Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, 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

As a newbie editor, I am interested in providing better quality entries for literary magazines. As my first

As a newbie editor, I am interested in providing better quality entries for literary magazines. I made some updates to Backwaters Press which had seemed to be rather stagnant for some time and was missing some updated editorial information. As my first significant project, I would like to work on the entry for Mayapple Press which I regard as definitely a notable press with notable authors and note that there are some open issues there that need to be resolved. Yet the talk seems dormant (last post was 2009). What does this article need? How may I go about addressing the issues, and improving this article, and getting the flags removed?

Thank you.

Best,

Edward Dixon 174.74.86.239 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia in a college writing class

Hi! I'm hoping to use Wikipedia as a fun way to get my college English students to gain control over writing in NPOV and conducting objective research. Does anyone have any tips/tricks, or know of any good success stories here? Jamdyer22 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I helped a professor with exactly that agenda last semester and many others have succeeded with our Wikipedia:Education program. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Do users have to be admininistrators to talk to users nominated for adminship and vote at WP:RfA? Thanks, Rubbish computer 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Rubbish computer. No they very much do not. To vote, they do have to be registered and logged in, but that is the only bar. Editors who are not logged in (IP editors) may comment in the discussion section, but may not post in the "Support" or "Oppose" sections. There was a discussion about this on WT:RFA recently. Some editors proposed that IP editors should not be allowed to post to such pages at all, but the suggestion did not gain consensus. I don't think anyone has ever even proposed limiting comments to current admins, and I doubt if any such proposal would come anywhere near gaining consensus. I would advise being even more careful than usual to exerciser civility and abide by WP:NPA on that page. Emotions sometimes get inflamed, and it is best not to be part of the problem. Moreover, if a comment is perceived to be out-of-line, some may take the opposite view just for that reason. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thank you. I will research RfA thoroughly before making any edits there. --Rubbish computer 23:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The main trap on RfA is that what other people post is their opinion, and may or may not be correct (whether positive, negative or neutral). It is very hard to research a prolific editor, or indeed even a single dispute, to establish who behaved well or badly. Having said that many RfA's are relatively uncontentious. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

Question on Notability and References for a Start-up Company

Hello! I am attempting to submit an article on a start-up called BlueConic, and it has been rejected a few times now because of lack of notability and sufficient references. I have since included about 10 outside articles referencing the company in depth as well as many internal wikipedia references (not sure if you are looking for both?). As for notability, the company has been around for 5 years, and has clients such as Boston Globe, Putnam, ING, Volvo. The marketing technology industry is very new and growing rapidly with nearly 1,500 companies afloat today, and I believe BlueConic is a thought leader that other companies look up to for guidance. Thanks, -Quinn Quinnschafer (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Quinnschafer hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The outside articles with in-depth coverage may be what we are looking for. You'll have to show us (if they are online, which they don't have to be) so we can evaluate them. Internal Wikipedia references cannot be used, but references from the Wikipedia articles might work. Now, as for the statement the company "is a thought leader that other companies look up to for guidance", such language cannot be used on Wikipedia because it is promotional. If independent reliable sources use the statement, you can say that the statement came from the sources. You don't say whether you are connected with the company, but if so, read about conflict of interest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but your sources look like they might be what we are looking for. I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable to evaulate. Reuters I feel confident about. There is some marketing-speak remaining in the article (Draft:BlueConic#Product features), and it would be easier to read if the terms could be defined. Also, don't link your slogan (it appears as a red link) as that is unlikely to ever be a Wikiepdia article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

page history and user contributions

Can an administrator remove a user contribution on a page history or is that impossible to do? Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Freshmangrandcaravan hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Oversight can be done be a limited number of users. It can be done if an edit reveals personal information about someone, or if there is copyright infringement, or in some other limited situations. There is also RevisionDelete which is similar but doesn't permanently remove the edit. And even after this takes place, a few people can still see what was deleted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@vchimpanzee So in other words oversight can be used if there is copyright infringement and what other limited situations?

Also, does revision deletion only result in having a straight line go across a user contribution?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Freshmangrandcaravan, your first question is answered at the WP:Oversight helpdocs that Vchimpanzee linked to... here is the money-quote: "used within strict limits to remove defamatory material, to protect privacy, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations". So in other words, oversight is used for Serious Legal Problems only, that could lead to real-world-lawsuits (libel/slander/harrassment/stalking/dmca/sopa/pipa). I think, but am not sure, that revdel is just a line through something. See WP:REVDEL, or the link given by vChimpanzee to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RevisionDelete , for all the details. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, person with an IP address starting with 75. I saw this with a Help desk question but you posted it already. And there is Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Very informative and from the photos that i have seen in regards to revision deletion they mostly show two user contributions with one having a straight line go across on one user contribution while the other only has the straight line go across half way. My final question in regards to this topic is that how the revision deletion process works having one line go across on one contribution while the other straight line goes across half way on the other contribution or can the straight line go all the way through that particular user contribution?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In the above image the top (later) revision time-stamped 12:01 has been deleted. The user name has been deleted. And the edit summary has been deleted.
The lower (earlier) revision time-stamped 12:00 has also been deleted. In this case neither the user name nor the edit summary (which was blank) have been deleted.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

upload request for fair-use logo

Hello teahouse folks, can someone please take a peek at this section? Talk:Greylock_Partners#Info_Box Company changed logo in 2010, and wikipedia's article has not yet caught up. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vasudhendra teertha vrindavana

I am a resident of Siruguppa in Bellary district of the Karnataka state, India. There is a place called kenchanagudda 5 km from our town. I recently found an article about this place in Wikipedia and also added a few lines about it. But there is no article about the deity of the place, Sri Vasudhendra teertha and about his vrindavana. This vrindavana is around 300 years old and is quite popular in the district. Can I write an article about this? I do think this topic is notable. YdhVyibvfyobvc+=== (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YdhVyibvfyobvc+=== (talk • contribs)

That depends, YdhVyibvfyobvc+===. And welcome to the Teahouse, by the way. A subject must be notable (in the special Wikipedia sense of that term) to have an article on Wikipedia. In general this means that the topic must have been written about in published works in some detail by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Who has written about this subject? How reliable are those sources? Are they academic or scholarly? Are they news reports? Being "old and popular" does not in and of itself qualify a subject for an article.

You might want to read our Golden Rule, Your First Article, and Referencing for Beginners. If after that you think the topic is notable and you have sources on which to base the article, I advise using the article wizard. This will mean that an experienced editor will review your draft article before it "goes live". It is thus much less likely to be quickly deleted, as many new articles are. DES ^(talk) 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC) @YdhVyibvfyobvc+===: DES ^(talk) 23:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, YdhVyibvfyobvc+=== I strongly urge you to change your user name. Having an equals sign (=) in your user name will break or make it harder to use many common templates, such as {{ping}} with your user name. Also, what looks like a random string of characters will be harder for others to remember and use. But the = is the real issue, in my view. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple for the process. DES ^(talk) 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) @YdhVyibvfyobvc+===: DES ^(talk) 23:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I cite YouTube artists work?

Last year I spent many hours creating a page for musician/artist/producer Jesse Cale but it was rejected because Wikipedia doesn't consider YouTube a valid reference. Most of Jesse's accomplishments have been on YouTube, really big stuff with Ray William Johnson and Epic Rap Battles of History. So how do I cite his work on YouTube so that it doesn't get rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddyb60 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not all topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. They have to be "notable": this means that reliable sources must discuss them in detail. YouTube is occasionally a valid primary source, but never establishes notability. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) for notability guidelines relating to people. If you want to recreate the article, you should be able to make a WP:REFUND request for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jesse Cale. But please make sure there are reliable sources about Jesse Cale first: there are lots of topics which simply will not be included in Wikipedia, no matter how much work goes into a page about it, because they are just not notable. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to Bilorv's excellent reply, Daddyb60, in this instance, the YouTube videos featuring Cale are primary sources, whereas an example of a secondary source would be a newspaper or online news site article discussing Cale's YouTube videos. What you need in order to establish notability is the latter type of source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Daddyb60. I will expand further on what Bilorv has said: an artist's work - both its quality and its quantity - is of almost no relevance in determining whether Wikipedia can have an article about the artist. What matters is the reliability and quantity (and independence) of what has been published about the artist and their work. The reason for this is that if little has been published about the artist and their work, there is almost nothing that can go in the article. It might be able to say that the artist created such and such a work on such and such a date, and that it was exhibited in such and such a place (these are uncontroversial factual data, and may be cited to a primary or non-independent source): but that is all that it could say, and would not make a very interesting or illuminating article. Any summary, conclusion, evaluation or criticism must be cited to an independent source, and if these don't exist, there is nothing of interest that can go into the article.

This really does not depend at all on the quality of the artist. William McGonagall and Florence Foster Jenkins were notoriously appalling artists, but we have articles on both of them, because there is a great deal written about them. On the other hand, many contemporary artists are not yet notable (in Wikipedia's sense) but may become so in the future, if several people write about them in reliable sources such as major newspapers. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is already an article on Epic_Rap_Battles_of_History. Whether or not Jesse Cale passes WP:N and WP:42, enough to get a dedicated wikipedia article, he may more easily pass WP:NOTEWORTHY for one or more of his performances on this specific youtube channel. It depends on whether he was reviewed, specifically, for one of his works there. Here is the wikia page for Cale -- http://epicrapbattlesofhistory.wikia.com/wiki/Jesse_Cale . Turned up an NPR-affiliate (looks like anyways) at a college station, which gives passing mention[1] to Jesse Cale as part of some kind of art-slash-basketball event? Unclear prose, to my eyes. That's not in-depth, obviously, but it might merit the addition of Mozart-vs-Skillex to the Epic Rap Battles of History article. Ping Daddyb60, take a look at WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:SOURCES; youtube does not count, but almost any online magazine and/or newspaper does. Did some radio disc jockey comment on Jesse Cale, as opposed to just, play the rap-battle? Then that counts too, most likely. That is the sort of thing to keep your eye on. Meantime, you can edit the wikia-page about Cale, where youtube *is* perfectly legit as a ref. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Why pending?

