ping template, e.g {{ping|PhillipM}}, or by simply linking to their user page: [[User:PhillipM]]. You can also drop a note on their user talk page. I hope that explanation helps; please ask again if you need more help. --Slashme (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How to save a page from deletion?

Hello, I am new to the site. The page I have been contributing to (along with others) is said to be deleted soon due to lack of notability. May I ask who will be the judge to decide the level of notability? The person, Jiansheng Chen, was a victim of an unusual shooting death where he was shot inside his van in his neighborhood by the community security guard. The case brings memory of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and it's getting increasing attention from the public. Thanks for your help in answering my question.SlowSuperMom (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SlowSuperMom. In order for the article to be kept, it needs to be demonstrated that it meets Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies. If it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, but maybe that it just doesn't need it's own stand alone article. For example, it looks like it's been suggested at the deletion discussion that some of the content be included in the main article on Pokemon GO, which may be a good suggestion.

Unfortunately, lots of newer editors get their first article deleted, because our policy on notability can be sometimes complex and difficult to understand. But a lot of the time that's just part of the learning process. After all, creating a brand new article is one of the harder things on Wikipedia to do. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SlowSuperMom. Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiansheng Chen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jiansheng Chen. These discussions usually take one week but sometimes longer. The final decision will be made by an administrator who will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments to keep or delete, specifically as they relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec)

Hello SlowSuperMom and welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your note and for contributing to Wikipedia. I have looked at your article Jiansheng Chen and see that there is a deletion discussion ongoing here. There is another very similar article, Shooting of Jiansheng Chen, which has also been nominated for deletion.

I often edit articles related to recent deaths that involve officers in the United States, and am concerned with these issues. In my experience, it is very difficult to predict, early on, whether an individual incident will become sufficiently notable to merit an independent article. Often, articles are written for a particular shooting, and then deleted after a review. Other times, article content is merged into another article where the incident may be summarized briefly. I see both options are being considered at these two articles.

In my view, those discussions regarding deletion are the best place to make arguments about whether wikipedia should have an article about the shooting of Jiansheng Chen. The discussion will focus on two primary issues: the notability of the subject (see these guidlines, WP:N), and what kind of coverage the subject has received in reliable sources (WP:RS).

Right now, it appears there has been significant local coverage (the Virginian Pilot), some coverage in the larger, national press (NBC, CBS [2][3]), and significant international coverage ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). This strongly suggests that some content might go somewhere on wikipedia, but I am not sure if the event should have its own article. My advice is to make cogent arguments at the deletion discussions, referencing all relevant newspaper articles. You should also provide more sources for the articles in question. I hope that helps. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello TimothyJosephWood , Cullen328 , and Darouet , thank you all so much for your help with the topic. Especially, I appreciate Darouet’s insight into the similar incidents and providing helpful references. It definitely makes sense to merge the page with the “shooting of Jiansheng Chen”. But merging with Pokémon Go may make it harder for people to find the information regarding the case. I will take time to write on the discussion for deletion board. Thanks again for your help!SlowSuperMom (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlowSuperMom: Merging things into Pokemon Go won't make it any harder for people to find. You can always create a redirect page, so that people who type in a specific term will be automatically redirected to the right place. Creating redirects is easy. You just create a page of your desired title, and the page contains one line:

#REDIRECT [[main article title#subsection title]]

Then anyone who goes to that redirected title will land on the main article subsection specified. If you omit "#subsection title" then the redirect will simply go to the main article itself. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability and references

I understand that in order to establish notability for my Emmanuel Navon page, I need more references which are not written by Navon himself. 1)Should I delete all the references I cited that he wrote or just add new ones? 2)Should the new ones be articles, etc, that quote him but not directly about him (for example, reference number 52)? 3)What is the ideal type of references to have when writing an Wikipedia entry about a person? Thank you.79.181.247.66 (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Emmanuel Navon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

References to material written by the subject, or to interviews with the subject, are not independent. Such references may, rarely, be acceptable in WIkipedia, but can do nothing to establish the subject's notability. An ideal reference is to a reliable independent published source, and has significant discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@79.181.247.66: & @Maproom::The subject's notability is significantly indicated by the nature of leading Anglophone and Francophone media outlets who invite, broadcast and publish him on his topic of expertise, International Relations (Israel). These are amply cited on the page. He is an instructor at Tel Aviv University and the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, two well-established degree-granting institutions of higher education. Of particular interest, I should think, is that media audiences would have access to background about him as a commentator by accessing and reading his page here in English, and perhaps later in other interwiki projects. I strongly support the subject's notability and suggest removing the Maintenance tag on the page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So which of the 65 now 93 references on the page actually verify this notability? Maproom (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

