Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245

How to change description of occupation.

Hello. I have been working on the Alessandro Safina article. Whomever started the article tagged him above the info box as an "Italian Opera Singer", I would like to change to Italian Tenor, because he's not really an opera singer. I can't figure out how to edit that area. I appreciate your help. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, GrammerCracker96. I have looked at our article Alessandro Safina, and do not see this designator "Italian Opera Singer" in either desktop view or mobile view. I see him described as as "Italian operatic pop tenor". Perhaps you are viewing the article on an app tailored to Android or Apple that displays content from Wikidata. I find that using the desktop site on Android devices gives me the best user experience. It is like editing Wikipedia on a miniature desktop computer, and I do 98% of my editing that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Thank you. That is exactly what I was doing.I appreciate your guidance. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GrammerCracker96: I've updated the description in Wikidata to "Italian tenor" to match the content in the article, so it should now display correctly in mobile view. Let me add, though, that I agree with Cullen328 regarding using the desktop site on cellphones – it's way better than the mobile interface.

–FlyingAce^✈hello 22:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to Life, Universe and Everything: prevention is easier than treating

On Wikipedia there are articles about people who are still alive. About them article begin with:

”Name Surname is a philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer”.

There are also articles about people who are no longer alive and about them article begin with:

”Name Surname was a philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer”.

Hoping that Wikipedia will last forever, billions and billions of articles will emerge over time.

Now the question that arise: we will change the articles about people who are still alive with "was" after they die, or maybe it is better to write about those who are not anymore among us:

"Name Surname (n. NNNN - d. DDDD) is a philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer”.

[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gvitalie#Prevention_is_easier_than_treating) Gvitalie (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gvitalie. Thank you for this suggestion, but using "is" to refer to somebody who is no longer alive is not idiomatic English, so that is not a workable solution. In any case, articles about people contain other verbs as well, to refer to the person and their life and work throughout the article. When a person dies, most of these verbs will have to be changed from the present to the past tense (and the "is" in the first sentence is usually not the problem - it can be easy to miss a verb in the middle of a long article, but not at the start of the first paragraph). I don't think that this is a large problem throughout the encyclopedia, though. When an article is updated with a death date, I believe the verb tenses are usually updated more or less immediately as well, by one or more editors. --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitely many articles, if hopping Wikipedia will last forever.

In such case, let put "was" for all of them, "to avoid over reviving to much of humanity", if citing Christ (with humor). Gvitalie (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, using the past tense to refer to living people would not make sense in English. It's just how the language works. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monday was, mean that Monday is dead, and won't be any more? That is a Q that need to be put at right place. Gvitalie (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Monday you are referring to will never happen again, so yes. Another Monday will happen, but that will be a new Monday. Likewise Abraham Lincoln was, but a new Abraham Lincoln could be born, and be. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Tense says: "Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely agree with that, lesser with what they are. Let me explain with an example:

"Name Surname (b. BBBB - d. DDDD) is a heaven philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer". That mean, after His/Her death He/She is still philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer. And yes, I'm citing from that link "When discussing the work of a writer or philosopher, even if they are dead, the present tense may be used: "In his Institutes, Calvin teaches ...". The general rule is to describe statements made in literature, philosophy and art in the eternal present." Gvitalie (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking the vital status of a personage should not be described in the eternal present. The manual of style entry simply refers to works done during the lifetime of the subject being referred to as being the words of the person. example: "In his plays, Shakespeare uses Elizabeth English", not "used". This makes sense, since it is how the arts are often described. It does not extend to "Shakespeare is a playwright" which is incorrect style, and should be "Shakespeare was a playwright". As this statement is referring to the person, it should correctly refer to the persons vital status by using the past tense to indicate the subject is deceased.

Take this example from Jesus Christ. "Jesus (c.4BC – c.30/33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ, was a Jewish preacher and religious leader who became the central figure of Christianity." No one could be described as still being what he was in life, after his death, more than Jesus Christ, therefore your argument is rejected. Hope this helps explain the issue. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Guy into Books, You're absolutely and perfectly right.