I am not a new user (been here for ten months now; 2,200 edits), but my edits on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are subject to pending approval. This has not happened before; my edits have been auto-accepted. What is the issue? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a feature of certain (very few) articles subject to disruptive editing. It's called WP:Pending changes. I'll go and see about approving it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Article notability

Thank you for your help as this is my first article Draft:Hoi_Jeon_Moo_Sool

I am currently wondering about notability of this article. So far there are 8 sources 4 being primary and 4 secondary and extra sources would just be more of the same or in another language like these: http://www.martialplanet.com/Web-Portal/Asia-Oceania/Korea/martial_art_Korea_Hoi-Jeon-Moo-Sool.htm

http://www.alwasatnews.com/4103/news/read/833826/1.html

I practice this martial art and I personally know over a hundred people that do so in my gym alone, which makes it notable enough in my opinion but I don't know where to go from there

Thank you for your time Kanoog (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment on your final sentence, the number of practitioners is not determinant of notability. Notability is determined by the coverage that the subject has received in reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kanoog, and welcome to the Teahouse. Martial arts are not an area I am well versed in, but some of your sources seem to be one-person sites, and the similarity in their descriptions seems to suggest that they are repeating a description from the organizers. Just how good is the reputation of the sources you have cited? Web sites maintained by a single person are often considered not to be reliable sources here. Within reason additional sources, particularly if they are clearly independent and have done their own assessment and evaluation of the content, would be good -- if they just repeat each other in almost the same words, that isn't much help. DES ^(talk) 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! For the general notability criteria there needs to be "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources":

• significant coverage - more than a passing mention or a directory entry. Preferably at least a couple of paragraphs.
• multiple - more than one (publications from one author/organization may only count as one)
• independent - not by the subject, their mum, best friend, PR agent, website, company etc. - also often excludes interviews
• reliable sources' - generally newspapers, mainstream magazines, books published by reputable publishing houses. We look for some kind of editorial control, so we would tend exclude self-published works, fanzines, crowd sourced web sites.

Other sources will still be useful for constructing the article, and for providing references.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Exposing the trade secrets of professional magicians

Hi! Wanted to connect. Thanks for the prompt to do so. -- Here's the thing: WP's magic secrets policy fails to account for the fact that magicians, and people who legitimately teach and sell time-honored effects like "Out of This World" and "Card Warp" (etc.), have to make a living off of them. Sure, list where a trick can be found (as in any technical topic, books--academic sources--are best) but I don't think Wikipedia should share key information and concepts casually. I do think WP already does massive cultural damage by listing the plots of films and books in detail (so why read the book or see the film?). Hence, as I mentioned to you in another place, Wikipedia has become known as the greatest spoiler site in the history of the internet. Despite this, I'm hoping, very much, that WP will think again about this weird, unprofessional policy. What are your thoughts? 50.54.233.151 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"If you make this information public, it will prevent people from charging for it" could be extended to any form of knowledge; making information free which previously one had to pay for is pretty much implied in "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". What is special about magic tricks that they should be given an exception? (Surely in this particular field, YouTube is having a bigger impact, anyway?) ‑ iridescent 08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

On the why read a book or watch a film point, surely the answer is for the enjoyment! People don't read novels out of some necessity to find out what happens in them - they read them for the enjoyment. A plot summary on Wikipedia can't replace that experience. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"If you make this information public, it will prevent people from charging for it" misses, and in fact trivializes, the point. Primarily it prevents the professional from performing the trick because the method has become common knowledge--and here, nearly every trick or illusion, most of which are classics in the standard repertoire, is exposed. Perhaps you are unaware of the magician's code? It's real, among pro and amateur alike, and says that these methods must not be divulged casually. The reasons should be self evident so I'm surprised that WP doesn't understand them. -- This is "Coke formula", trade secret turf. That is to say that there actually are exceptions that make perfect sense. -- As for You Tube, that's a whole other place with its own issues and policies. Does the magic profession take a hit there too? You bet it does, but at least many enthusiasts post two versions of a trick; one demonstrating the trick as performed, the other describing and demonstrating the method. This is done deliberately, in the spirit of the code. At least viewers have a choice to be provided with a spoiler or not. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that there's a magician's code, but Wikipedia isn't bound by it. Wikipedia just reports what reliable sources say about a topic, and if this material is already in the public domain, then I don't really see why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Of course, if magicians are posting the material here without sources for verification, that could be a different issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cordless, referring to your "On the why read a book or watch a film point" comment, you're confirming half of my point, but it isn't about something vague like "enjoyment". If someone chooses to read a WP movie or novel summary, most of which are detailed and hit every major plot point and event, not only do they learn the secrets and surprises locked inside (so why repeat it?), they don't experience the detail, the author's or director's voice or vision. In short, they remove, or at least hobble, the possibility of enjoyment. But this is a side issue. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The particular article being objected to here is not only sourced, it's sourced to a publicly-available book, so this horse has long since bolted. As Cordless Larry says, Wikipedia isn't bound by the Magician's Code, nor should it be; if "there are some people who would prefer this information not be public" were grounds for censoring content, about 1⁄3 of Wikipedia would have to be deleted, and I can't see a good reason why magicians should get preferential treatment over the French secret service, the Russian government, or anyone else who has asked for material to be removed from Wikipedia. ‑ iridescent 09:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well at least I tried. You (edit: Wikipedia, editors as a whole, etc., not any of you in particular or personally) call the shots and have shot down every point I've thought to bring up, so I guess I'm done. Thanks, all, for responding though, even as I fundamentally disagree with this policy. In a few cases, like this one, it's bad one. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No individual editors "call the shots" - policy is determined by consensus, and you're welcome to try to argue for a change in policy. However, I don't fancy your chances in this case. As Iridescent points out, this material is already published in a book (first published in 1965), so it's a bit too late to be trying to censor it! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If magicians really do not want their "secrets" to be published all over the interwebz maybe they should learn to STFU instead of writing books about their craft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the attitude.  ; ) -- Hey, you folks know as well as I do that consensus views are often too rigid to be applied blanket. But I trust that WP has mechanisms to consider that. -- Anyway, the reason I came back was to say that, despite our disagreement, there is a positive takeaway for professionals and amateurs here. It asks them to abandon the past and innovate, which is called evolution, and that's never bad. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Since our discussion is public, I've copied & pasted it to a text file for my archives and reference, and to send to the SAM (Society of American Magicians, of which I am a member) and the IBM (International Brotherhood of Magicians). This is probably the best way to go. Just talked to a couple of peers and, like me, they were floored. They had no idea. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

They had no idea about what? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think they mean that some other magicians they know, were also unaware that Wikipedia does not engage in suppression of Wikipedia:SPOILERS or other removal of material already published in reliable sources. The OP is now engaged in spreading such awareness, which will be helpful in avoiding such misunderstandings in future. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Because they certainly were not attempting to rile up a set of people to inappropriately try to influence Wikipedia and the content it presents. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely the best way to go. Thank you for helping to educate these organizations about Wikipedia policy. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks back atcha. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I will note in passing that Wikipedia:SPOILERS does say that "this does not mean such information [explanations of magic tricks] must be included" if it is not encyclopedic. In cases such as the one discussed today, where a trick is clearly notable and of substantial significance, summarizing a reliably published explanation is encyclopedic (though actually I find the length of the explanation, and use of the second person imperative, rather undue). But Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide for magic tricks, so lists of magic trick solutions or methods, or solutions of non-notable tricks coat-racked into other articles, would often be considered unencyclopedic and thus not suitable for inclusion... even if reliable published sources existed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said over at User talk:50.54.233.151, the greatest spoiler site is YouTube, where there are explanations of how virtually every magic trick is done. The toothpaste was out of the tube on Out of This World (card trick) many years ago, and is readily available in books. "Ssh, it's a secret" is hard to apply here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing Wikipedia policy. I responded to you about You Tube on the user talk page. The upshot was: "Many performers and enthusiasts who post tricks there post two versions: one demonstrating the trick as performed. A second detailing the method. In any case, the viewer has the _option_ to choose whether or not to have a trick spoiled. In these Wikipedia articles, no such choice is offered (spoiler warning, invisibly highlighted text, etc.)." -- With regards to toothpaste, if it's in a book, it's not out of the tube. So to speak. 50.54.233.151 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)What Arthur says above is quite true. Also, as one can read in Wikipedia:SPOILERS, Wikipedia used to include "spoiler warnings" and after a long, through, and acrimonious series of discussions, policy was changed to forbid their use. (Indeed IMO Wikipedia:SPOILERS rather minimizes the degree of conflict there was over that decision, and the arguments then made in favor of retaining spoiler warnings. The victors write history.) Given that history, i very much doubt if that decision will be changed now. However, as Arthur goes shopping says above, how-to details of a magic trick are often not needed for an encyclopedic article, while the ending of the plot (although not every twist) usually is for an article about a work of fiction. DES ^(talk) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's interesting that mathematicians used to have this approach. In other words, they developed ways to solve problems and did not share them, instead challenging each other. See for example Brachistochrone curve#History, though in this case the solution was published later.
• There are two reasons not to publish solutions to magic tricks: Firstly for the benefit of audiences, however they may merely avoid reading about such things, so we may ignore that reason. Secondly as the IP says to preserve the livelihood of illusionists and associated professions. Stage illusionists should not be relying on the illusions that our grandparents were taken in by, otherwise we might as well watch films of the old school magicians. Instead they use stagecraft, new twists on old tricks, and new illusions or new combinations. Those who publish books about magic tricks provide more than just the raw method (or they should) they provide "how to" instructions which fall within what Wikipedia is not - and presumably advance upon previous volumes, now out of print, and eventually out of copyright. Those who sell pre-packaged tricks also supply detailed instructions, patter and props, none of which are availabel from Wikipedia.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

What is the policy for posting an article on a topic that has been previously removed?

