Wikipedia:Teahouse

jmcgnh, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

There is an article I edited to add unbias to an article. However, the edit was removed because of "unreliable sources", when other edits have used articles with similar credibility. What should I do?

There is an article I edited to add unbias to an article. However, the edit was removed because of "unreliable sources", when other edits have used articles with similar credibility. What should I do?QuantumMass (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

First submission deleted before I could fix. Issue: copyrighted work. How do I fix?

Hello, I'm very new to Wikipedia as an editor. I wrote my first page and submitted it last week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ILLUMAGEAR Unfortunately it was rejected and deleted before I could do anything.

Could someone please assist me in explaining how I can locate the deleted page and edit it? It would also be helpful to understand where the copyright infringement exists.

Thanks! A. A0royal (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, A0royal, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to the message on Draft:ILLUMAGEAR, it was copied from http://illumagear.com/safety-products/the-halo-light, and is therefore an infringement of the copyright on that page. Where a page is deleted for other reasons, an administrator would be able to give you a copy of the deleted material in your user space, to work from; but when it is a copyright violation, we must not keep the text anywhere in Wikipedia. If you want to write an article about Illumagear, you will need to base it on (but not copy directly from) reliable sources unconnected with the company that have written about it. (You may reference basic uncontroversial factual information from the company's own sources, such as dates and locations, but anything with a hint of subjectivity must come from independent sources). I suggest looking at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Welcome to the Teahouse, A0royal. Administrator Jimfbleak deleted the article, stating that the content was copied from http://illumagear.com/safety-products/the-halo-light). You need to write in your own words. Any specific questions need to be directed to that administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Protocol for pages that need major re-writes

Hi there, thanks for the invitation to the Teahouse. I love a cuppa ,,,, I flagged an article yesterday that was promotional and apparently written by the subject. What is the protocol for suggesting deletion, I.e. How long should you wait before PROD? Thanks. Mediavalia (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You should wait a while and see if anyone tries to clean it up, Then if there is no cleanup, Then maybe PROD it. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I just left a message on the author's talk page referring them to GNG and NPOV. I'll keep an eye out. Cheers.Mediavalia (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You asked - "How long should you wait"? - most periods on Wikipedia, such as WP:AFD are 7 days, to allow for people who only edit weekly, not daily. However, given that that particular editor has made 32 edits in 6 years 7 months, i.e. under 5 edits/year, you might want to consider e-mailing them, although, as repeatedly stated on the e-mail form, this will reveal the e-mail address set in your preferences to them. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mediavalia. The article in question is Lee Harrington. I do not think that PROD is appropriate here, as this person has received coverage in major newspapers such as the New York Times and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only, not for articles where strong claims of notability have been made. Instead, I suggest that you try to clean up the article. You don't need anyone's permission to do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thank you and fair enough though if you look at the links they don't really refer to the subject and other links are broken. Also, it's borderline regarding notability unless I've misunderstood those guidelines. I will try to clean up the article if I can. Cheers Mediavalia (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Mork calling Orson... Come in, Orson...

Hello Teahouse! I have some issues at establishing a communication with a new Wikipedia editor. I would like to guide this person to both change her username and to improve the article that she is writing, since it needs a profound reorganization. My problem is: I think that she hasn't noticed any of my replies and maybe she is not aware of the existence of talk pages. After I left an edit summary in the article that she is writing, she contacted me writing on my user page but, again, it seems that my following replies were not noticed. My question is: assuming the worst-case scenario and a person that doesn't notice the notifications nor looks at her (or mine) talk page, is there a way to get her attention? Any suggestion is welcomed. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 12:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing her? She may pay more attention to her emails than her talk page. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Skamecrazy123, thanks for the suggestion. I think that it could work but I would prefer to use a method of communication internal to Wikipedia. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 19:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@LowLevel73: Na-nu na-nu. Given the the orange notification bar when you post to someone's talk page, that persists until checked (albeit, the old system was much better), I think it's reasonable to assume she actually has seen your posts and decided not to respond. Yeah, send an email if hers is enabled, why not, but your time is valuable and there's only so many rabbit holes that can be explored. If the username issue you mentioned is of a blatant sort and meets the criteria do so, reporting to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is a possible indirect way to get attention.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for your reply. The change of username is in my opinion strongly suggested, because it matches with the title of the article that the editor has created. A COI is extremely improbable, though, because the article is about a poet who lived in the 19th century. I'll try to contact the editor one more time in the following days, before giving up and following your suggestions. Thanks! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 19:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Providing material from another source

There is no content on Thodore Dreier. Is it okay to copy and past the New York Times obituary on him?

Ninasfamily (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ninasfamily, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is no: it is almost never acceptable to copy and paste material from elsewhere into a Wikipedia article, because that would violate the NYT's copyright in the material. An article needs to be entirely based upon published reliable sources, but it must be written in new words. Please see your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ninasfamily. Is it possible that you mean Theodore Dreiser? We have an article about him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note, Ninasfamily, that in addition to the above, it is illegal (from the perspective of the U.S.) for you to do this anywhere, on or off Wikipedia. While we attempt to police copyright violations more intensively than many other user generated sites, the fact that you would be violating The New York Times' copyright by copying and pasting its content (in a manner that would not constitute fair use) would be true whether the site you did this on policed it or not, or had an express policy on it or not--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

is an article about a product suitable

Hi, I would like to create an article that explains what a particular product is. I am not trying to sell the product with this article. I just want to explain that the product formerly known as "A" is not called "B" and it has functionality from products "C" and "D". The goal is to help people who are genuinely confused. As precedent look up the article on "TMG" from Microsoft. Thanks in advance for your help, Jen JenField (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You certainly can create an article about a particular product! When writing it you should make sure that all the information you're writing is verifiable by citing it to third party reliable sources of information (instructions for doing so can be found here), and ensure you're writing from a neutral point of view. (as you say, we shouldn't be aiming to sell our article subjects!) WP:TUTORIAL should help you learn the basics and Your First Article provides a guide on creating your first article. Sorry for the huge amount of links but I hope they help! Sam Walton (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JenField. Sam's answer is good as far as it goes, but what he does not say is that you need to establish that the product is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). This means that there are reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or websites with a reputation for fact-checking) which are unconnected with the product and its manufacturers which have written at length about the product. So if there are, for example, substantial reviews of the product in reliable organs, then it is notable and may have an article. But if essentially all the information available about the article comes from companies who make or sell it, then it is not notable, and may not have an article. The other part of this is that explaining the difference between things to help people who are confused is, oddly, not part of the function of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a repository of information which has already been written about in reliable sources, but any conclusion or synthesis from that information counts as original research, and is forbidden. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Image uploads

Technical question: I am bringing the article Camas pocket gopher up to speed (GA or maybe FA status). I don't like the current image of the animal, because it is a taxidermy specimen labeled "California." This rodent is only found in Oregon. That is all beside the point. I emailed the non-profit here [1] to ask about using their image. The creator of the image emailed me back with 4 excellent photos that I want to use. The email read "Hi xxxxx -- Go for it. I've attached the three good photos I got that day of the animal, plus one of the mounds. Feel free to use one or more for the wikipedia page, and please credit the Institute for Applied Ecology for the picture(s). I look forward to checking out the new page when you're done with it. Thanks, xxx" My question: Does this qualify as a license and if so, which one? If not, do I need to email him back and ask that he upload the images himself? I would prefer to take care of this on my own... —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There are replies at the help desk. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I remove a false warning?