They dead and their work "was".

They "was" philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, engineers.

They no any more philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, engineers.

Now is Our time to be "was". (Note: I'm not Diogenes and less Alexander_the_Great, because I'm an Idiot and I like to admit it) Gvitalie (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion

i dont know why i have a speedy deletion on my page tho i deleted most of my stuff Hello0000000000000000Hello0000000000000000 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about your userpage, Hello0000000000000000 I don't see any speedy deletion notice, or any deletion notice at all. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 17:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, apparently you are talking about Rowntree Montessori Schools. You have trimmed out a lot of promo content, but the introduction shouldn't have a header, and additional refs, like a newspaper article or two, would help a lot. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i dont understand, can u plz edit it to the correct format for me?

I there Hello0000000000000000, I have done the requested formatting for you and have added an additional reference. Please see if you can find any more to add that are reliable sources, As for the speedy deletion tag, I see it on there and, while I cannot remove it myself (as I am not an administrator) and neither can you, I doubt that it will be deleted at its current state as I reran the copyright test and it came back empty handed and the promotional text has been removed from the article I removed the tag as the copyright violation report came back less than 10% since you removed the text and it no longer contains the promotional language. Please also see WP:Your first article as that may contain some helpful information for you in creating/improving this article. Hopefully that answered your question, if not please do reply here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be an administrator to remove a speedy deletion template, TheSandDoctor - you just can't do so as the article creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, good to know. I just thought that removal of tags should be left to admins regardless. Now that I know otherwise, can help in future situations like this where article was improved/cleanedup and deletion tags are no longer applicable. Thanks for the info Cordless Larry! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: For future reference, you never simply remove a G12. You mark the article for history redaction (using {{Copyvio-revdel}} – and typically tag the talk page with {{cclean}}, and warn the user with {{uw-copyright-new}} or related). Simply removing a G12, as you did, leaves an illegal copyright violation sitting in the page history, able to be accessed. I have taken care of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies - I should have pointed out that the copyvio issue needed dealing with. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Fuhghettaboutit Cordless Larry, I didn't realize that a template had to be added in its place (and one on talk page), I will do that from now on. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello0000000000000000, schools that do not grant diplomas do not get articles on Wikipedia, except in exceptional cases. This school isn't an exceptional case. So, per WP:SCH/AG#N, I've blanked the article and redirected the title to the community the school is located in. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resources

Hello! I would like to create a page for a journalist who has been contributing to the Washington Post for over fifty years. Other than one article written about him, I am unable to find any other resources. Would this article be enough for that?Stephvelander (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stephvelander, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, unless the one article goes very deeply in depth (the length of a chapter in a book or more) — without being an interview of the journalist you want to write about, because that would render the source primary rather than secondary — then at least one and preferably two or more other sources would be required in order to establish the notability of that journalist, as Wikipedia uses the term notability. If the article you have is not of that scope, then you will need to either find other sources (remember that they don't have to be online) or else find a different topic to create an article about. Or you could work on improving existing articles. Sorry if this isn't the answer you wanted to hear. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Stephvelander, although you could use the Post to reference facts, anything coming from them would not help to establish notability for the person in question, as in order to show notability, sources must be independent. Pretty obviously, a person's employer of 50 years would not be independent. John from Idegon (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything noted. Stephvelander (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Hello! I have a question about my userpage; am I allowed to mention the fact that I am an admin on another Wiki on there? TheFlameChomp (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheFlameChomp and welcome to the Teahouse.