I am working on an article that was removed for being a neologism that lacks notable sources. Since that article was removed, new events have transpired to provided adequate sources which legitimize the topic.Chreaton (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chreaton. Start by reviewing WP:NEOLOGISM. If you are highly confident that the topic is now notable by Wikipedia's standards, then I recommend that you use the Articles for creation process to draft the new version. Please be aware that editors who advocated for deletion previously may well have the topic on their watch lists, and may express their opinions if the article is recreated. So just be sure that the new version is solid and well referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Warning about additional citations needed- how to get it removed

I'm updating a page that has a warning at the top: "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. " I've added a lot of references/ citations but the warning remains. What do I need to do to get the warning removed?Bhovers (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bhovers. I understand what you are asking, but that isn't a "warning" but rather a maintenance tag indicating that an editor saw a problem with the article. Thank you for adding references to Geoffrey Marcy. However, I noticed that the first two paragraphs of the "Background" section remains unreferenced. Once those paragraphs are properly.referenced, you can remove the tags. That can done by any editor when the issue is resolved, including either of us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If the tag is only applicable to a single section, there are section variants of most tags. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Note that I have reorganised the article slightly to confirm to what is pretty much the standard layout for biographies.--ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Usefulness of trite entries in 'International Reaction' section in incident and accident pages

Hi,

Is there a Wikipedia policy on inclusion of international reactions in response to tragic incidents? Several articles I am contributing to have this section but several entries in these sections appear to be generic statements that do not require an explicit statement. For example, see the reactions section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Tianjin_explosions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Baghdad_market_truck_bombing, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Khan_Bani_Saad_bombing.

In most cases, several entries can be conveyed. For example, "Foreign Ministries of Country A, B, C, D, E, and F expressed their condolences," when the statements only differ in the words used but not the essence of their meaning.

Separate entries, I fee, are warranted when a community or nation has made material contribution (for example, Indian Air Force's involvement following the recent Nepal earthquake) or expertise (for example, Japan sending over skin specialists after the recent explosion at a park in Taiwan). These are unique responses, unlike standard statements. Of course, unexpected or surprising responses can be included (for example, responses among countries involved in long-standing disputes: North & South Korea, India & Pakistan, China and Taiwan...)

Please let me know if there is value in including trite statements; I am unaware of any but I am new to editing here. I strongly feel against inclusion of such generic statements.

FelixSeba7 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FelixSeba7. Although I agree at least in part with you about these "International reaction" sections, there are no hard and fast rules. This is a content disagreement and a matter of editorial judgment. Your best course of action is to discuss your concerns on the article's talk pages. Please be aware that emotions run high after such disasters, and you are only one editor among many. If consensus goes against you, it is advisable to move on for a while. Overly strong feelings about stylistic issues can sometimes lead an editor astray. Often, such articles can be improved and streamlined a bit when passions have receded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support Cullen328 here. You will probably find little opposition to the type of reduction you suggest in established articles, but might want to tread lightly with recent or current events. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Organization Question

Hello. I have a question about how to organize an article about a broad, complex topic: articles in fields like sociology or the humanities. What should guide the organization? In other words, what should guide how the information is categorized in sections? (Some fields have MOS guidelines; these do not.)

I feel that the general organization in peer-reviewed survey articles can be good models to follow. It's like a reference not only for its substantive statements but also for the way the topic is presented. Particularly since these journal articles cover about the same breadth of information as a wikipedia article. Thoughts? —Fluous (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Fluous, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a good question. Beyond the Manual of Style, you'll find that some WikiProjects have their own article structure guidelines. A good example of this is the guidance provided at WikiProject Countries. However, a project like WikiProject Sociology obviously covers a much broader range of articles, that couldn't possibly follow an identical or even similar structure (articles under its remit include Anarchism, Birth control and Émile Durkheim, for example). Your idea to follow the structure of review articles published in journals sounds like a good one. Do you have a particular article in mind here? I ask because there might be a more specific WikiProject that offers guidance. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A new critical tag on an article which doesn't specify what it's critical of

A tag appeared on an article I recently created Alberto Gómez Gómez stating "This article has multiple issues... needs additional citations for verification... may need reorganization to comply with... layout guidelines," without stating what these problems might be. Certainly, I am interested in making this article the best that it can be and wish for it to comply with guidelines -- but this vague and unsupported. How does one respond? Please advise. Thanks, Rmark1030 (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rmark1030, welcome back to the Teahouse. The tags were added by User:Alpha Monarch. If you are unsure why the page has been tagged, or how to best resolve the issues the tags represent, I would either contact Alpha Monarch on their talk page for clarification or raise the issue on the article's talk page. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rmark1030. Some of the facts in the "Career" section do seem to me to need additional citations. I don't see a problem with the layout, but I would be inclined to add a "Critical reception" section or some section in which critical responses to Gómez's work could be noted, with proper citations, aside from the Florida AG's office controversy. I hope this helps a bit. DES ^(talk) 13:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I moved the "Example of work" section before the standard apparatus (references etc.).
• There may be a better title for this section. You may want to use the Gallery feature.
• There are issues over the licensing of three of the pictures.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich. Thanks for your contributions! And yes, it helps more than a bit. For the record, a criticism section is indeed in the works (gathering documentation now to put it up in two days) and more pictures are planned, which will make the gallery section more meaningful. There was some confusion about licensing, which has been solved by learning the requirements, rationale and syntax to make these images non-free, which removes any potential difficulty with licensing (which is what I'm doing today and tomorrow). Your edits and recommendations are and edits are greatly appreciated. Rmark1030 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Space

On double track, I have added a hatnote which is not in line with the above hatnote, which uses a template to do so. How can I get it in line? Thanks, Rubbish computer 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I found a suitable template after creating a new disambiguation page, which needed creating anyway, but I still do not know how to add these spaces. --Rubbish computer 22:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if the formatting of hatnote template implementations is done through Module:Hatnote, but I must admit that much of that is Greek to me. If you had simply wanted to indent the line you added in your first attempt, you could merely add a colon before it, just as you did to indent your reply to yourself here, or did I misunderstand your question? --David Biddulph (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

difficult to use

I even find this tea house difficult to use... how do you answer to a question????

Template:Des ...But that is just a guess without seeing the article/page. FYI, block quotes should be used like this:

Quoted content here.

I did use it correctly, and everything beneath where the block quote was moved over on the article. The article is sitting in my sandbox as I am writing a new article for a band. Imasku (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

To post a reply, you need to click on either the "Join this discussion" or "[edit]" links to the right of the heading for your question. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry ... Imasku (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cordless Larry, I thank you but ... it does not teach me what or why first it did this and how to fix it in the future??? Imasku (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've explained what you did wrong in the section below. If you click on this link, you'll see what you were missing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Imasku: to ping somebody, you need to use the code {{Ping|Username}}, replacing "Username" with the name of the person you are replying to. For instance, to ping you at the start of the message, I typed {{Ping|Imasku}}. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Block quote moves rest of article over

2.) When I attempted to do a 'block quote' it made the rest of the article move over to the right and ... I cannot see why it would do that or find how to stop it from doing this???? Please advise?? Imasku (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Imasku, and welcome to the Teahouse. What article was this in? please provide a link if possible. I looked through your contributions and didn't see anywhere that a blockquote tag was in use. The thing that occurs to me is that the closing blockquote tag may have been omitted or incorrectly formatted, leaving the rest of the article inside the quote. But that is just a guess without seeing the article/page. FYI, block quotes should be used like this: <blockquote>Quoted content here.</blockquote> (The code and nowiki tags are to make this display as an example, don't copy them. DES ^(talk) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I even find this tea house difficult to use... how do you answer to a question????

Template:Des ...But that is just a guess without seeing the article/page. FYI, block quotes should be used like this:

Quoted content here.