Recently I made an edit on an article, as I thought consensus was against the current state. I then got an edit war warning, even though I only made 1 edit (one revert rule?).

The issue is cleared up now, but I don't want that warning lingering on my talk page, making me look like some sort of troublemaker.

Can I remove it?

Weegeerunner (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Weegeerunner, welcome to the Teahouse! In most cases, yes, you can remove the warnings, or you can archive them. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

how do i move a picture that Ive uploaded into the article?

Ive been able to upload the pic but dont know how to get it into the article. Help please. Thanks.Palisades1 20:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Palisades1. To place an image, write the following, replacing "Example.png" with the name of your image, and adding your own caption.

[[File:Example.png|thumb|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

Almost always, this is all you need. For a description of other options, you could see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

When is it ok to remove (and replace) citations?

I want to edit some text with three citations. Two are dead links, and the third is irrelevant to the text; I imagine it was relevant in some previous state.

I've easily found three other sources that substantiate the claims much better. Is it ok to simply remove the old links and insert my three new ones?

To clarify, I'm not changing the text, just the sources. sudopeople 19:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sudopeople: welcome back to The Teahouse. It sounds like what you are doing is fine. If you are certain that you are adding links to sources that cover all of the material, you can add them. A link to a source that is irrelevant should probably be removed. We do not remove dead links just because they no longer work because they may help in finding where the information is archived, but if you are certain all the material will still be sourced when you add your links, go ahead.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, you've address my concerns perfectly. The idea that we don't remove dead links is the primary reason for my inquiry. Thanks very much. sudopeople 21:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Trying to make minor changes

I apparently succeeded in deletion of an incorrect entry on my brother's page (Jan Nemec, film director).

This was a page of the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia.

I have, apparently, access to the Czech version of Wikipedia as well (I speak and write Czech when needed) but I am not sure whether I succeeded or failed to make a minor change to the Czech Wikipedia that contains much more detailed article about my brother Jan Nemec who recently created a bit of 'controversy' according the Czech press.

Any response will be appreciated, at this point I am bit disoriented. Perhaps just a link to some stuff will do.

Ladislav Nemec, Big Bear, California

Nemeclnemecl (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have access to the Czech version of wikipedia, as does any registered editor such as myself, who speaks no Czech whatsoever. You can always look at the editing history of a page, in this case look here. It appears that indeed you made an edit, here. Congratulations! I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

HelloNemeclnemecl thank you for posting your question to the Teahouse page. When you post a question you may benefit other users and help them solve the same problem. Regarding your editing of your brother's article, I would suggest that you post this information on the talk page of the article and reveal your association with the subject. If this is not done, and some one questions your point of view, your change might be deleted. It is always best to be very open about your edits that might be questioned. I really wouldn't worry about it though, since your changes would be unlikely to be reverted.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How to revise my article

Hi,

I'm new to Wiki and tried to post this article, but it was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EU_research_and_innovation_for_the_environment

Could you please help?

Thanks

Soniamo (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Soniamo

Hi Soniamo, and welcome to the Teahouse! The article reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article should begin with a "This subject/person/place/thing is <what/who/where it is>", which introduces the reader to the subject, and then proceeds to deliver information in a neutral point of view. In other words, if you read the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will be given information that's "to the point" and written very formally, and as if the author had no direct affiliation with the subject, like you would see in a blog post or personal website and not in something like an academic paper. I hope this helps. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

How to find articles that need editing

When I first started an account there was a bar at the top of the screen that showed me random articles that needed editing. How do I access this again? Raphael3988 (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Raphael3988. Those automated messages stop after you have been here for a while. The menu on the left side of every Wikipedia page contains a link to the Community portal, which is a place to find out about articles needing editing. I can assure you that there are plenty of them. You can be busy pretty much forever if you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Raphael3988. Besides the community portal another way to find articles to edit is to use User:SuggestBot A wp:Bot in Wikipedia is an autonomous program that performs various functions. E.g., if you edit a page and accidentally create a syntax error in Wikicode there is a bot that will notice and will send you a message. SuggestBot is a bot you can ask to give you suggestions for pages to edit. I just used it the other day, here is an example on my talk page of the suggestions I got: User_talk:MadScientistX11#Articles_you_might_like_to_edit.2C_from_SuggestBot_5 You will notice most of the articles SuggestBot gave to me are fairly nerdy. That's because those are the kind of articles I tend to edit the most. SuggestBot looks at your Wikipedia edit history and tries to find similar kinds of articles. The more you edit the more SuggestBot has to work with and the more likely it can give you articles that match your specific interests and expertise. Here is the section that tells how to ask SuggestBot for ideas, it's very easy: User:SuggestBot#Getting_recommendations --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Raphael. Looking at your contributions up to now, you may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE). There's a long list of articles in need of editing there along with guidance and awards for your efforts. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How to put a box in a table

Hey so you know how when you have a line of text and you put a space before each line it shows up in a nice tidy box? We have some language data that we have in such boxes, but the boxes span the whole page and someone suggested to us that we put those spaced over boxes of data inside a 1X1 table. That way they wouldn't take up the whole page and if we wanted to add extra info on the data such as images to represent the data at a mental level we could add a second column to the table and have the matching images there. Is this possible? I tried spacing the whole table code and that doesn't work and I tried putting a space after each line inside the table code and that didn't work either. Our page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_(linguistics) and I referenced some of this in the "tech meeting" section on our talk page. Any help is appreciated! Sweeeetheart (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sweeeetheart and welcome to the Teahouse. I have put some of the texts in the article in boxes so that you can see how it might work. For even more nice tables see Help:Table where you can see all about different lines, backgrounds, align and so on. I also saw that you have some difficulties with using the Harvard references, I'll see if I can sort it out for you. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

How to view newest articles of a project

Hello. Is there a way to view recently created articles belonging to a particular WikiProject (e.g. Insects, Mexico, etc.) or, alternatively, newly created articles within a Category or recent changes within a category? I imagine this would be some sort of external tool. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Animalparty: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. If there is a tool, those who would know can be found at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please check my work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stephb91/Vivi_Devereaux

New to Wikipedia. Have created a page on my user profile. Can someone check it before I try make it go live?

Stephb91 (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Stephb91

User profile is a page for user, in which brief information is written

about user. In this page you can write something about yourself.

Sand box, is usually used for testing and creation of draft articles.

I am not fully sure about notability of your article, but it needs proper formatting

for example 'early life' and 'filmography' should be placed as sub headings

like this ==Early life==

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stephb91: Hi Steph. Articles on any topic, and especially those on a living person, require the existence of reliable, published secondary sources that write about the topic in some detail and are completely independent of the topic. The existence of such sources establish notability, and are used to verify information in any potential article. In short, reliable sources are things like reputable books, magazines, newspaper articles, documentaries and so on. User generated sources like blogs, forum posts, many e-zines, imDb write ups, random websites, etc., with no reputation for fact checking and accuracy, are no use for this purpose. I have searched for sources and found not even one reliable source and none of the sources you have cited in the article are of the type we want.