What editors are allowed to have on their userpage is somewhat flexible. If the mention of the other Wiki does not seem promotional, and you are making useful contributions here to en-wikipedia, chances are your mention of this fact would face not objections. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! I'll just put a simple message saying, "I'm an admin on the Super Mario Wiki." --TheFlameChomp (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Posting Original Photos

I once asked how to add photos to my article: LAYTONGKU. I received several replys that didn't realize the photos I wanted to add were those I took myself in Laytongku last winter from February through April. Also there are templates that can be added with specific data that appear in the upper right hand area of an article. I do not plan to add any since I have given the exact co-ordinates for the Village of Laytongku and since this is a sensitive place that is generally not reasonably of any interest to tourists I feel only one or two photos which would be of an architectural and tradition clothing nature be added. Is there a simple way to just click on something to 'add' an original photo? Or a simple way to click on the photo template that can include a photo. Please help...anyone? Please no complicated replies PaLukiWa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. If the images are yours and you are alright with giving them to the world. you can upload them at [wikimedia commons]. you will not be able to take them down or claim copyright on the images once this is done. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 07:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the copyright remains yours, the Creative Commons Licence does not take away your rights, it gives rights to others, but your right to be acknowleged as the original photographer remains intact. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once uploaded you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial to put it in the article. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 07:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger (Dodger67), although you are technically correct, licensing an image under a CC by SA license effectively destroys the economic value of the copyright, along with any artistic control of its use. Who's going to pay for an image if they can get it and do what they want with it for free? John from Idegon (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox issue on article Gurgaon district

Help me on this article. Infobox of this article is messed up. — 1997 kB 06:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 1997kB and welcome to the Teahouse.

It appears that someone recently made changes to the template used in these articles in a way that substituted fixed strings where there had been calls on variables. I restored the template {{Infobox India district}} to its earlier state. I think this action has fixed the problem you were seeing, but it may take a while before all the affected pages catch up with the changes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To @1997kB: What exactly is wrong with it? Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 07:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks jmcgnh. Now problem is solved Aguyintobooks. — 1997 kB 08:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Penetrating Radar

I recently edited this age as it contained a number of errors and missing facts.

I did not remove any info or persons, but corrected incorrect info. I left the absurd statement about rapid recon road surveys for mines it is such a stupid comment. I specialise in realtime rapid recon surveys along roads and 10mph is a little too fast when the GPR is behind the vehicle.(It's also ridiculous in mine detection) It's just as dangerous when GPR is out front as you are onto the target before you interp it.

So who is the "expert" correcting my work history? Radteam Radteam (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Radteam: Hello and welcome. Having looked at the edit history of the article and your edits, I would have to agree with the removal of what you added. While I believe that you have worked in the field you are writing in, your word is not sufficient to post information in an article. First, any Wikipedia user can claim to be anyone or claim to have any level of expertise. The rest of us have no way of knowing if that is true or not. Second, Wikipedia needs independent reliable sources that can actually be verified. We cannot verify your word unless it is published in an independent reliable source that can be viewed; be it a book, website, TV news report, or anything published by someone other than yourself describing the information you want to add. If the source of published information is you, then you should not add it to the article directly as it is a conflict of interest, but you can request that others add it on the article talk page.

I would also ask you if your username represents a group, as it contains "team". Group or shared usernames are not permitted by the username policy. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references. also the book the information comes from is in the sources section. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 11:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the "Have radar; will travel" source that Radteam added here, Aguyintobooks? Is that a published book? I can't find any evidence of its existence. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Actually I can't find any evidence the book exists either. I confused it with another book when checking it at a glance. Most of the information is cited elsewhere, so I'm not sure its incorrect. but I don't have details of the 1995 'No Dig' conference in Singapore. It would be helpful if Radteam could provide the ISBN/ASBN of the book or provide another source. (ping @Radteam:. I can only find two publications by 'John Trust' and both are specialist archeological publications. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 12:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

false accusation of edit warring by hot shot

Hi, can I get mediation or help with an aleged edit warring accusation against me by a cool, neutral WP-vet, please? Ty :) RE: my recent edits in Christian messianic prophecies --79.194.68.184 (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making changes to article

Hi, I've created a page about a living person Iqua Colson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqua_Colson. This is the 2nd time that I am creating a Wiki page, but need clarification before I continue. Thank you to the person who fixed the tag needed to identify Iqua as a living person.