I did use it correctly, and everything beneath where the block quote was moved over on the article. The article is sitting in my sandbox as I am writing a new article for a band. Imasku (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed you asked for a link as I mentioned its in my sandbox being worked on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imasku/sandbox

The body of the article has moved over and I cannot figure out how to move it back. Imasku (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you. You were just missing the / from the closing </blockquote>. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Cordless Larry: - I will copy that so I have this for future use. Imasku (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

verifying citations

1.) The issue I am experiencing to obtain 3rd party verification from archives in Canadian newspapers requires a 'pay per user' situation. Which means... I can see the information I paid to see it, but providing all the information and entering into the article will only take the next reviewer to the home page of the website of the paper not to the actual reference proving the information as the individuals reviewing.. have not paid for the privilege to view... I am finding this is the norm with Canadian newspaper archives and possibly other researchers are going to have this same issue, if not already have. Please advise in this situation as articles are slim for proof even though a magazine and two newspapers have been contacted in the Toronto area regarding this Band which was instrumental in bringing blues music to Canada???? Please advise? Imasku (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Imasku. This is common at many newspaper archives, not just in Canada. Sources do not need to be available free of charge, they just need to be available. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources where it says: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.". (also, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources# Definition of published says "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.") If you use citation templates, the parameter subscription=yes will indicate that a fee must be paid to access the source. You can also use the quote= parameter to quote the key passage (if not too long) that supports the statement in the article. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just found it:I even find this tea house difficult to use... how do you answer to a question????

First thank you for responding to both questions.

Again how do you respond to a message left here. How do I submit or where the subscription?? Directly in the article at the time of creating the cite from the source??? {DES}]Imasku (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Imasku. To answer a question here at the teahouse, or respond to the answer, or ask a clarifing further question, just edit the section where the question is placed, using the "edit" link at the right of the section division, or click the "join this discussion" link just to the left of the edit link, adn add the response or rejoinder at the bottom. Just as yo u did her eto respond to me.

As for how to insert a mention that a subscription is required, in your sandbox you ahve a citation that looks like this:

<ref name="Black Swan Tavern">{{cite news|title=Kendall Wall - Black swan looking back-KWB Newsletter #1 and Archives|url=http://www.kendallwallband.com/|accessdate=15 August 2015|issue=Vol.2, No.1|publisher=Black Swan|date=1992|ref=Acrhives}}</ref>

This will render as:

If the cite is changed so that it reads:

<ref name="Black Swan Tavern">{{cite news |title=Kendall Wall - Black swan looking back-KWB Newsletter #1 and Archives |url=http://www.kendallwallband.com/ |subscription=yes |accessdate=15 August 2015 |issue=1 |volume=2 |publisher=Black Swan|date=1992|ref=Acrhives}}</ref>

it will render like this:

(I also fixed the way that volume and issue are entered.) I don't know if that particular cite is to a a source that needs payment; it is just an example. DES ^(talk) 21:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Thank you ... no actually that cite can be found in the archives that are permitted for public use. However, there must be a way to set it I am not seeing.

The ones I will receive later (tomorrow) will not be so I will make a copy of how to put in that to see the next ones it will require pay per user to see. @Des: Imasku (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin Ochoa

The article about Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin Ochoa has come to my attention - the subject does not seem to be notable and I thought that it qualified for speedy deletion. However, an editor said that it does not qualify for speedy deletion. Could somebody please advise me which deletion process this article needs? The article is about a subject that is not notable and it seems to be written by an editor close to the subject - or by the subject itself. There are no relevant sources on the internet about the subject, just mainly personal pages. Thanks--Sheroddy (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sheroddy. Because the speedy deletion request was denied, properly I believe since the article makes plausible claims of notability, the best option is to nominate the article at Articles for deletion. That involves an open debate about whether to delete or keep the article. That debate normally lasts a week or more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am the editor (and admin) who declined the speedy deletion request, Sheroddy. Please remember that speedy deletion is only for the very narrow categories of pages listed at WP:CSD. If it doesn't clearly and unaguably fit one (or more) of those criteria, don't use a db tag. Notability (as opposed to a claim of significance) is a judgement call, and may depend on offline or obscure sources. Therefore it must be made via a discussion open to all, at WP:AFD as Cullen suggested. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Puffed-up resume. Nominated for deletion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What does db mean?

What does this edit [2] mean? Please answer on the article talk page here [3]. IpaTLC (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: question has been answered at Talk:LaDoris Cordell by DrKiernan. CabbagePotato (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

German import into the english Wikipedia

I wrote a content in the German Wikipedia and would like to know, how to copy/translate it into the English Wikipedia? 84.161.52.57 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Translation here on the English Wikipedia as well as de:WP:Übersetzungen on the German Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Can I assume you do have an account and are just not logged in right now? If not, signing up for one is easy and has many benefits. I recommend then creating this in a workspace rather than directly in the article mainspace. There are essentially three three options. You can create the page:

• i) Through articles for creation (click the giant button labeled "Click here to create an article now!" which will take you to the article wizard, or just CLICK HERE);
• ii) Create a draft directly at a subpage of your user or user talk space, such as creating it at User:Username/Name of proposed article; or
• iii) You could use the draft article space, in which case you would create the page at Draft:Name of proposed article.

Regardless of which you choose:

1. Your first edit would place in the page the text from the foreign page and (this is important): provide an edit summary stating copyright attribution of the source of the text you are translating, linking the foreign Wikipedia article, and ideally the URL of the revision you took it from. Your edit summary would be something like This text is copied from [[:de:Exact Name of German article]], the existing German Wikipedia article on this topic, from this revision: https://de.wikipedia.org/... You can also place on the talk page a filled-out {{Translated page}} template.
2. Translate the text into English.
3. Remember though, that just because the article exists on the German Wikipedia does not necessarily mean it is appropriate there, or meets our policies and guidelines here. For example, it must be on a notable topic and must cite to reliable, secondary, independent sources that verify its content.
4. Once done with the translation, you can submit it for review by adding to the top {{subst:submit}}.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Publishing a Company

Our Company, Apoorva Corporation, has been in business for 14 years and we believe that it has become notable. What are our guidelines? Apoorva Corporation 02:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorvacorp (talk • contribs)

Hello Apoorvacorp, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia whose content is built on three fundamental principles we call the "core content policies". They are that Wikipedia articles:

1. must be verifiable (readers should be able to check that what is being written is true),
2. written from a neutral point of view (meaning that all opinions and viewpoints on a topic are represented fairly and without bias), and
3. must not contain original research (meaning we write only about what reliable sources have written about a topic).

Jointly interpreted, these three policies form the backbone for almost every other content policy or guideline we have here, so it is important you understand them and keep them in mind as you edit.

Since you are professionally connected with your company, you have what we call a conflict of interest ("COI"). Editors with a conflict of interest in a topic area often have an unintentionally distorted view of that topic area, and this conflict of interest has a significant potential to go against some of our core content policies. For example, you might unconsciously overly embellish an article about your own organization or omit verifiable facts that may be negative or controversial—this would violate neutral point of view. Alternatively, you might inadvertently add details about the organization that hasn't been published elsewhere—a violation of verifiability and no original research.

Because of the potential for disruption, the Wikipedia community strongly discourages editing in areas you have a conflict of interest in, and that includes creating articles about your own organization. If you believe that your company is notable as per our notability guidelines, then someone else may eventually write an article about your company in due time. Although we discourage it, we don't outright prohibit editing with a COI either. If you still want to write an article about your organization, first carefully read our guideline on conflict of interest editing. Then, I strongly recommend going through the Article Wizard to help you better establish if you organization meets our notability guidelines, and also so you can submit a draft of your article for review by experienced editors before it is published. If you need help with anything, just let us here at the Teahouse know. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC), revised 05:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The cliffs notes version of the criteria for having a stand alone article are here, with the special caveats regarding organizations/businesses here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

mentor

looking for a mentor. Softstarrs23 (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Softstarrs23, and welcome to the Teahouse. What sort of mentoring do you want? What are you trying to do here? what are your interests on Wikipesia so far? what have you had problems with? I have done some mentoring. How much time are you able to spend here, roughly? If you'd like to ask further questions of me, feel free to post on my talk page, or there is Wikipedia:Co-op which is specifically aimed at matching new editors with willing mentors. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As for Club Atlético Newell's Old Boys II I'm afraid "being a real soccer club" isn't enough to have an article on Wikipedia. See our guideline about soccer articles and our guideline about notability of organizations (which includes sports teams). See also the golden rule and Your First Article. DES ^(talk) 00:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also i advise creating new articles via the article wizard whcih puts them under the articles for creation project until you are more experienced. DES ^(talk) 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Table Templates

I can never find anything around here & Help is never helpful. I'm tweaking a BLP about an actor that desperately needed sourcing, & in addition to finding a few new ones, I've also come across extensive lists of his TV, film, theatre, & playwright work; what's mentioned in the article is barely the tip of the iceberg, & way too many to list in paragraphs. Most other actor articles seem to have this info at the end, in tables. Where can I find a template to create that sort of table to corral them into sections? Or do I just count tediously count how many rows & columns I need, hope it's right, & make tables? Oh, and I'd like to table all my banners on my profile pg, too. Is there one for that? ScarletRibbons (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @ScarletRibbons:! When in doubt, go to the search bar and type WP:WHATEVERYOUARELOOKINGFOR, for example WP:TABLE would bring you to WP:TABLE. And while there is an obsession for putting things in tables, as the guidance at WP:MOSTABLE recommends, a simple bulleted list is often as good or better than complicated table markup. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

TYVM for your quick service :-D (I wonder now if I'd get a hit searching for WP:HELPISNOTHELPFUL.) So even if the lists (which I'd break down into chronological, digestible sections for each category of work) have 50 items in them, that would be preferable to a table, then? ScarletRibbons (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

in a list you can use {{div col|3}} at the top and {{div col end}} at the bottom of each section and get a nice compact list.

If each entry has multiple parts for which it would be common for a reader to want to be able to sort, then a table becomes the best bet for a list longer than 5 items or so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Help to improve this page and more

Hello, I have 2 questions and not sure where to ask:

• 1/I would like to know your recommendations on editing the below page with updated info of my own expertise.
• 2/I would like to propose to make video's regarding the use of Wikipedia, who can I discuss this with.