It thus does not appear there is any likelihood that an article on this individual at the moment is warranted. Given what he has done, it would not surprise me at all if in a few years sources will exist, and a properly sourced article could be written, but currently he is just "up and coming", and it does not look like there is anything you can do right now to write an article that would stick. I thus suggest that you ask for the draft to be deleted yourself (you can place {{Db-userreq}} at the top of the page and save to do so). Don't let this discourage you. But keep these issues in mind for the next topic you choose and you'll succeed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see. :( pity.

I have done as you have suggested and requested speedy deletion for the page. Hopefully it's done ASAP so I can reset and try my hand at something else. Thanks so much for all your help

Stephb91 (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

How to cite Social Security Death Index and U.S. Census information

Hi, I am writing an article about Harold A. Winston. What little information exists on various websites confuse him with Harold W. Winston. I want to cite SSDI as well as a U.S. Census that help verify the correct person. How do I properly cite such items? Joe Weinstein (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Joe Weinstein: I have cited both in the past. See Kelly pool for one method of citing the Census. Another can be seen here and see also {{Cite census}}. I cited the SSDI for Rudolf Wanderone but that was long ago and I would provide a better attributed citation today (the link is a also now dead). I suggest something like
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.example.com|title=Social Security Death Index|publisher=U.S. Social Security Administration|website=Accessed through Ancestry.com (or whatever)|accessdate=November 13, 2014}}</ref>
       --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joe Weinstein. When you write "what little information exists on various websites", that raises a red flag for me. A person can certainly be notable without readily available online sources. An example would be a one-term Maryland legislator in office 200 years ago. We agree that all state and provincial legislators from any country are notable and deserve Wikipedia biographies, even if online sources are not readily available. But most notable people who have Wikipedia biographies will have more than "little information" available online. So my friendly question to you is, why do you think that this person is notable? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond, Fuhghettaboutit and Cullen328, individually or separately. Thanks for the input as to referencing SSDI info. If you looked up Harold Winston on various sites, you would see that he had a career both on Broadway and in Hollywood, in various capacities. The problem is that there are two Harold Winston's who worked in the entertainment industry and their information is confused, birth and death dates of one and accomplishments of the other. The information I have found makes them both a heck of a lot more interesting. Maybe the information I have found about them is information that has been recently scanned from the actual publications and certainly deserve to be organized into accurate, concise articles so they can both be recognized for their individual achievements. When I get the references notated properly and re submit the article I feel fairly certain you will agree. I have written his bio for family consumption, with statements from family members, but I have already taken those out. I appreciate the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, so I will only include information that is notable, and not just a narrow point of view. Thanks so much for the input! Joe Weinstein (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe Weinstein. You may find an essay called Don't build the Frankenstein to be relevant to the confusion about these two people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Is it OK to delete an entire vandalised talk section INCLUDING non-vandal replies? This is specifically regarding Talk:Philae_(spacecraft)#Hoax_theory.2FFringe_theory sudopeople 20:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! Unless it does meets the talk page guidelines, then you are allowed to remove the content. Looking at the link discussion, I don't see anything wrong. The user initiated a discussion with many users disagreed with it, so leave as it. ///EuroCarGT 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem in this case is his "hoax" is itself a hoax, perpetrated by himself as vandalism. He's now blocked, so that's nice, but I'd still like to know if I can remove the section. Not that it's a huge deal. I mostly want to know for future reference. sudopeople 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The user is blocked not banned. According to the block log for trolling (WP:NOTHERE). You may remove it by being bold. ///EuroCarGT 21:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was scolded last time I was bold on a talk page :( Thanks for the encouragement! sudopeople 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@EuroCarGT: "Unless it does not meet the talk page guidelines, then you are allowed to remove the content." I think that's backward.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Oops! And it's the other way around. ///EuroCarGT 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How do i properly reference images taken from published scientific papers?

Hello!

I would like to use an image taken directly from a scientific paper, however I want to make sure I do it correctly without causing any copyright issues. Could someone walk me through that, or point me to the place where i can find the information?

Thanks in advance Drhood2938 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Drhood2938, and welcome to the Teahouse. The copyright situation is no different if the image is in a scientific paper or is anywhere else. Normally, an image may be used in Wikipedia only if the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a free licence such as CC-BY-SA. If you are in touch with the copyright owner, and they are willing to do this (either by a public declaration on a website where it is published, or by the process in donating copyright materials) then you can upload the image to Wikimedia commons and include it in an article from there. If the copyright owner is unavailable, or unwilling to license it, you can use it only if such use meets all the requirements in Non-free content criteria - and I rather doubt that this will be the case, though I may be wrong. In either case, Help:Upload will tell you how to go about it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Inserting Citations

I'm trying to cite the same paper multiple times, how do I cite it without it adding the citation to the reference multiple times? Secahill (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you're using one of the citation templates you can simply name it the first time you use it, as <ref name="YourName">full citation</ref> for instance, and for every subsequent occurrence you can use that name, as in <ref name="YourName" />. Eric Corbett 19:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

... and actually that would work whether you're using one of the citation templates or not. Eric Corbett 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Secahill. Eric Corbett's answer is 100% correct. All that I will add is to be sure to include the final slash "/" when using the reference the second time and subsequent times. Leaving out the slash is a common error when first trying named references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!Secahill (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

HOW DO I REPORT VANDALISM?

Hi,

I've just experienced what i think is vandalism on a page I've been contributing to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Wonderful_World_(1956_film)

I've just cleaned it all up, but late this afternoon (as I was using the Zhaofeng Li reflinks tool), all the brackets on the page, and some of the full stops had been changed to # symbols. Who would I report this to - is there a procedure for reporting, etc?

Beryl reid fan (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Beryl reid fan. This diff shows that you made the edit that caused the problem. Perhaps the Zhaofeng Li reflinks tool has a bug. I am not familiar with that tool, so I recommend you look into it, and double check your work when using it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For vandalism, go to WP:AIV if the problem persists. For bugs, report them to WP:VPT, and they may send you elsewhere if it's not a Wikipedia-specific problem, but that's a start.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328 , thank you. I was working from a library computer as well. Maybe that had something to do with it. But thanks, anyway. Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Vchimpanzee. Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing anything that's Trivial

Although I've been doing this, How do you remove anything that's Trivial? FN071299 (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings FN071299 Welcome to the teahouse. It helps to learn the vocabulary that editors use here. So "trivial" is not in my experience a word that people generally use to describe content in an article. We try to avoid using language that is overly praise worthy or negative. I think what you are calling trivial is what in Wikipedia would be called wp:original research or wp:not notable or not sourced BTW, I notice you are doing a lot of editing where you just remove information and leave comments like "trivial if not sourced". It is appropriate to remove information that isn't sourced but in my experience it's not the first thing that people usually try to do. It's better -- assuming the information is true and relevant to the article -- to FIND a source and add it rather than just immediately removing the info. Specifically, I notice you are removing a lot of MPAA ratings from various articles on films and leaving comments like "trivial if not sourced". IMO a better approach would be to find newspaper articles or other 3rd party sources that say what the MPAA rating for the film was and add those references rather than just delete the info about the ratings. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding unsourced material, unless it's a direct quotation or contentious material about a living person, I would not interpret "It is appropriate to remove information that isn't sourced" as you should always remove that information. Generally, on lower class articles I leave information in that that I believe to be true or even that I simply have no reason to believe is false. I consider unsourced information in lower class articles a natural part of their evolution towards high class articles. Removal wihout justification I think generally has a negative affect on the article's growth because some of the claims are indeed verifiyable, it just takes a person who is willing to track sources down for them. If that information removed while unsourced, it may be forgotten to be put back in for many years or even forever. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

hoe to start a page for a music artist/music producer

hoe to start a page for a music artist/music producerMmajic (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mmajic and welcome to the Teahouse. A good way to start editing and creating articles is to first learn how to edit. You can do it by doing the tutorial The Wikipedia Adventure mentioned a bit further up on this page. You can also read this: Wikipedia:Your first article Good luck! w.carter-Talk 13:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

what r the exceptions to law of demand with ic

exceptions with indifference curve14.139.211.2 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Internet user. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. I have to admit that I don't understand your question. Is it about economics? Please try the Reference desk, where someone may be able to help you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Try reading Law of demand and Indifference curve. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Need help with a rejected article- Goethe award