An Edit Battle

Hello folks. I am an occasional editor with an interest in education. I've been keeping track of Swiss UMEF University which is a fake university in Switzerland, notable for being the foundation institution for a real university in Afghanistan. If I include the current owner's name, it gets edited out. If I include the current status of the institution as unaccredited, it gets edited out. Both entries contain references that show what's written is the case. What should I do?Bizetshine (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't come to a consensus with the other editor(s), then try dispute resolution. Don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed. Currently the talk page is full of more advertising which I didn't really feel right about erasing, and there's been no engagement at all with my concerns.Bizetshine (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Bizetshine. Don't link to external sites in the text of an article instead of writing a reference. Read Help:Referencing for beginners. You will also need to find a source that says the university is unaccredited. A reference to source that does not list the university is not sufficient. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks StarryGrandma, that's not me doing the external link. The reference is in fact the reference list used by the Swiss authorities. If you're not on the list you're not recognized. The Swiss government doesn't make a negative list, which does not mean that you can never say a Swiss institution is unrecognized. You can.Bizetshine (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bizetshine and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking through the article, I see many unorthodox citations - not to news, magazine or journal articles - and instead to links like this: https://www.unglobalcompact.org. "UMEF" doesn't appear anywhere on the main page when you follow that link, and if you search the UN Global Compact website, all you see is that UMEF is now "Delisted... Expelled due to failure to communicate progress." When I search for information I find nothing, not even in books.google.com, which is highly unusual for the subject of an encyclopedia article.

Do you know of any high quality, independent, and reliable sources that discuss this university with any depth? If not, it is likely the case that the Swiss UMEF University does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and should be deleted. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

An understandable concern Darouet. Notability as far as I saw it at the time was this: Dunya University of Afghanistan (DUA) is in fact a recognized private university in Afghanistan, and it was founded on the basis of Swiss UMEF University (which has existed as an unrecognized school since the 80s that actually has small facilities and a hostel). Graduates would get a dual degree, one from UMEF and one from Dunya, and there was obvious pride in the guy running both institutions. Currently the actual Afghan Dunya site has scrubbed mention of "UMEF" and "Swiss" (although their Wikipedia page is touting the affiliation and that ain't my writing) and so maybe this is going down the memory hole as a successful diploma mill operation that got the job done. I could see it being deleted as its existence might be just as a scrap of paper if the guy running it is covering his tracks. Edits on the article come from Switzerland, which is interesting. Bizetshine (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I think I'm wrong about scrubbing. Continuing touting at the reference.. Bizetshine (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I blanked the talk page section. It was nothing but an old copy of the article. Meters (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we have an article on this at all. Meters (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bizetshine, Meters, StarryGrandma, and RudolfRed: I've proposed the article be deleted. I hope nobody is upset at this? If you would like to contest the proposal you can remove the proposed deletion template and we can move discussion to the article talk page or other appropriate venues. -Darouet (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No objection from me. From what I can see some of the claims in the article are not supported by the cites. I have yet to find anything solid that can be verified. Meters (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just in passing: @Darouet, Bizetshine, Meters, StarryGrandma, and RudolfRed: This appears to be another scam – see, for example, this article. If it's a scam and a few more sources can be found then it might be better to clean up the page and keep it rather than bin it. I haven't removed the prod, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Notable for all the wrong reasons... Meters (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Establishing notability for Emmanuel Navon page