I am an expat myself, supporting other expats with their integration abroad as I find PREPARATION the KEY to success!!! So, I would like to write or add a website or perhaps video links to support expats. What can I do? What is allowed? What is not? Please advise.

It regards this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriate Below the page this comment is placed: Expatriate preparation[edit]

This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity, Wikibooks or Wikivoyage (April 2015)

Thank you RachelRachelisme (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Rachelisme: and welcome to the Teahouse!

While your interest in helping expats is good, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a "how to" or help website- so much of what you want to do is more appropriate to a personal blog somewhere than content for Wikipedia. An encyclopedia article would focus on other aspects of "ex pat" such as the history and meaning , not the personal experience. Wikipedia's project Accessibility Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility does work to make audio version of the content available. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's what she said, Red Pen of Doom (fab username btw). It sounds like she wants someone to move it to the proper place for it on a different wiki. ScarletRibbons (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @ScarletRibbons and TRPoD,

Thank you for your responses. You will have guessed I'm NEW to the Group here, so please stick with me here just a bit so that I learn and can get started contributing (I still hope I can).

I did indeed say that I am supporting expats, but it's not my intention to put how to or personal stuff here on Wiki. Yes, I do Blog about that too :) But I do like writing about different Expat related topics as I was reading about the short article that I copy/pasted here.

So, who can tell me how to start writing additional content and perhaps give me some hints on content ideas (which I would write). Just to get started.

Also, there are websites posted as sources, so that is allowed?

And third, I"m still interested in what can be done with Video's...so I'll look into your link right now. Thanks Rachelisme (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How to contact OTRS to acknowledge image use permission

Included in the article for living living artist Alberto Gómez Gómez are photos (the artist's photos) of paintings (the artist's paintings). He wants to allow them to be displayed in the article via Wikimedia Commons under Version 4.0 of the Creative Commons license. As I understand it, this means more than merely granting permission from his own computer in his own name using his own user I.D. and password. I gather that he must communicate directly with OTRS and gain approval to do so for each image (at least I think that's what I was told). He wants me to explain how to do this step by step, before they get deleted for lack of proper permissions. How I wish I could. I can't even reliably bring up the images in question in Wikimedia Commons because I don't know how to address them. Can you help? Thanks. Rmark1030 (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rmark1030. If the artist uploads photos of his paintings to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license, then the artist will lose all control of those images, other than the right to be credited. Anyone can reproduce those photos as posters or T-shirts or coffee mugs, and sell them for profit, without permission, without sharing a penny with the artist. To me, this seems like a very bad idea.

Instead, I suggest that low resolution photos be uploaded here to Wikipedia under our non free image policy #7, which allows use of images of paintings in the context of critical commentary of the artist's work. That allows proper illustration of the artist's work in that single article, while still protecting the artist's commercial interests.

In this scenario, there is no need to get OTRS involved, and the uploads can be done promptly. Anyone can do this, whether you or the artist or anyone else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The above will work, but only if there is a third party reliable source commentary about the specific work.

For donating, the process is outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, again with the caveats outlined above by Cullen328. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you upload your profile in the guest link?

I want to know how I do that, because, a young user like me, doesn't know a lot about the encyclopedia yet. Please let me know. Thanks. - Minionlover2015 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Minionlover2015. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors to start out. Please be very careful about disclosing your age and other identifying information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 I interpreted "young user" as meaning newbie but of course this is good advice if the person really is young..— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've seen the original version and I understand.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Capcha in Sandbox

I was attempting to save in my Sandbox and was unable to save with Visual Editor. I had to save under Edit Source. The system gave me several capcha to complete but it didn't work.

Is there a ticket for this? Carle-IKAM (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

it is profoundly discouraging to see the rejection of addition of references under visual editor, without notice, as vandalism. where do i go to send the trout? Duckduckstop (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

At the same editathon I saw this too. A newbie trying to add perfectly fine footnotes in Visual Editor was sent into an apparently infinite loop of CAPTCHA after CAPTCHA. Switching to Edit Source gets around it. econterms (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Declined due to lack of reliable sources

I tried to create a page about a famous YouTuber, MyithZ. How can links to his YouTube page/videos be lack of reliable sources if THAT is where he is famous from? I left several links to his videos of the Apple Campus 2 which have landed him 1.5M views. This guy should be on Wikipedia. He's also done the Tesla Gigafactory. (these are drone videos by the way) And he's been on KTVU 2 news, for which I provided a link. How is the NEWS not a reliable source, he was interviewed. I don't really have tons of time to dedicate to adding things to Wikipedia, but was trying to get him on here... he's quite popular in the SF Bay Area.DroneFan645 (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If he is famous for his YouTube videos, are there newspaper (San Francisco Chronicle?) or magazine articles describing his YouTube videos? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi DroneFan645
Please understand that being "famous", or being "popular", is not the same as being "notable", in Wikipedia's meaning of the word, which is what we require.
Has he received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Unless you can cite such coverage (preferably at a national, or international level, not just local press or TV), no subject will meet our basic notability requirements. There are further requirements for people at Wikipedia:Notability (people), which also need to be met, before anybody merits an article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

9to5mac.com is a website devoted to Apple and obviously... worldwide. He's featured on that site as well. He's been featured almost EVERY month for the last 10 months. I've seen him on IMDb as well. Do those not count? I've never made a Wikipedia page before. Google: myithz, I gave up flipping through pages after page 15. DroneFan645 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also... His videos have been viewed around the world, in just about every country. And really... who even reads newspapers anymore? The SF chronicle will have the same information, if not LESS than what you'd get on the news. The SF Chronicle is a LOCAL paper, how is that any different? Most people (at least those in the tech industry) do not get a "newspaper" delivered to their house as they can obtain the same exact information from reading it online. Not to mention, CA is a green state... we PREFER to not kill trees to get our news. I'm not trying to argue, but nobody really uses newspapers anymore. Kind of like cassettes or CDs for music... they have gone by the wayside. He was given thanks by the Cupertino City mayor, Rod Sinks on Google Plus (A worldwide public forum), for helping him video the city for the Mayor's "State of the City Address", that's notable. DroneFan645 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers need not be on paper to be reliable sources. The crucial thing is a reputation for fact-checking and not rumor-mongering. This makes some paper tabloids unreliable and lots of online papers reliable. If he has been covered by good newspapers or given honours (online or on paper), cite that. Citing his work is not independent and won't demonstrate notability. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle is a regional paper, widely read throughout Northern California, both in print and online at SFGate.com, and indisputably a reliable source in most cases. Any new Wikipedia article must be based on what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Sources with professional editorial staffs and a reputation for fact checking and error correction are reliable. That rules out blogs, social media posts, user submitted websites like IMDb.com, and the like. If you want to write an article, DroneFan645, that's how it must be done. Please read Your first article which has lots of good advice. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the responses above, but would just re-emphasise that newspapers aren't the only possible reliable sources. DroneFan645, I suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which should give you ideas for where to look for sources on this topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above. However, DroneFan645 once the notability of the person has bene established, links to the YouTube videos he has created can be used to help a reader understand just what he is know form. You might look at Anna Kay Akana‎‎ s an example of an article about a creator of YouTube content that recently was nominated for deletion and was kept. Also, please note that IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source, because much of its content is user-generated. Neither are most online fora, for the same reason. The mayor's comments mi8ght be relevant, if he is clearly identified as the mayor and there is no doubt that he is who he says he is. On Wikipedia, a 'newspaper' often means an online news site, although sometimes it means an actual printed on paper newspaper. Online or printed magazine coverage can be good, as said above, any source with a good reputaiton for fact-checkign andf editorial control can be used. Press releases and anything from the subject or his assocaites is of limited value, and doesn't count at all towards notability. DES ^(talk) 01:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC) @DroneFan645: DES ^(talk) 01:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

DroneFan645 in response to "Most people (at least those in the tech industry) do not get a 'newspaper' delivered to their house as they can obtain the same exact information from reading it online", I look forward to that day. I haven't seen it yet, but until I go to the library and see that actual paper, I haven't seen everything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

code for linking to page specific content

Hi, thank you for helping out on the Tea house, it's a fine service. I would like to use an in-line shortcut to link to a particular spot in a page. What coding should I use to link to the page wink, section on double wink?

and while I have you, could you help me learn if there is a way to sign my entries using a single keystroke instead of shift, four tildes?

Cityside189 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cityside189
Wink#Double wink should take you to the section you want - if you don't want the whole address to show pipe it as [[Wink#Double wink|Double wink]] which produces Double wink
With regard to the signature, assuming you are using the standard editing window, the third symbol in the top line (to the right of B and I should sign your posts with one click--Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you user:arjayay. Also good tip on the signature, I should have seen it there. I will try to also find if there are keyboard binding techniques for my macbook OS that can be used, like binding [fn, shift, s] to produce Cityside189 (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC) (like I used to be able to do on the Quake II game, if you know what I mean.

Thank you for taking the time, energy, and patience to help me. It may not seem that difficult for you but I appreciate it very much.