I need help with an article rejected on the grounds of notability and the golden rule. The article concerns a book award. The reviewer says that citations from the publishers of the books winning the award are not evidence that the award is notable and the reviewer has therefore removed most of the article's references. However the reviewer thinks that a citation from the CV of one of the winners is an appropriate citation. The books are all published by highly reputable publishers of peer reviewed books. To me, evidence of notability is supported by the fact that a reputable, notable, peer reviewed book publisher thinks the award is notable enough to put on their website. If the goal of Wikipedia is to have articles about notable subjects, then that goal is achieved by listing an award that the most prominent publishers in a given field think is notable. Here is the article after the citations were removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Goethe_Award_for_Psychoanalytic_and_Psychodynamic_Scholarship Here is the article before the citations were removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Goethe_Award_for_Psychoanalytic_and_Psychodynamic_Scholarship&oldid=633471800 If the award was of no notability, reputable publishers would not feel that they should put it on their website. Can someone please clarify these criteria for mePhilPsych (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhilPsych. Here is my opinion of the matter. Notability here on Wikipedia has a very specific definition. Here is a one sentence summary:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis added)

The word "independent" is key here. Not a single word said on the website of a book publisher establishes the notability of anything involved in selling the books they publish. Not about their authors, not about their editors, not about the book publishing software they use, not about their beautiful headquarters building, and not about the awards that their books have won. Every word on a publisher's website is for the purpose of selling books, and is not independent. That doesn't mean it is wrong or worthless, but that it is not independent.

On the other hand, an article about the awards in a reputable magazine or journal that has nothing to do with granting or receiving the award is an excellent source establishing notability. Think of it this way: The Oscars are notable in the Wikipedia sense not because the academy and the actors, directors and screenwriters care about them. They are notable because thousands of journalists, biographers and film historians write about them. Truly independent sources establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is to second Cullen's comment, that it needs more about the award itself. How prestigious is this prize among prizes awarded to books, or prizes in the field of psychology? For example, in Germany there are close to a dozen prizes and medals named after Goethe, and some are more notable than others. E.g., the Goethe Gold Medal from the Goethe-Gesellschaft in Weimar is the highest award in the field of Goethe scholarship. So that would be notable, although we don't have an article about it. So it would be good if you could find a third-party article from a journal in the field that mentions it as an important award. Once that is established, the cites about the prize winners in the draft are fine. No problem there. Also, the award that Freud won was a different prize, so it's not really relevant to this one. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. But, sorry I still don't quite get it. The publishers are not granting the award. So the peer reviewed, reputable, notable publishers who are reporting about the award are independent of the award itself. The award is independent of the publishers because there is not one, but a number of different competing publishers whose books have won the award. When I think of other book awards throughout the world, I expect that most reports in newspapers likely originate from a news release coming directly from the award organization. So one could argue that the newspaper reports are not independent. When you are talking about an award for a scholarly academic book, it is going to be difficult for me to figure out what sources will meet your criteria, since academic, scholarly journals don't normally post these kind of announcements based upon a news release. With some tedious effort, I will be able find announcements on university and/or psychoanalytic institute websites concerning the fact that a member of their faculty or institute has won the award for their book. Can someone please tell me if that will contribute to notability or will it be impossible to establish notability for an award for a scholarly, academic book? As for the supposedly irrelevant reference to the Goethe prize, I think that reference is absolutely essential. The fact that Freud won the "Goethe prize" is entirely relevant as it speaks to the origin of the use of "Goethe" in naming the psychoanalytic book award. The Goethe Award was named to hark back to the name of the prize that Freud won. The readers of the article would have no understanding whatsoever of why the award was called "Goethe" without referring to the fact that Freud won the "Goethe prize". PhilPsych (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, PhilPsych. The publishers mention the award in the hope of selling more books. That's not independent. If no one unconnected with the selling of the books or granting the award gives significant coverage to the award in reliable, independent sources, then the award is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. So, your task is to find independent coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

PhilPsych I just wanted to comment about the Freud thing. If I'm understanding this correctly there are two DIFFERENT awards: the Goethe award that Freud won and the Goethe award that you are trying to write an article about. If that is correct than the version of your draft article that I took a look at is IMO highly confusing on that issue. It makes it seem like this current award is the same award that Freud won a long time ago. I think it's essential to revise the article (assuming you can demonstrate wp:notability) so that this is cleared up. Perhaps this Goethe award was inspired by the award that Freud won or there is some other connection. If so that should be made clear in the article but if not then the point about Freud should just be removed because as is it is misleading. Hope that makes sense. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will clarify about the reference to the "Goethe prize" vis-à-vis the "Goethe Award for Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Scholarship". Meanwhile I have inquired further on Cullen's talk page about what sort of citations would establish notability for an award for academic, scholarly books. I don't think the answer should be identical to which sources would establish notability for an award for popular novels for instance, or movie awards. I believe that Wikipedia's notability criteria should not preclude the possibility that an award for a scholarly book would be considered notable, even though its notability might be considered closely aligned to a particular field of study. I was thinking readers of Wikipedia interested in modern psychoanalysis would find the article useful since it would explain which books have won this award, an award which is certainly notable within the field of psychoanalytic scholarship. Anyway as I said, I am continuing that discussion on Cullen's talk page.PhilPsych (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Need pic uploaded ASAP

I need to upload a picture to the page for a television series I work on. I would like it up as soon as possible, and obviously as someone who actually worked on the show theres no copyright issues involved. But since I only just started this account for the purposes of that I'm not yet autoapproved. Could someone who's been here a little longer be a real hero and help me out. It's a tiny little logo pic that just needs to go in the infobox. Would be much appreciated. My boss wants it up as soon as possible.

MrJimmySticks (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MrJimmySticks. Why is your boss in such a rush? There are no deadlines here on Wikipedia, and your boss does not own or control an article about a TV show. Copyright issues do not go away just because you work on the show, but in general, uploading low resolution versions of logos are allowed in cases like the one you describe, under Fair use. Why don't you link to the article about the show, link to the logo, and maybe we can get this done? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

notability

hello. I want to create a wiki page or stub about an actor. First name is Vivi and last name Devereaux. I have seen a few of his plays and movies. I just wanted to ask if he is notable enough for inclusion? I see articles about him online. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephb91 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stephb91: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. What kind of sources are writing about Vivi Devereaux? If they are blogs or any other web sites not known for a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, they do not establish notability. What you want are respected newspapers, magazines, and books.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:ENTERTAINER subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) may help you decide. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

New users to move existing page

Is it possible for new users (who are not auto-confirmed yet) to move an existing page? I am working on changing the content of a page that belongs to a professional dancer.. basically remove outdated information and make updates. One important edit is her name... which is also the Wiki Page name that needs to be changed.