I love history so have always gathered stories about artists for instance in different genres. Many of them are black and I have gotten to know them over the years. Sometimes I read the Wiki pages and am concerned about the lack of presence and accurate information about these artists. Particularly in music and I was a dj for many years where I interviewed a lot of filmmakers and performing artists. One artist who's page I've edited but did not create is that of the dub poet Lillian Allen. These days I have been creating websites for some of the artists. Some do pay me for the website work. Because of being uncertain re COI, I have been hesitant to add pages, my first one was about the leader of the first British reggae band. He was a friend of a friend and I offered to set up the page as there was wrong information being attributed to him. But my entry was deemed to be conflict of interest as I was using my company name as the Wiki, and there was worry that more than one person might be posting as me. But it was and is only me. I changed my name to my current user name to try to clarify that it's only me.

Thing is the experience put me off. But I decided to try again because I am frustrated with the lack of Wiki pages for artists who have made significant contributions although their online presence appears to be mostly promotional or many of the citations are in books or journals that may not be online.

Iqua is one example where I do work with Iqua managing her website. She isn't paying me to create the Wiki page as I volunteered to create the English Wikipedia page for her and also one for her husband as they each are AACM longstanding members.

I think Wiki is very important as an encyclopedic resources, and would like to make sure that I am complying with Wiki rules. I had started going through the tutorials finally last year but have had some family illness that slowed me down, but am back now. So thought should ask before going further as would like to contribute in a consistent manner.

I was going to add a COI message but wasn't sure how to add it, thought better ask first. I'll be grateful for any feedback. Ackee123 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ackee123. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your contributions and your willingness to comply with Wikipedia policies regarding conflict of interest. (As an aside, you can abbreviate Wikipedia as "WP", but "wiki" is not a good shortening.) Ordinarily I would suggest the use of {{Template:Paid}} but, since you have so many people to list, plain prose may be better. I would suggest listing the artists alphabetically by last name (or group name) using the format:

I am personally acquainted with [artist A].
I am personally acquainted with [artist B].
I am personally acquainted with and have a business relationship with [artist C].
I am personally acquainted with [artist D].

etc. as appropriate. To format your list with bullets as I did above, simply begin each line with an asterisk * (but not a space). The full list of your conflicts of interest should go on your user page (not your user talk page), and you should also state your relationship with each artist (not the full list) on the talk page of that artist's article. In addition, when creating articles about anyone you have a personal or business relationship with, you should begin the article from Articles for Creation, and, once any article about which you have a conflict of interest is in "mainspace" (not prefaced "Draft:" or "User:"), you should ideally suggest changes to such articles on their article talk pages, rather than editing the articles directly.

Please accept my apologies for your question not being answered in order, and please feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info GrammarFascist. I will work on this later in the week. I will start with the list. To clarify, should I delete the Iqua Colson article and start over under Articles for Creation? Ackee123 (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Ackee123. Only administrators can delete articles; you could request the article be deleted, but I don't think that's necessary. If someone nominates the page for deletion it can be moved to draft space if necessary. For now, you can simply use the article's talk page to suggest whatever changes you think should be made (and I advise you to prioritize adding citations to newspaper or magazine articles, or coverage in books, as these are reliable sources and needed to demonstrate Ms. Colson's notability). Future articles you create should use the Articles for Creation process so that you can work on the draft directly. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GrammarFascist, I understand now. I will do start other WP pages as you suggest under Articles of Creation. I had read the info on COI, but still got myself confused. Clearer now. Before realizing this, I did add citations from 2 books that Iqua is mentioned in and also a link to an online interview and an article that references her. Who looks at these to ascertain their suitability? The books are print books but both have an online presence through Google books and one through academia.edu Thanks for your patience. Ackee123 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Ackee123. I have edited the Iqua Colson article, largely to remove "puffery" (language such as "award-winning" — if a person or organization won an award, name it and provide a citation verifying that fact), something you should look at using the "diff" comparison in the article's history tab so that you can avoid similar language in the draft articles you're developing.