Cityside189 (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189 if you like keyboard shortcuts, there is a list at Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts, but that does not include "sign post" so you may have to make your own Macro - Arjayay (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Cityside189. Just a tiny observation: if you are going to set up a macro/bind text substitution, however you want to put it, I suggest making it a shortcut to the four tildes, not to the direct signature as you implied above – otherwise the automatic timestamp will not be included (unless you're vastly more technically sophisticated than me and know how to set up the timestamp to automatically be placed in UTC in the macro, if that's possible).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks user:Fuhghettaboutit - good point. You are right that I could have made that mistake, but I just meant the four tildes. Whenever I type them my signature comes out, so in my example above I was just typing normally and wiki markup replaced the four tildes with my signature and timestamp!! Great comments and I appreciate the time you took to write to me. Cityside189 (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it – you were speaking in shorthand. Appreciate the appreciative response!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, if you wan to display markup to talk about it or as an example, use nowiki tags around it. This stops the wiki markup being interpreted. It is common to also use code tags to indicate that this is wiki-code (or some sort of computer source code). Do it like this: ~~~~. I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I was looking for, Des. Thanks. You have the patience of a saint!Cityside189 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

cite pmid

Hi teahouse hosts,

There is a cite error here and this is my first encounter with cite pmid. I think I understand how it works. An editor already has a pmid number and inserts that as their reference, then citebot fills in the details. The bot seems to be up and running but the task in this case isn't getting completed so can anyone explain why? CV9933 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey CV9933. The bot stopped operating on June 17 when it was blocked indefinitely by Reaper Eternal. The surrounding circumstances are not very clear – especially as to whether there has been any discussion of what to do about the very issue that brought you here – but the bot states on its user page that it is "no longer actively maintained and contains numerous unfixed bugs". Also, as flagged at the top its documentation, the use of the {{cite PMID}} template is deprecated per this discussion, and {{cite journal}} should be used instead. So if you are willing to get your hands dirty, the best way to address the issue is to take the PMID, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed and search for it, then replace the citation with a populated cite journal template. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks@Fuhghettaboutit:, I had to read and re-read that a couple of times to get my head around the ramifications of the discussion. I know that many things on here are largely dependent on goodwill, but I would think if there are areas within wikipedia that need some money throwing at them, then that would be one of them. I'll have a go at cite journal later. CV9933 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: it looks like your wish might be granted - User talk:Citation bot#Fixing Citation bot. Nthep (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Brilliant -thanks very much for that, another piece in the jigsaw and the DOI generator will be great for the seven author cite journal that I need to do.I'll be keeping my fingers crossed. CV9933 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Walking Dead RTS

Hi, I am fairly new & only am familiar with the basics. I am trying to establish a page for a game that is very popular in Australia, and is very new. Eventually it will, become much bigger but there is not much out there on the game, due to the limited territories. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Walking_Dead:_Road_to_Survival&redirect=no I am just felling a little lost on the latest recommendations. hbg1968 11:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbg1968 (talk • contribs)

Hi Hbg1968. There is one predominating measure of whether a topic warrants an article: whether or not reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic, exist and have written about the subject in some detail to evidence notability and to give you and us the ability to write verifiable content. An encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world. Encyclopedias are never the appropriate place for first publication. What you've stated in your question is essentially an acknowledgment that this is not a topic that is appropriate for an article—at least not yet. When it "become[s] much bigger" and the types of outside sources I've described cover it, only then will an article be warranted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A question about talk pages and editing

A while ago in the talk page of the article Joseon, I argued that the article template should include the Korean Empire as part of the wider Joseon Dynasty. Someone objected, to which I reiterated my position and added a few more sources; he or she did not respond for more than two weeks.

What should I do? Can I edit the template now? Thanks in advance. --太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純 (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi 太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純 I see that there has been another response on that page stating a difference between the Joseon Kingdom and the Joseon Dynasty (which currently redirects) - However I agree with you its unclear why Joseon only covers the Kingdom if Joseon Dynasty redirects to the article. Maybe Joseon should be a disambiguation page and Joseon Kingdom and Joseon Dynasty separate, or maybe Joseon should cover both (as long as the context is clear for readers). Note that talk page discussions are often slow as many can't edit every day, also to speed up responses try mentioning or pinging the others users so they are notified. Its not a subject I know so can't really comment on the actual question at hand sorry, I assume this is why no one else had responded yet as well, or the question could have just been missed. So continue discussing with Conprix, Sturmgewehr88 and any other interested editors and hopefully you can work out a solution together. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Marriage

Should this template be used in articles as such, e.g. Barack Obama or Warren G. Harding, or should it be avoided. I am unsure; I included it in all the articles on U.S. Presidents, which took me some time, although one user is somewhat angry I have been using. I am unsure how to deal with this. Neve-selbert (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Neve-selbert. I have been editing here for over six years and understand the basic of templates and infoboxes, but do not consider myself an expert. I never before heard of the "marriage" template. We have broader templates like "presidents" and "office holders" that have fields for spouses, so why bring new templates into established articles at this time? The Obama article should be stable, but kooks never give up. The Harding article must give appropriate weight to the new DNA evidence, but how does that affect the marriage information? Please clarify your question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The "marriage" template has been around for more than six years also, and I just assumed I was being constructive by including them in articles I am interested in. There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents. Neve-selbert (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I would like to know whose sock puppet you are. You are clearly not a new user as all the documentation for the "widowed" parameter was removed and deprecated before your account was registered. So, how can you possibly know about that parameter unless you are a returned user determined to reinstate it? DrKiernan (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, please, stop. I am a totally new user, that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I am not a "sockpuppet", this is really hurting my feelings, and making me very anxious, scared and worried. I am not determined to reinstate it. If you don't like it: fine by me, I am not willing to be vilified for edits that can be simply be forgotten. I was only trying to help. I got the whole template idea from the Elizabeth II article, and I liked the look of it. Now, I understand there are people who disagree, and that is fine. I am willing to move on from this. Please, I need a chance: don't judge me, I am OCD – I will add infoboxes about who I am on my Userpage in due time. Please, I honestly feel unwelcome now. I really want to make a fresh start. Please can we move on from this? The edits don't matter. If you don't like them, roll them all back. I want to be constructive editor here, and I will fight to the end to be constructive. You don't know who I am, how can I "clearly not a new user"? I have followed Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, I know "wikistyle" and how it all works, I am quick at the computer. If you are still unsure, check my IP for proof. Thank-you, and I hope we can eventually move on from this with understanding. Neve-selbert (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Timelines

I am writing with regard to the timelines. I have been carefully trying to date the events I am including on the timelines (take Timeline on the formation of the Universe). I have found many of the dates that I researched from articles in Wikipedia were changed (they do not reflect the actual dates that are being postulated in articles) I know some of the later stars in the timeline were changed because they were far more recent events. But dates taken from earlier objects became much later. It would help me out to understand this because I am trying to add information that is accurate as far as the information on the site and can be cobberated with information on site? (Davros69999 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davros69999. First of all, keep in mind that one Wikipedia article can never be a source for another Wikipedia article. We have millions of articles that need to be improved and even the best of our articles can be vandalized at random by ignorant knuckleheads. So, the events in the type of timeline you describe, which I consider to be core encyclopedic content, must be cited properly to really high quality reliable sources. Our job here is to summarize what the reliable, independent sources say, no more. Of course, you can also take on the task of improving the referencing of those other articles' reliable sources as well, if you so choose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How to do citations?

How does one do citations? I'm just doing them within the body of the article or typing out by hand.

Is there a difference?

Bardessa (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bardessa. We have no completely standardized way of showing references (or citations), but there are some widely accepted techniques, described at Referencing for beginners. It is well worth reading. Inline references formattted in a way that our wiki software displays in a standardized list are definitely preferred. But the stylistic issue of how the references are displayed as citations is far less important than the quality of the references themselves. Formatting issues can be corrected quickly by any experienced editor, as long as the encyclopedic content is solid. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bardessa, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, the text of a citation should actually exist within the body of the article, but they should be encircled by <ref> ... </ref> tags. You can do them by hand, but we recommend the use of citation templates. One page we typically recommend for new editors to read is Help:Referencing for beginners. The page explains how to use the refToolbar that automates the creation of citations. Watch the videos there - I thought they were pretty helpful. It also explains how to manually add citations. Basically, at the end of a statement you wish to cite, add the following code: <ref> ... citation here ... </ref>. If you need further help, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse again! Mz7 (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbullying on Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A group of full-time activists (I call them as I reach for the most tactful term) makes changes to the Naturopathy page many times per day. Those changes are consistently in a derogatory direction toward naturopathic physicians. I see that naturopathic physician edits are not allowed to stand; they are reverted back to libel within several minutes by this vandalizing group, many of whom are outside the U.S., evading U.S. libel laws. The Wikipedia definition of cyberbullying tactics is: "Common tactics used by cyberstalkers is to vandalize a search engine or encyclopedia, to threaten a victim's earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. Various companies provide cases of cyber-stalking (involving adults) follow the pattern of repeated actions against a target." [sic] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying. What recourse does the public or the naturopathic profession have to correct the quickly increasing number of lies that comprise the Wikipedia page on Naturopathy? Is there any interest in at least having a balance of viewpoints reflected on this page? "Talk" or other negotiation with the cyberbullies is not on the table, due to their flagrant violation of law and ethics. Will Wikipedia administrators take action against this problem? Username ininion 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents materials as they are seen the mainstream academic and medical sources . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please answer the questions that I asked: What will Wikipedia do about the false statements, libel and cyberbullying on the Naturopathy page? Naturopathic physicians have approximately twice as many classroom hours and twice as many courses as MDs in the medical schools, verifiable at the respective schools' curricula descriptions online. Unlike MDs and DOs, naturopathic physicians have full-term courses in cardiology, pulmonology, endocrinology, through all major systems, again verifiable at the schools' own curricula descriptions. All of that is contradicted on the Wikipedia Naturopathy page. How will Wikipedia address not only the cyberbullying and libel, but its own impaired credibility? Ininion (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ininion. Because naturopathy is a fringe topic based in large part on pseudoscience, as reported by reliable sources, our experienced editors who work to defend the encyclopedia from content endorsing pseudoscience will always monitor this article closely. This is bound to hurt the feelings of the advocates of naturopathy, but that is the way things are, and all concerned should avoid insulting language. That includes you, with your talk of "evading U.S. libel laws" and "flagrant violation of law and ethics". You are coming perilously close to violating our policy calling for No legal threats. Those who make such threats are blocked from editing until the threat is withdrawn or all court cases are resolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