Neha.vignesh (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Neha.vignesh. Yes, please follow the procedure described at Requested moves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen. I did take a look at the the page before posting the question... could not find any "requested move" process for non auto confirmed users for an existing page. Is it even possible? or do I have to ensure I become an auto-confirmed user first?

Neha.vignesh (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Neha.vignesh: The requested move process is the same for everybody. The difference for autoconfirmed users is that they can perform a move themselves without making a request. Your account cannot do this yet. Note that Wikipedia has a policy of using the common name and not necessarily the official name or the name preferred by the subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Neha.vignesh, the specific issue is moot as the article has been moved to Joyce K. Paul. As a general principle, though, it is easy to become autoconfirmed as it requires just ten edits over four days. The requested move process is backlogged and may take over a week. So, in most cases, doing it yourself is the easiest and quickest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Neha.vignesh: If this qualified (I have not looked), uncontroversial move requests can be made at the technical moves section of the requested moves project page. Most moves listed there are carried out within minutes to hours, rather than after a seven day discussion process. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys! this helps

67.182.147.11 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What is patrol pages?

I just created a page and I get that it was patrolled, can someone explain that to me?, besides anyone can tell me how to delete pages but the link to that page no longer appears, please. (Halias 23) 12:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Hi Halias 23, welcome to the Teahouse. New pages patrol is a process by which newly created articles are checked for obvious problems. This includes processes such as identifying new pages that meet the criteria for deletion, and detecting copyright violations. When a non-autopatrolled user creates a new page, NewPagesFeed logs them immediately, so that other editors can access those pages from the feed and check for problems. After checking the page he or she would mark the page as patrolled by clicking the link at the bottom of the page. In other words it's like reviewing the page. Autopatrolled users are trusted group of article creators and pages they create will automatically marked as patrolled. And about your second question. If you want to remove a wikilink to a certain page just remove double square brackets ([[ ]]) around the specific word. --Chamith (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add a bit: When new users create a new page, it gets flagged for other users to check it out. Once a page is patrolled, it just means that an experienced user has looked at it. It allows us to have an extra set of eyes on new pages to assure they meet minimum standards. --Jayron32 19:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Halias 23, you mentioned something about deleting pages? Can you please clarify your question or tell us what page you would like to delete. Is it a page you created yourself or something else. The more we know, the better we can help you. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Tried my first edit and failed miserably need help in correcting my error

Tried updating Robert S. Morse page with new information I have from a 1961 Army R&D magazine and tried placing some of the content. That went well but when I tried to edit and add my source I received a bold error saying the reference was not found. Now the page doesn't show up on Wikipedia. I feel I have lost the pervious work on the page. Any help would be greatly appreciated.NeoGraphix (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing Neo. I'll take a look and then get back to you on your talk page :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

All sorted. It was a simple syntax error which I have explained on your talk page :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

HOW TO

Can we but infoboxes in sandboxes? I do not know. And how can I invite authors? Dadapotato (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Dadapotato welcome to the teahouse. Yes, you can put Infoboxes in your sandbox. Your sandbox is meant to be a temporary work area where you try things out before posting changes to the actual encyclopedia so you can pretty much put anything you want in them as long as it's related to editing Wikipedia. The one restriction that I'm aware of is certain copyrighted images (e.g., album cover art) that have restrictions and can only be used in the actual article not in temp pages. But don't worry about that too much that doesn't happen often and if you do put such an image in your sandbox there is a bot that will automatically delete it after a short time. As for inviting other editors it depends on what you want to do. There are lots of ways to network with people here but the two most common are article talk pages and user talk pages. If you have a question about how to edit an article or if you edit an article and someone reverts it and you want to discuss it the best place is on the talk page for the article. If you have a specific question for another user you can post it on their talk page. Here is my talk page for example: User_talk:MadScientistX11 You can see an example of someone contacting me (another teahouse guest) and the two of us talking here: User_talk:MadScientistX11#N142pb_is_trying_again_- BTW, the question that user was asking me was similar to your question and my answer on my talk page goes into more detail about how editors communicate with each other on Wikipedia. Hope that was useful, feel free to ask a follow up if you still have questions or you can ask me for more details on my talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how to add them I tried several times before asking and I do not know how to put infoboxes in sandboxes.Dadapotato (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your sandbox is no different than any other page really. To add an infobox you just paste the code for the infobox into the sandbox and then fill in the appropriate fields. For example suppose I wanted to expand the article on Rory Gallagher. I could copy the current article (including the infobox) into my sandbox. I've done that just now so you can see it here: User:MadScientistX11/sandbox The code for Rory's Infobox is:

{{Infobox musical artist | name = Rory Gallagher | image = Rory Gallagher 1982.jpg | image_size = 200 ... | notable_instruments = [[Fender Stratocaster|1961 Sunburst Fender Stratocaster]] }}

Note: I've removed most of the code with "..." but hopefully you get the idea. Does that make sense? Keep in mind when you say you want to "add an infobox to your sandbox" your sandbox is always meant to be a temp work area so having an infobox there really only makes sense in terms of an article you are creating or editing. Does that help? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dadapotato, I took a look at your user page and all of your very many sandboxes. I think you have misunderstood the use of them. I have left you a much more complete answer at your talk page. The sandboxes are for creating articles and not for sorting discussion threads about your different interests such as politics, SimCity, your website, etc. and infoboxes only belong in articles. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dadapotato: I guess your specific problem was why User:Dadapotato/sandbox did not display an infobox at the time of your first post. It was fixed in [2] long before your second post. Another time, please be more specific about the problem. Then you are likely to get more useful answers. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Article submission denied

I've submitted a page about author Alma Katsu two times and have been denied twice. The second time the rejection was for not establishing notability. I am confused because I have found other pages on authors that have similar amounts of content on them and they were not rejected. I guess I am missing what exactly I am not adding to the page to establish notability. I'm not sure if there is a way for me to link my draft so that it can be read, or if that is already available because I sign this question, but if I am missing something that would be helpful, please just let me know what to do. Thanks in advance for your assistance and advice! Jill.salz (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jill.salz. Your draft article can be seen by any editor at Draft:Alma Katsu. The first thing that I notice is that your references are bare URLs. Please expand and fill them out as described in Referencing for beginners. I also notice that several of your references are one-sentence or one brief paragraph listings in publishing industry websites that exist to promote new book titles. We are looking, instead, for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that devote quite a bit of attention to the author as a person, not just to her books.