Unfortunately the sources you added do not demonstrate Ms. Colson's notability. Of the two books, one mentions her only in passing, and the other seems not to mention her at all; and the Capital Bop piece is an interview, and thus not independent or Ms. Colson. So long as her notability is in question, any editor can nominate the article for deletion, as any editor can evaluate any article for compliance with the notability policy. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 11:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GrammarFascist, thank you for taking the time. I understand. Musicians like Iqua are deeply entrenched in the history of the music, but I see that there would need to be more 3rd party information written about her. I am grateful for this. Once I fully complete the tutorial, will prepare a simplified guide to WP for people I know as I have better understanding, I should have got this the first time I read through Ackee123 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim Hussain Pakism

I'm Nazim Hussain Pak. In past days, about 20 accounts have been blocked, being accused to be my sockpuppets. 18 of them are unknown for me. I just want to return to again start as a good one, taking use of WP:OFFER. I can not not return as a Mega sockpuppetier, I say Nazim Hussain Pakism is not true. I'm already in trouble. Please take a look with sympathy. I can not accept those accounts which are not mine. 119.160.98.236 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet those sockpuppet accounts had the same useragent data as you. That useragent data was distinct enough to distinguish between you and a user who shared your IP addresses.

Also, editing through an IP address counts as more sockpuppetry. You will need to log in to your original account and appeal your original block there. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: His talk page access has been revoked so he will need to use UTRS. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useragent data is akin to a digital fingerprint, unless other people happen to be using an identical device with the same browser, we can say with certainty that all these accounts are you. To take into account this possibility, behavioral characteristics have been considered, taking into account shared edit characteristics. Also by your own admission you have been using at least three accounts. You have to wait 6 months to use WP:OFFER, which is not a guarantee in any event. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 15:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe our friend that not all of the accounts identified were actually his socks. Because he was using the Jazz Pakistan platform, his access would have been mixed with that of others with the same model of cell phone in such a way that distinguishing them would be pretty difficult if not impossible (I don't think individual cell UIDs appear in the internet traffic). Further evidence might need to come from unblock requests on the other accounts. But there's a lot of things checkusers know about that I don't, so they could possibly be right. Nevertheless, I see Nazim Hussain Pak as properly blocked and this particular effort at communication as another improper block evasion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the fact that he freely admits to using two other accounts proves the ban was correct. Whether it's two accounts or twenty, it still violates the rules. He was banned twice before for the same reason, and both times he plead for another chance. Maybe this time it will stick. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Adventure - Mission 1 - Problem

I am working through The Wikipedia Adventure with some of my students, and noticed that in Mission 1, there is a part of it - Your turn - that seems to stop working. I got to the pop-up when it asks me to us Edit source (I do not have an option for Create source as it asks) and click it, but then nothing happens. It does not progress or ask me to do anything else next.

Can you please help or give me direction for things to try?

This is the message where it stalls: >>>>> Your turn!

Creating your userpage on Wikipedia is as simple as editing it.

Click CREATE SOURCE or EDIT SOURCE above.

(This adventure always uses the SOURCE editor). >>>>>

Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, FULBERT. I suggest that you report the problem at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Adventure. I am also pinging Ocaasi (WMF), an editor and Wikimedia Foundation staffer who helped develop the Adventure. You may also find editors who can help at Village pump - Technical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Laytongku article construction.