First, as you well know, you have found no threat at all in anything that I said. Second, if all concerned should refrain from using insulting language, then it would be best for you not to use the word "fringe" regarding a vast and eclectic system of medicine on which many around the world and throughout human history (in fact all of our distant ancestors) relied for their healthcare, a system of medicine that today is practiced in 17 US states by duly licensed physicians, who have scopes of practice that range from time-honored natural modalities through contemporary medical practices such as laboratory analysis, the prescription of pharmaceuticals and minor surgery, depending on the state. That training happened extensively in medical school and was confirmed by the longest and most rigorous medical board certification examinations in the U.S. I regret to inform you that the sources you call "reliable" have only been reliable to consistently misrepresent and falsify the history and the effects of naturopathic medicine. The cyberbullying that has damaged the Naturopathy page on Wikipedia has continually worsened in large part due to the echo chamber reliance on such sources, and I am indicating to you the problems that arise from allowing such behavior to continue. I have shown that the Naturopathy page fulfills the Wikipedia definition of cyberbullying tactics. Please be clear: Are you defending the cyberbullying tactics? If not, what will be done to stop the problem?Ininion (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of "flagrant violation of law" without indisputable evidence is inappropriate behavior here on Wikipedia and perilously close to a legal threat. If reliable scientific sources say that naturopathy is largely based on pseudoscience, then so too shall Wikipedia. It cannot be any other way. You are, of course, entirely free to promulgate your beliefs on other websites, but Wikipedia does not exist to validate or promote pseudoscience in any way, shape or form. As for your other unproven accusations, I believe in being polite to those with whom I disagree. I recommend the same course of action to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have shown that the actions of the referenced editors fulfill the description of cyberbullying by Wikipedia's own definition. I have asked that this be corrected by Wikipedia. It seems that you are unlikely to examine or to correct the problem. Ininion (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we disagree about what the problem is, having thoroughly debated the issue, but that is relatively common here on Wikipedia. I could be wrong and if other experienced editors think so, then I will pay most serious attention to their opinions.

The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing, a place for answers, discussion and advice. It is not Wikipedia's Night court nor a place that issues binding decisions about anything, other than advancing the goal of building a better encyclopedia. You are entitled to seek more formal action if your concerns are so deep. Please read our policy regarding dispute resolution for much more detailed information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of not giving equal validity to fringe subjects and pseudoscience. This is not bullying.Charles (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

First, your whole attitude appears to be that you are here to right great wrongs, and that isn't what Wikipedia is for. However, why don't you start over? Instead of starting with the assumption that we are mistreating you and your subject, let's start with a quest for neutrality. Here are my suggestions. First, I am aware that there are some naturopathic medicine programs, that, like osteopathic medicine programs, have outgrown their fringe roots and have adopted most of the content of allopathic (orthodox) medicine. If you can source them, and you should be able to do so, you should be able to add them. Also, if you feel that that your contributions are being disregarded, as other editors have noted, we have dispute resolution forums, some of which are for content disputes, which this is. Some of them are particularly suitable to the extent that some naturopathic programs have incorporated some of the wisdom of allopathic medicine, and have licensure in some states. Those might include the fringe theory noticeboard, but it may have anti-pseudoscience warriors. They also include the dispute resolution noticeboard, in which most volunteer moderators start off with little knowledge of the subject matter and expect the parties to state the material. Beyond that, there is requests for formal mediation, by an experienced mediator. So what you should do is, first, find the sources that are out there that show that naturopathic medicine has grown up and become partly orthodox. Second, back off from your hostility and ask other editors to back off from their hostility. Third, discuss on talk pages, with references to reliable sources. Fourth, engage in dispute resolution, possibly at DRN or RFM. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, Robert McClenon. However, I have no need to try to drag naturopathic medicine over to something that it is not and should not be: allopathic medicine. Nor would that serve any greater interest, since naturopathic patients are generally much healthier than allopathic patients. "Pseudocience" is an invalid term that is used to stockpile evidence that the user wishes to ignore. In this case, your associates have used it to make excuses for the damage caused by libel and cyberbullying. I agree with one thing that they have said: this discussion has moved past the purpose of the teahouse, and I therefore leave this discussion behind now. Ininion (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability?

Hello, I created a page for a string arranger I know who is Emmy nominated and quite accomplished, but I keep getting declined for notability issues. Admittedly, I am not an experienced editor, but I've read the notability guidelines several times and this arranger meets at least two of the requirements. I know a bunch of other musicians with ridiculous credits and only references from their own personally written websites. The guy I was trying to list has actual legit references. I am at a loss. Can anyone help me? Thank you so much in advance!! Intoacloud (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Intoacloud. Evitts may be notable, but you are not demonstrating that with the sources you're using. What we are looking for is citation to:

1. reliable source (books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources; sources that have a reputation for fact checking an accuracy – so not random webpages, most blogs, forums, user-generated content, etc.);
2. that are secondary in nature (for example, newspapers or magazines writing about him (not interviews with him);
3. that are entirely independent of him; and
4. which write about him in some detail (not mere mentions of him).

Without those cited, the draft is unlikely to be accepted (and if they don't exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on him).

Most of your sources are to Allmusic write-ups. While it is not generally considered a pure user-generated source, it is far from an ideal one. Note also, there should be no external links in the text. Remove them. You also have circularly cited another (German) Wikipedia article which should also be removed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

to download my pictures

Following the suggestion when writing the text for the article, I used the "Gallery" for identifying my pictures on my computer. Those pictures never got into the text. What to do? 71.139.4.205 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot display images stored on you computer, they must be uploaded, preferably to Wikimedia Commons. Once uploaded they can be displayed in an article. Standard advice follows:

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.Template:Z40--ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse. It would be helpful if you told us what article and who you are. The above post is the only edit by your IP, so you must have been signed in.

Also, Wikimedia Commons can only be used for the photos if you took them yourself or have permission from the copyright holder to use them for any purpose including commercial use with only acknowledgement of where the photos came from. Otherwise they must meet fair use requirements to be uploaded to English Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions from author about declined article

I declined a submitted article, Draft:On-line participatory tools with a primary reason and a comment. I said that the article had too few sources and so had verifiability issues. I also said that the article presently only covered three countries, Romania, Georgia, and Armenia, and suggested that when it was better sourced, it could be split into three articles. The author replied on my talk page, saying that he thought my latter comment was a little harsh. I prefer to take all questions about draft articles here so as to get opinions from other experienced editors. Maybe I was right, and maybe I was wrong. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the decline - there is no evidence of third party coverage of the subject, merely a bunch of primary sources cobbled together in a directory rather than encyclopedic coverage of a topic. As a topic it is potentially viable, perhaps starting as a new subsection of Digital citizen which focuses on the efforts of governments. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Robert. I don't disagree that your decline basis is valid, but I do disagree in a way with the decline – because you said: "...This isn't so much a notability issue..." I think the topic is very much lacking in notability. A general Google search, which includes everything in Google's reach – not just the web but books, news and scholar – returns 8 results total, six of which are Wikipedia mirrors. It is not the constituent elements that notability looks to but the topic, and "On-line participatory tools" appears to be a neologism. But notability here is a side note. Yes, this strongly indicates to me the topic is non-notable, but much more to the heart of the matter is that the draft's content is original research synthesis. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to take this useful advice into account in future declines (and, hopefully, in future acceptances, which, unfortunately, are not as common as declines). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I repost my article for review?

An article about Malcolm McClain was submitted by a co-worker. That person no longer works for the company, so I've been tasked with getting the article published. I resubmitted and have learned the original reviewer is no longer active. I was advised by the Wikipedia information team to have Teahouse review. Please let me know exactly (in steps as I find Wikipedia very difficult to navigate) how I do this. Thank youLauriespratt (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

First, the article is Draft: Malcolm McClain. In the future, when asking for advice on an article, please provide proper wikilinks to make it easier for us. Second, we know that it takes a while to learn to navigate Wikipedia. Wikipedia recommends that you play WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to help learn. Third, I am posting a welcome banner to your user page with many links. Please read them for additional learning. We know that it takes a while to learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lauriespratt: Whoever "tasked" you and your predecessor has put you in an awkward position - see our policy on conflicts of interest WP:COI and the Terms of Use . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How to merge Articles on wikipedia and why the similar articles allowed on wiki?

Hello ,

I found similar articles on wikipedia. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_Protection_Act,_1972 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Life_(Protection)_Amendment_Act,_2002

Wild life protection act 1972 article is available on wikipedia, there was an amendment in 2002 in Wild life protection act 1972.

• One may say amendment which took place in 2002 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Life_(Protection)_Amendment_Act,_2002 ) is the part of Wild Life protection act 1972 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_Protection_Act,_1972- principal Act) and to be added in it.