Please be aware that this encyclopedia has well over 4.6 million articles, many of which do not meet our standards. We delete crappy articles all the time, at the rate of hundreds or thousands a day. It is a logical fallacy for you to state that you saw some unnamed mediocre article, so we should accept your mediocre article. No, instead, we should delete or improve those other mediocre articles, and we would if you had linked to them. Your job here is to create adequate, compliant articles, not crappy ones. Create articles about indisputably notable topics, with the potential to be expanded into truly good articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your advice and comments do help actually. I wasn't trying to be snarky in pointing out other author articles that are short, I was trying to understand why my article was rejected for "notability" and when looking at other existing articles for context, I was surprised to find articles on newer authors who seemed less notable than Ms. Katsu. The articles I was referring to were these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Neville_(author) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelynn_Hillhouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kira_Peikoff I can see how my references are bare URLs, so that is something I can correct. I am new to editing on wikipedia, but I really love the whole concept and wanted to try my hand at participating. I'll admit it is a bit daunting to have to get an article to such high standards before it is accepted for publishing. I was originally under the impression that it was common practice to stub out an article, post it, and then improve upon it along with others editing over time into something really great. I'm now realizing that really isn't the case if you don't want your article deleted. Anyways, thanks for your help. Jill.salz (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2014TC)

The four articles you mention above, Jill.salz, are all mediocre and can certainly be improved. The first two, though, assert that those authors have written best sellers, which is a legitimate claim of notability. The third asserts national security expertise, citing published articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere. The fourth on your list claims that the writer has been published in the New York Times and other highly notable publications. Without a doubt, each of those articles could be improved. So could the majority of articles here on this encyclopedia. Set your standards higher than barely adequate articles.

You chose to submit your draft through the Articles for Creation process, which is optional but provides for a review by a more experienced editor. You could have plunked your article down in the main space, where new pages patrollers would probably have tried to delete it right away. Pick your poison. Or better, write articles that comply fully with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you will encounter few problems here.

Personally, I have written more than 60 articles here without going through the Articles for Creation process. And not a one has been deleted. But before I did so, I studied Wikipedia's standards, and took great care to comply. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate your taking the time to explain some guidelines I don't exactly find your tone friendly as is stated in the welcome message for this discussion area. As a newbie to editing on wikipedia, it's intimidating and unnecessary to insinuate that I am shooting for "mediocre" or "barely adequate". Though it is my choice to go through the Articles for Creation process there is a statement that indicates that articles that are simply posted but do not meet standards will be deleted and there is a limited number of times that a deleted article can be resubmitted. That would seem to be a poor format for posting one's first article. I'll continue to work on the article and hopefully establish notability. Jill.salz (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you find my tone unfriendly, Jill.salz, then I must apologize to you. My intent was to be frank and informative, not unfriendly. The vast majority of attempts by new editors to create new articles here on Wikipedia, by any method, are unsuccessful. My comments were intended solely to improve your chances of success. If you are having difficulty seeing that, then perhaps another editor can do a better job than I have, in giving you advice. "Friendly" does not mean "compliant", at least in my dictionary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're reading into my words if you got the idea that I wanted you to be compliant.98.216.143.197 (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Being somewhat new to Wikipedia, I found two things helpful.

One, Portal:Biography contains a section, Things you can do.

Two, updating and improving existing existing biography articles. Over time it's easy to see the quality level of different articles--some are minimal, other articles are very good.

Good luck & best wishes. JoeHebda (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Although only essays, not policies or guidelines, two pages that help some editors to understand those policies and guidelines are Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Thanks for posting the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists article. This issue seems to be coming up a lot lately and I knew there was something like that but couldn't remember the name of the article. I know it's not a policy but I think that article really explains things well. Will bookmark for future reference. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with notability

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

Mandali Mendrilla, is definitely a notable person, and the article has a lot of references. I understand the editor has different ideas, please help me.Madhu Gopal (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Madhu Gopal: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I took a quick look and Mandali Mendrilla appears notable to me. I'm sure the article could be expanded but the subject does appear to pass the test. It would be helpful to identify the newspaper or source in each case. There are templates that can help you do this, or you can simply identify the newspaper or source between <ref> and </ref>.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee:Thank you Vchimpanzee. So how can I get it published... What do I need to do exactly. I am just a beginner, and have not so much experience. Thank you for the help.Madhu Gopal (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Just keep looking for sources that are independent which have a neutral point of view and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that someone disagrees with me on notability indicates that you may have a harder time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Article always deleted

I have submitted the same article five or six times. And it has been deleted for copyright violation, even though the information I used was provided by the article's subject, a professor at UCBerkeley. She is having the page written because she was asked by UC Berkeley to create it.

The article has been deleted because I am being paid to create it, I have a conflict of interest, I am advertising, there are no external references, etc.

I have researched other pages of professors and don't see any significant differences apart from the amount of material provided. In my first draft I included many external references about the professor. All of my work has been deleted without delay, causing me hours and hours of trying again and again. JB, DRAGA design, Oakland, CA USA 00:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barenose (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC+9)
(*Note: signature added per WP:TPG#Attributing unsigned comments - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC))

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Do you have a question for us? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how do I get my article to be accepted? I have repeatedly said that the professor about whom the article is has given me her permission to use the material I have used.

She has repeatedly rewritten the material, hoping to fit into the Wiki guidelines. No success. JB, DRAGA design, Oakland, CA USA 00:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Barenose welcome to the teahouse. BTW, please remember to sign all your comments with five tildas rather than just typing your name. That's a convention here so we know who said what. If the professor is trying to write her own page or to get someone to write a page for her that is what Wikipedia defines as a wp:conflict of interest. Regarding copyright, just because someone says "I give you permission to use this" doesn't necessarily resolve copyright issues. Wikipedia is more rigorous about such things than many other sites on the Internet. It's OK to include quotes of copyrighted material as long as they are identified as quotes and properly sourced. But in general the main text of any Wikipedia article is meant to be original text written by editors. So any text that is found to be copied and pasted from some other source will likely be deleted fairly quickly. Here are some FAQs about Copyright on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright As for researching other pages of professors that unfortunately is a common complaint; Wikipedia is a work in progress. The process for reviewing new pages is a bit stricter now than it was in the past. So the bottom line is that you can't pick some arbitrary pages and assume that just because they are published that they are models of a good page. To understand what makes a good Wikipedia article it's much better to use articles like this: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything as a guide. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Barenose, although you may not be happy with some of my remarks. First of all, as a paid editor, you have been advised to declare your conflict of interest on your user page. You have not done so. Please do so promptly.

You state that "she was asked by UC Berkeley to create it" which I find to be an outlandish claim. I have participated in a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on the Berkeley campus, and have collaborated with several experienced editors with ties to that university. I have never once heard of the university "asking" a faculty member to have a Wikipedia article written about them. I would be astounded if that is true.

For three months now, you have been trying over and over again to create an article the wrong way, and consequently, your talk page is full of excellent advice from experienced editors, which you have chosen to ignore. Your determination to build the article on extensive quotations from copyrighted material on the UC Berkeley website is misguided. This professor can't grant permission to freely license content from a copyrighted university website. Only the Regents of the University of California, or their designated representative for copyright issues can do that. Far better for you to loosely paraphrase such content, instead of trying to copy and paste it into an encyclopedia. This type of material isn't written in an encyclopedic style anyway. It is your job to write this article in the style that Wikipedia prefers, not the university style.

Your strategy of pointing out that other crappy articles exist and saying that you want to create another similarly crappy article is logically flawed. We delete crappy articles all the time, and this one will be subject to scrutiny, since you have requested such scrutiny yourself. Far better to create an adequate article, an acceptable article, and an article with the potential to become a good article.