How can I write an article in my own words without it coming from my personal experience. It has been noted that I should write the article in my own words and only cite other sources without copying any text from what is considered published copyright articles. It has also been noted that Wikipedia is not a platform for me to have my own personal information published and unless my thesus/paper/essay in the library of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford University (perhaps on a shelf in the president's care) it is not considered refrence material by Wikipedia yet there are current situations that explain all of these issues concerning my article: LAYTONGKU. First] there is very little information concerning the village of Laytongku anywhere to use as a source to cite. The very few that I found I cannot use and when I did were deleted as copyright material (something I wasn't aware of at the time) also there are no maps upon which Latyongku is found other then Thai Tourist maps of the Umphang District published in the Thai language and one I found from a trekthailand site that offers an excellent Forest Map showing most of the 31 villages in this area with Laytongku included. I tried to add that source and it was rejected. I have not attempted to add that map or any other map from any commercial tourist guide of the Tak Province of Thailand.

My real reason for creating this article was for the specific reason that Latyongku is relatively unknown and more reasonably as a result of the fact that I personally lived among the villagers for a good amount of time and have first hand knowledge and experience. I had hesitated even creating an article for Wikipedia and labored over many months not giving it to do so when finally I felt a simple mention with a Laytongku page outlining mostly its coordinates and location, which in the very top of my article, and not to go any further since my interest is not to stir it up as a tourist destination, as is not in the interest of the Telakan Karen hill tribes living there but give some credence to their existance. I have been instructed to give several sources to cite yet all are probably copyright works. So I rewrote the entire article in my own words and only adding when something was added, as in some information on the practices of animism, or information concerning the early migrations of the Karen I did so by citing those books in my library that I have immediate access to yet I did not quote anything as written but instead when I mention something and it includes the word "Shaman" I cite a book in my library: Spirit Possession in the Nepal Himalayas. It has nothing to do with Laytongku but has to do with a segment of animism and this too I cite a few sources such as other books in my library: Encyclopedia of Religion & Religions and Sir James George Frazer's The Golden Bough. Any other sources I chose from the 1952 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the New American Encyclopedia. I cited: Richard Diran's book: The Vanishing Tribes of Burma, but only as a reference that he wrote something about the Karen and referred to some mention of a term which I wrote about. Additionally I cited Beurgin, R. who has written extensively on the trials and tribulations of what these Telakan Karen have suffered and are suffering. Although I started out using that information not knowing it wasn't permitted in my most recent draft and possibly my completed draft for submission I never quoted one thing from him but only again when I mention a term, such as Phu Chaik, which is a proper title and common knowledge, I cite that that name is in a Buregin source.

As far as continuing with the article I find little I wish to include and had I not been encouraged by Wikipedia would probably not added as much as I have. Also since sources had to be cited I didn't feel recording my own name and source to cite was any less valuable then any other person's work whether copyright or not. Many sources that I had also earlier added since they were on the subject of either Karen and Animist I deleted since I do not have easy access to read what they have written and again since none of their material centers on the village of Laytongku I find no reason to cite them as sources even though many claim connection with The Siam Society in Bangkok.

I do not consider that what I have written in this article is my effort to have my work published. I do not need my essay published. It was only created to share some information I knew would be of interest to the Senior Fellow in the Anthropology/Geography departments of St. Edmund Hall at Oxford University.

I am also aware that my article does not have any templates on the right hand side showing maps, photos or other data as in other Wikipedia articles. I do not know if this is actually necessary for such a simple article that only touches upon geography and anthropology. Yet I would like to have added one for a map (maybe) but a few photos that I took myself and I own outright to illustrate certain things in the architecture and clothing...on the other hand I do not want to expose these people to un-necessary coverage throughout the world and feel for their protection, since they trust me and my association with them I only add perhaps one photo of an early structure in which they live without any personal mention other then it is typical of a Telakan Karen house of early origin still in use.

This has been a very intense experience trying to write something worth publishing whilst at the same time being either guided to do a thing or two, comply with how all Wikipedia articles are formatted and directives to write everything in my own words. I have done that and now know nothing else I can do to satisfy Wikipedia. I do not say this as a criticism since most people well versed in computer language have a certain way of explaining ' how to do' something it isn't exactly clear in my mind in order to do it. This has been the case for citing sources, until by accident managed to find how to do it by adding the citation at either the end of a sentence or after the word it refers to. Now perhaps I might find a way again by accident to add a template for a photo if I can manage to find the page that indicates 'how to do' this.