How these two can be merged with each other as the amendment is part of principle act. Two write up on similar topic and again one is the amendment in the principle act - i am sure it is against the wiki policy and merger of both has been allowed.

Priyadarshivishal23 (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23

Uploading new article

I created my first article for Wikipedia on Wednesday evening, entitled 'Rev C.H. Dick'. I clicked 'save page'. The article has not appeared on Wikipedia and I can't locate it anywhere in my user space. Have I done something wrong? Have I not understood properly how to upload new articles, or is it going through a process of approval? Username Dsbartholomew.91.125.237.198 (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dsbartholomew. I have looked at your contributions, global contributions, deleted contributions, as well as the filter log (a program that blocks certain edits), and I cannot find any record of any page like this being created by you. It thus appears, for whatever reason, it was never saved. One of the ways this often happens – especially when you've had the editing screen open for a long time, though this does not necessarily have to be true – is that you get a message when you try to save that says "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data." In such cases you might think you saved but it never "took". It is incredibly frustrating when you lose material you've worked hard on and it's unretrievable. Did you save a copy? That is the lesson for the future. Wish I could give you a magic pill but it looks like it's gone. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I created it in sandbox, and thought that when I clicked on 'save page' that was the process for uploading it. Or at the very least that it would have been saved somewhere in my userspace. I have a copy of my article, but had done all the work on reformatting the references to conform with Wikipedia.Dsbartholomew (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If you were editing with a different IP you may have created it in the global Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than your own user sandbox. Wikipedia:Sandbox gets cleared regularly; we could have found the history if you had made the edit while logged on either with your registered account or as the IP under which you asked the question above, but the contribution records for both show no sign of such an edit, so it is lost. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you do have a registered user ID, and since you have had an experience with the unpredictability of IP addresses, I would suggest being careful to be sure that you are logged on when editing. IP addresses shift, and don't have private sandboxes. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to do next

I uploaded draft articles on the 'Blackburn Cycle' on 5&7 August , both of which were rejected. I thought I knew what was required and sent a new draft, but there has been no response to the new draft. Any advice would be welcome. Thank you. Anthony Blackburn (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at 05.25, 7 August 2015‎ was declined at 09:06, 7 August 2015‎ by The Average Wikipedian who stated - "Submission fails Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not"
I suggest you read that policy to understand why your article is not acceptable - specifically because you are trying to promote your product.
All of our articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Until you can cite such coverage, the Blackburn cycle does not meet our notability requirement so there cannot be an article about it on Wikipedia, - Arjayay (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also a notice on your user talk page that the draft has been declined.--ukexpat (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthony and welcome to the teahouse. I can see from your article that you have put an enormous amount of time effort and money into a novel idea and not surprisingly want the world to know about it. If your invention takes off, there will be lots of things written about it and at that point the Blackburn Cycle will become notable. As it is now though, it isn’t considered notable on here as mentioned in the above replies. Please don’t be discouraged, take a look around and try improving your editing skills, you can still work on your article and improve it to a higher standard. I would like to think it might even make a featured article one day. In the mean time, put the kettle on, have a nice cup of tea and ask whatever questions you like. CV9933 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Related to creation of pages

Hello I am new editor and have joined today itself and I would like to know how to create 'infobox' for any page.

KalEl2794 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KalEl2794. Infoboxes are created by templates, which are pieces of "fill in the blank" wikicode. In simple terms, you copy and paste the blank template code into the beginning of the article, and then you fill in applicable information in the various fields. You do not need to fill in every item. Please read Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. There are a lot of them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. KalEl2794 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pubmed citations

My pubmed id citations are not populating. Is there a new shorthand for PMIDS? Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Plumpy Humperdinkle. It may just be that whatever usually fills them in isn't running right now. I know that the documentation for {{cite PMID}} says please use "cite journal" instead, but I don't think "cite PMID" has gone away. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, I believe you are correct as when I try to "jump the queue" I receive an error message from the bot. If anyone knows how to get around this, please advise. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Help!

I'm good at contributing, but I'm a noob at Wikipedia, can someone please help me? The Pancake of Heaven! (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am also a beginner editor but I got most of the answers to my questions regarding editing a page and creation of page on wikipedia from these links.

1. Video 1
2. Video 2

Hope this helps.. Cheers! KalEl2794 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The Pancake of Heaven!. Is there something specific you want help with? If you're after general guidance as you get to know the place, you might consider the adopt-a-user programme. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey The Pancake of Heaven!. I recommend you take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial, and then read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. After that, you might visit the Wikipedia:Community portal, which list a variety of things you can help out with and get your toes wet. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info guys! The Pancake of Heaven! (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Events in a Nations History by Year Articles

I've created a series of articles regarding events that have occurred in Sri Lanka in the past few decades which had not been created previously. But when I come to this page [4] it shows the same events maybe more in this page. The articles I created can be referred here [5], I have created more these two just correspond so im not really sure if I'm doing the right thing here :/ Thanks. CyberWarfare (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this the wrong place to ask this question?? CyberWarfare (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi CyberWarfare. I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what what your question is. You created the article 1995 in Sri Lanka. You put it in the category Category:1995 in Sri Lanka. So the category page lists it, along with all the other articles that have that category at the bottom of the page. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If the OP's concern is that the two events listed at 1995 in Sri Lanka are not listed at Category:1995 in Sri Lanka, the explanation is that they are listed in the sub-category Category:1995 crimes in Sri Lanka, which is in turn listed in the main category. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so basically the pages are category pages which include a list of pages which fit into that category meaning its not a separate article? It just includes all articles in that category. Thanks StarryGrandma & David Biddulph, initially I thought they were 2 separate articles with the same content so I thought I was creating a duplicate. --CyberWarfare (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Category pages like Category:1995 in Sri Lanka merely list the articles which have the relevant category included (normally at the bottom of the article). Pages like 1995 in Sri Lanka are ordinarly text articles which list events, usually link to their specific articles, and provide a sentence or so of information on each. The two systems exist independently. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Making an article about a nail salon

so I wrote down what was needed the infos I got from the owner of the nail salon. That Nail Salon was recently featured on some TV networks but I can't find enough published/notable sources where I can cite anything for the article. So what should I do? wait for some publisher/journalist reputable newspaper, magazine to publish something about it? Michael A. Flores Saima (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael A. Flores Saima, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to already be aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but they are outlined at Wikipedia:Notability in case you haven't seen that. If a subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, there's not much you can do apart from keeping an eye out for new coverage in reliable sources. There are some specific guidelines on companies at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I would be surprised if an individual nail salon would ever meet the criteria set out there, unless there was something that it was particularly famous for. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael A. Flores Saima, you can cite the tv show itself, if it qualifies as a reliable source. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

really? recently 2 big TV networks featured the nail salon I hope that's notability and reliable source enough for Wikipedia.

112.209.12.195 (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What Should I do?

I started an account today and Im having trouble finding things to do on wikipedia. I looked at some of the pages that were marked with having issues like grammar and references and I didn't have enought knowledge on some of them to even make some of the simple edits and I couldnt see myself doing that nonstop while I am on here. Are there any other things to do on Wikipedia that are a little more exciting? I doubt there are many things that arent on here yet but I think making articles might be more interesting so is there a easy way to figure out what isnt already on here. Also how to I get the little rectangles on my page? And I dont understand what subpages are used for, I know how to make them but the article didnt really explsin the uses. Aslo is there a article that explains how to color my signature? Thank You and can you reply to my talk page because I want to be alerted because I wont be looking at this. Glacialfrost (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Glacialfrost, I think what you might be looking for in a mentor, an experienced editor who can answer the questions that come up as you learning about editing Wikipedia. One place you might look is at Wikipedia:Co-op. The Teahouse is ideal for specific questions about submitting articles or single topics but a mentor might be more available for the range of questions that come up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Glacialfrost (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Glacialfrost hello and welcome to The Teahouse. WP:SIG explains signatures. A simple way to learn about them and the way I did it, is to edit a talk page that has a signature you like and copy how the signature was created, making sure to replace the other person's name with yours.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Vchimpanzee. I already got a mentor who answered all that but I appreciate it. As a note to anyone else, my questions were all answered. GlacialFrost (Talk) 21:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Some editor removed some link from a page

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

Ruproy1972 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Which article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be related to either Save Indian Family or Save Indian Family Foundation. I'm not clear on exactly what the problem is.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Vchimpanzee The same related to Save Indian Family, would you please help to add some links , whcih are from reliable source. only Ruproy1972 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Vchimpanzee

This are some article As I am not so good to understand about the content and wiki policy, but feel the same are from reliable source and should be added in Save Indian Family

Men's rights group to raise marital rape issue on I-Day 'Harassed' men set up meet Spare a thought for innocent husbands Forum for abused men – SIF- BHAI

An abusive wife?

Husbands victimized by wives plead for help related to AP and new state Telangana for SIF . Ruproy1972 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ruproy1972 "Spare a thought for innocent husbands" is someone's opinion and could only be used if you identify who said it and call it his opinion, but I suppose the others would be all right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Desparately need help RE: image use permissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same thing has happened to me, too. Why don't we have permission yet to insert image files? Please reply and I might reply back if you do so. Thanks. - Minionlover2015 (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Minionlover2015: If you still have this question and want to get an answer more quickly, you might get a quicker response if you post a new question at the top of this page using the "Ask a question" button at the top. It's easier for your question to be noticed by Teahouse hosts if it's at the top of the page. CabbagePotato (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)