Your primary job here is to show, conclusively, that this person meets our notability standard WP:ACADEMIC. The vast majority of college and university professors fail that test, and don't have Wikipedia biographies. You must show that this professor is truly notable. You have not yet done so. And complaining about other editors acting in good faith won't get you across that finish line.

So my advice to you is to openly declare your obvious COI on your user page, show that this academic is notable, and if you can do that, write a neutral, well-referenced biography that complies with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and manual of style. In the mean time, please stop complaining. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Some further advice. I wish I had seen this earlier, because I frequently work with bio articles on academics and I perhaps could have clarified this a little for you. The first step in making such an article is to decide if it is reasonably likely that the person is notable--the relevant criteria are WP:PROF WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Most often an academic is notable by WP:PROF, which requires evidence of being an authority in their field. As a rule, the way it is interpreted here, Associate professors do not meet this requirement, which normally requires evidence of major prizes or similar distinctions, or very widely cited publications. As she has written only one book, published by a minor publisher & in few libraries, (the others are her thesis, which doesn't count, and coeditorship rather than authorship of a collective work, which doesn't count either) she won't meet WP:AUTHOR. Academic rarely meet the GNG , unless their work has attracted widespread public interest as shown by substantial coverage in published sources. In her field this is possible, but there is no evidence of it for her. Therefore, there is no possible way a satisfactory article can be written at this stage in her career. I have some other comments on your manner of working, which I am adding to your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Information on sand forests

Hi! I'm trying to make an article on Sand Forests and was wondering if anyone had any good tips on how to begin, where to get good info (I can't seem to find much) and where's a good place to get pictures. Any help would be great!Secahill (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Secahill. We already have an article called Southern African Sand Forest. If that's what you are thinking of, you could work on improving that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The page I'm making has to do with Sand forests in general, not just the South African one. Secahill (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I need help for protect my article which is proposed for deletion:Alexandra Mas

Dear Sir (Mrs) wikipedians, I ask you for your help about my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Mas which is being proposed for deletion by Biruitorul. First,Mr.Biruitorul was impolited because he don't left any message on may talk page. Second, his affirmations are ironic.His reason is that this painter has no notability.Anyone looking at the article looks like it is not true. The article is not 100% finalized.I am still working on it. It is about art.Alexandra Mas is a pluridisciplinar artist at age 36 with over 22 art show in entire world:France,Japan,England,Bucharest,Beograd.She create a new curent on art:Le Magnifisme.Se developed a new concept of art a la port in fashion.For me ,she is a prodigious person. She capted the atention of the known art critic Jean Deulceus,professor at LIISA ((Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués),France. Also,Alexandra Mas is the niece of the known artist Mircea Milcovitch. The article has 32 of references about Alexandra's art shows, about albums where she appear... Anyway,I feel a great desapoiment that in wikipedia can happen something like this. Anyone who read the article will se the beauty of creation of Alexandra Mas. Why so hurry to delete an article about art? I'm awaiting your (honestly of course)support. Please enter at this link if you want to help. I accept any point of view wich is honest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra_oMas

Thank you very much! Leedskalnin (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Leedskalnin welcome to the Teahouse, Your page has been marked for possible copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright violation seriously and it will be speedily deleted. As mentioned in WP:COPYPASTE you shouldn't copy details from copyrighted sites and paste it here. You have to write articles in your own words. And no, you can't prevent page from being deleted by protecting it. You have to understand that the problem is not in the subject of the article, it's copyright infringement.--Chamith (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leedskalnin. Didn't we talk about a Brazilian samba dancer a while back? Best wishes to you.

I am sorry to have to tell you that articles about artists are held to the same notability standards as all other articles. Advocating for a more lenient standard regarding articles about artists won't gain much support here. Articles about Romanians are held to exactly the same standards as articles about people of any other nationality on Earth. Hinting that Biruitorul is somehow biased against articles about Romanians is a weak argument, as Biruitorul is Romanian. Pointing out that Biruitorul supports deleting some articles is also unpersuasive, as all experienced editors know that we have plenty of crappy articles that should be deleted.

Words of praise, even by a very famous author, printed on a book jacket, do not contribute to notability of the book. The same is true of words of praise about an artist, even by an expert, on the artist's own website. That is not an independent source. Your personal assertions that this artist is notable hold no weight here. What counts is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That is all. Furnish sources of that kind, and the article will be kept. That's the bottom line. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sir,Let's discuss it,I appreciate very much your comments. If you are looking at references,you will see that is it not from only "not independent source".The vernisaje,art shows,and other sources quoted are not related by Alexandra site.On the conceptikolas galleries,or galerie-be-espace and other nobody cant have acces if he is not a "notable" art creator. Anyway, I will continue to search reliable sources from the experts about Alexandra. What about suspicion of me about very much romanian users which page was deleted by this user (which is romanian from hungarian origin,I suspected , I'm not so sure about what you say (is my opinion). But, finaly,do you think that I must continue to work on this project or to stop? After of course I will resolve the problem with copyright? Leedskalnin (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you should continue your efforts if you believe that the artist is truly notable. But coverage by an art show or gallery exhibiting an artist does not establish notability of that artist, unless the art show or gallery is indisputably world class. I am an art collector. If I set up a website for "Cullen's Art Show", and exhibited all the pieces I own, would that make all those artists notable? Of course not. Some are notable on their own merits, and others aren't. I can't establish notability of beginning artists by "showing" their work. This artist is relatively new. We need rock solid evidence of notability. Furnish it, please, without arguing with "Hungarian" editors. My wife is of half Hungarian-Jewish ancestry, by the way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sir Let's discuss it, I leave into an area with many ethnic problems...You have right, my remarcs was some at anger,maybe they are subjective (realy I believe this).

Thank you very much for your advice, I will rebuild the article.Your opinion is very important for me.

Apropos,is not need to say nothing about Galerie Be Espace,Espace Ticolas,Galerie Claire Corcia,Musée des Beaux Arts Monaco, Saint-Petersburg,Grand Palais Paris,galerie Memmi,Musée des Beaux Arts Monaco,Triennial exposition on Kanagawa Japan.This galleries dont have need of recommendations....

Leedskalnin (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Leedskalnin (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We must take attitude!

Cullen328
ChamithN
DangerousPanda
W.carter

Dear Gentlemen.

I make an article (which was deleted)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandra_Mas
And I enter into editorial war withMr.Biruitorul on link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra_Mas
I don't want to defend my article anymoore.But I want you to take attitude into next problem: the attitude of this user about some french personalities.I want to tell you that this discution was folow by some artists and wikipedian french users from France, and the language used by Biruitorul can make very bad image to english wikipedia.I except the fact that he make me an nonsens man "the nonsense Leedskalnin is throwing up",this not bother me.But to say "who the hell is Jean Deulceux and why should we care what he says?" it is inaceptable.I was part in many discussion on wikipedia talks, but I never meet such language.I have many discussion with you too,and I never insult or make such statements about nothing.I bear in my mind that wikipedia must be a place of politely behavior,of construction, of free deliberates,of ideas.Again this is not about may article,it is not about Alexandra Mas, it is about the remarks wich can insult other people which are not part of wikipedia and who follow this discutions.It is remarcs whic insult french art:
"Galerie BE-Espace, Ticolas, Galerie Claire Corcia, Musée des Beaux-Arts du Monaco, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Saint Petersburg, Galerie Memmi, Kanagawa International Print Triennial, GemlucArt, Cielo Gallery. I think the redlinks speak for themselves, although I will note that none of these has an article on fr.wiki either, which does have significantly better coverage of French topics."
What is this???
What coverage is neded for Musée des Beaux-Arts, Saint Petersburg Russia which have over 400000 artworks?Please,let not insult institutions just because them are not in wikipedia!!!
Please,take attitude!!!
Thank you very much,gentlemen!
Sincerely yours,
Leedskalnin (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leedskalnin and welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure I understand all your problems since your writing is somewhat agitated, but I'm going to stick my neck out and try to answer just the same.