I received a notification on the Emmanuel Navon page that it "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention." I have cited many sources which I thought were independent and secondary, as well as referred to many scholarly articles written by Navon. Can someone please advise on what may be the issue with meeting notability requirements here and how I can improve it? Thanks!109.65.30.14 (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have worked through the first ten references at Emmanuel Navon, and found that none of them help to establish notability. If you believe that some of the other 55 references are independent and reliable, and include significant discussion of Navon, can you please tell us which? Maproom (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A large number of these "references" have been written by Navon himself. That's not appropriate. References should be to published material written by journalists, critics, or other authors who are not connected with Navon.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you say it is better not to reference articles authored by Navon at all or just to add additional ones that are not connected with him?79.181.247.66 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And would, for example, reference number 52 be a good reference? It quotes Navon but is not written about him.79.181.247.66 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: & @Maproom:: please see my remarks at WP:Teahouse#Notability and references dated just now. I suggest a consideration of notability by the subject's academic activity and commentating in his field of expertise for major Francophone/Anglophone broadcast and print media outlets. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not questioning Navon's notability. But it needs to be made evident to a reviewer, by acceptable references. I think it's unreasonable to expect a reviewer to search through (now) almost 100 references, looking for anything that is both independent of the subject and has significant discussion of him. Maproom (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Deborahjay, the links to Navon's own work should all be removed as references; if some of these are highly cited academic papers, they could be added in a "Selected publications" section without links, in the way that his books are included now, instead of being references. references for those sections should be book or article reviews or other publications which write about his publications. a discussion, it's best to link to a reference rather than refer to it by number, because the numbers change; 52 appear to be a paper written by Navon now. References to social media, such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, are not independent, reliable, published sources and should be removed.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Maproom: and @Anne Delong:, for your swift and helpful response. I generally don't create pages so was unfamiliar with the sensible point Anne so clearly raises about not using the subject's publications as references. As he serves the international (mainstream, not social) media as a commentator, documentation of such instances would likely be with his authorship - but this is an editing issue I can pursue elsewhere than the Teahouse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft article

How much time does it take to examine the draft article prepared by me ??? !helper Sawongam (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Most drafts are reviewed within 4 weeks of being submitted for review. Please don't submit any draft for review (or try to create any more articles directly) until you have read and understood the advice at WP:Your first article and the other links which were given to you on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice user:David Biddulph Can I ask for the cause ??? Why not to create a draft ??? And is there any ID ban or any restriction if the article is not accepted or deleted by wikipedia ??? !Helper — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The cause, SawOnGam is that if you create a draft about a subject that is not notable, then it will not be accepted as an article whatever you do to it, and you will have wasted your time. If you submit it for review, you will be wasting the reviewer's time as well. If you create a draft about a subject that is notable, but you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and manual of style, it is likely that you will have to redo your work, wasting your time. If you discover the problems only by sending it for review, you will in a sense have wasted the reviewer's time as well. (Not completely, as that is what the reviewing task is; but if you had understood the policies in the first place, the job would probably have been quicker and easier for the reviewer). --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine How can I delete that draft then ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs) 08:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For a page to which you have been the only significant contributor, you can request speedy deletion by adding {{Db-author}} to the top of the page. And please remember, when posting to a talk page or other discussion page such as here, to add a signature to the end of your message. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

FATA REFORMS

FATA should merge in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Should create a self Province? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidwazir (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Junaidwazir. I'm afraid you are at the wrong place for that kind of question. This page is for help in editing Wikipedia - nothing else; but nowhere in Wikipedia will you get answers to questions about what should happen. You need to find a relevant forum to ask a question like that. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

COI notice - how to ethiclally review and remove

An article I posted has been flagged Quad Site (archaeological site) as potential COI. i made a disclosure on the talk page and have requested the user that flagged it to provide more specifics, but they will not reply. I have requested the article be reviewed. I do not want to remove the message without doing all I can to alleviate the concern, so what do I do?ColtsPop (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ColtsPop, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's possible that they just haven't noticed your comments. I'll ping the user to let them know that they are called to discuss the tag: @Jim1138:. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thanks Fin, but it's not @Jim1138, I think it is @Melcous.ColtsPop (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, Melcous is the user who initially added the tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Organizational market

An organizational market comprises all the individual and companies which purchase goods and service for some use other than,personal consumption.105.112.33.0 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Success .E.

What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Page not live

Hello I create a page for Derek Velez Partridge an author and film producer/Director and it's not live. Was it created in the wrong place. I can't edit it and had the full name plus the name of the photo. Very confused. How. An I edit and add to the Derek Velez Partridge page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekVP (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DerekVP and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think the page you are referring to was ever created at all, at least not with your account. Here is a list of all edits you have made: contributions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I see, you must be referring to this page. Yes, it is a) the wrong place, b) completely unsourced, c) apparently an autobiography, c) probably about a non-notable person. So, it's a no, no, no, no. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)