By "We must take attitude", I assume you mean "We must take action"? Well, the best thing is actually to try to look past this and concentrate on writing and improving the article instead. I understand that you feel "wronged" in many ways, but much of this can be due to misunderstanings. I agree that such comments and language as you described here should preferably not be used on the Wikipedia, but such things do happen nevertheless. Try to ignore it and rise above it, see: Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism.

As for the articles, one common mistake made when writing new articles is not providing the right references and sources. A subject may be very notable, but if the sources provided to support this are "bad" then it will bring down the article. Just picking sources from the web is a sure way of ending up with such "bad" sources. For example, if you want to write an article about a museum, chances are that if you just look at the web, most things found will be rather superficial mentioning of that museum and you will end up with things that were called "fluff". BUT if you go to a library and search for books, journals, catalougues or magazines where someone has written about the museum, then most of these sources will be good and really support your article.

Another "trap" when picking sources from the Internet is that you risk copyright violations. Most pages on the web are copyrighted, they have been created by someone who has copyright to that material and since the Wikipedia is "free" it can never include material that is copyrighted. This little rule may be hard to understand if you are used to just roam the web and copy whatever you like, but you have to respect that here on the Wikipedia. If you use information from a webpage, you have to read it and the write the information you have found in your own words. This may be difficult if you are not sufficiently fluent in English, but this is the English Wikipedia so please try.

About all the French art institutions, the remark made was somewhat badly chosen. An art institution is not non-notable just because it is red-linked. That only means that no Wikipedian editor has taken the time to search for proper sources and create an article about it. The Wikipedia is made by volunteers, each with their own special interest and most of us just write about what is dearest to us. It is very unusual that articles are written just because someone else thinks that they "should" be written. So, instead of being angry that there are no articles about these museums, I suggest that you involve the French art people to help write these articles. Aparently this is an overlooked corner of the Wikipedia that requires some help. All the best, w.carter-Talk 13:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for your response.Maybe inndeed,I put wrong the text"We must take attitude",in fact all I want to say is that someone of the wikipedians to enter in this discution and to make apel at politely behavior about our french friends and posible users.If you read the discution you will see that the tone used by the acusator is very insulting . Mr.Jean Deulceux professor and art critic follow the discution on that link and when he heard" who the fuck is Jean Deulceux and who cares what he say"....How to colaborate with this man again? All what I want is a little moderation in discurs, in tone.If I had known that some expressions will be used I would not be given the link to Mr. professor. Again, this is not about if Jean Deulceux is or not is a good art critic,is about to find other formulas to say that instead "who the .....".Is not that article is good or bad,it is about tone with which you can say that.I have some discution with you,with Mr.Cullen328,with Mr.DangerousPanda,and all was in a good manner,and constructive dialog,without insulting,without hard words.We must construct,wikipedia is an colectiv effort,nobody want to do something bad here,it is not needed for such terms "who cares what he say".I don't want to talk about "nonsense that Leedskalnin throwing up..". This is why I'm angry.Of course,my intention are not to take any action,but to intervening some neutral users for make apel at politely and courtesy.I think this is the direction to which wikipedia must evolve.Other ways are not.In the war nothing is constructed.To construct something is need of peace.
Again,thank you very much! Leedskalnin (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Leedskalnin: If you find yourself in a discussion where you feel that some editor is crossing the line of civility, you can gently remind that editor by suggesting that they read this page: Wikipedia:Civility. Wikipedia is always striving for civility, but tempers do sometimes run high during discussions and rules may be momentarily forgotten. Et professeur Jean Deulceux: Vous êtes très bienvenus de faire des contributions sur l'art français ici dans la Wikipédia anglais. Mais alors, en anglais. w.carter-Talk 14:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr.W.carter,thank you for your good words.I will transmit Mr.Deulceux your invitation,but he is not a very skilled in PC work,I try to convince him to make an wiki account,but he say me that ) so he just read de comments and make observations on mail. Look who are follow this subject: Mr.professor Jean Deulceux LISAA (http://interventions-histoire-de-l-art.over-blog.com/) (Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués);
Mr. Francis Parent(http://www.francis-parent.com/) art critic ,member of AICA (http://www.aicainternational.org/)
Mrs.Alexandra Mas french artist,like subject of article;
Mr.Erich Tibusch,french couturier(http://www.tibusch.com/)
Mrs.Aurore Tome,french actress(http://www.aurore-tome.com/accueil.cfm/367301_aurore_tome.html);
Mr.Mircea Milkovitch(http://site.artactif.com/milcovitch/),french sculptor;
Mr. Christopher Lavenaire,french pictor (http://www.lavenair.book.fr/);
Thank you again. Leedskalnin (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist and Preferences problem

Anyone know why my watchlist is suddenly expanded out? The little drop arrows on the left are gone and I see all 20 (or whatever) edits to an article and have to scroll through them. I much prefer having the arrow on the left so I only see the article and click it to see the list of recent edits. And my preferences are now all on one page, not the separate tabs. I prefer the tabs. How do I restore these? Thank you.

@HalfGig: I don't know which skin you are using so I can't answer for why you are seeing all the preferences on on page and not on separate tabs - it's not a problem I'm having and I've just tried all four skins. Check your Special:Preferences change skin, save and then change back to see if that fixes the tab issue. The other bit sounds like a setting on the on the Watchlist tab. Is the top option in Advanced options ticked? If so untick it and save preferences. Nthep (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is now all back to normal. I have no idea why. HalfGig talk 12:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

talk pages

Hey so if I want to thank a fellow Wikipedian or whatever we're referred to in here how do I thank a person who leaves a message on my talk page? And would it be normal to see the phrase edited xx hours ago by such and such? Needs2learnmore (talk)

You can leave a message on their talk page. Just go to User_talk:<account name> and add your message to the bottom of the page. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding characters

How do I add characters to list of reccuring the simpsons characters look at this list

• Lugash
• Chazz Bubsy
• Leprechaun
• Dr. Velimirovic
• Mayor Quimby's Body Guards --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damncoolyo12$ (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Damncoolyo12$:: Thanks for your question. Let's take the first of your characters for instance. In the article you would write:

==Lugash==

'''Lugash''' (voiced by [insert actor's name]) is the...

• Grady
• Lucius Sweet
• Space Mutants
• Jack Marley
• Surly Duff

Try to find reliable sources like reviews in major publications, books, or other articles that talk about these characters. Then, based on that information, write a description of the character in your own words. If no such sources exist, it's probably better to leave that character the article even if they appear in the show. Let me know if I can help you out with this. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And please note they are recurring characters, not reccuring ones ;-) - Arjayay (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Another thing how to I add them without vandalizing