I do not see myself creating any more articles for Wikipedia. This will be, as far as I know at the moment, the only one I will attempt to do. If it is rejected then I am sorry I was not able to do the thing correctly. I feel that if it isn't included in some reasonable format that is a great loss for Wikipedia and not for me since I gave it my best effort. I do thank all and/or everyone who has tried to assist me in this effort but I feel I need, if I consider it important, to continue merely continuing my manuscript/essay that is only in part now on a shelf at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford University that may or may not ever be published. My real concern is to further my personal knowledge and continue living among the Telakan Karen in the village of Laytongku and if no one else knows about this village then that may perhaps be the greatest achievement I have accomplished. Let Laytongku be that mysterious place like Shangri La, Zanadu or The Garden of Eden. Thank you, PaLukiWa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I have missed anything that you said that should be taken into account, I apologize, but this is a bit of a wall of text, and so I only skimmed. Based on what I did absorb, though, you seem to be basing this article off of an unpublished thesis. For an article to belong on Wikipedia, it must have significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. If this is your thesis, you can't use it as a source. This constitutes original research and is prohibited. You say that the "very few" sources you found you could not use. I don't know what you mean by this. Did they have a negative view? Did they not have very much information? As per the copyright issue, I am not an administrator and thus do not have access to the material in question, but to avoid copyright violations, you must loosely paraphrase the source material at most. Really, sourcing should mostly be used for attributing individual facts, for example "When he graduated Jonathan Archer High School in 2290, John James Smith began attending the engineering branch of James Tiberius Kirk Memorial College ^[18]." and the source might say, "John James Smith attended Jonathan Archer High School from 2287 to 2290, and then James Tiberius Kirk Memorial College until 2296, graduating with a degree in engineering." Notice that the article text does not look the same as the source text, but it states the same information. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Palukiwa. The draft article in question is Draft:Laytongku. This draft has a fundamental problem which cannot easily be resolved, and a series of lesser problems that can be solved easily. The major problem is that recounting your personal experiences living in this village is original research and Wikipedia does not publish original research. Period. The restriction on publishing original research is a core content policy and is not negotiable.

Therefore, the only way forward is to remove every single word of content that is based on your personal experience living in this village. The content that remains must summarize what has been previously published in reliable sources about this village. Perhaps the resulting article will only be 5% as long. That is OK. Most articles about villages are short. It is far better to have a short article that complies with our core content policies than a long article that doesn't.

So, if you remove every single thing from the draft which is based on your personal experience, then return here to the Teahouse, and we can help you iron out the other issues. Do not worry about an infobox, maps and photos at this time. Once your prose complies with our policies, it will be easy for experienced editors to help you with those secondary items, which are not required in any case.

There are many publications that do publish original research. You should submit that content elsewhere. If you get it published in a reliable source, then it can be cited and briefly summarized in a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the question is whether the PhD thesis qualifies as that reliable source, Cullen328 (although it is unclear how much of the article is based on the thesis, because of a lack of inline citations). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that this is a PhD thesis, Cordless Larry. It seems to be an informal paper written by the editor without academic review and and given to Oxford University. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Draft:Laytongku#References, it's described as "a D.Phil anthropological essay", which is pretty ambiguous. Could you clarify, Palukiwa? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 'D.Phil anthropological essay' is a thesis prepared and submitted as part of a Doctorate, they are published after the fact, so at some point this ought to be a reliable source. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help!

I want to ask that how to add a reference i am confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataurrehman942 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ataurrehman942. Please start by reading Referencing for beginners, and feel free to ask more specific questions here at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Help With a Draft Article?

Hi, I have rewritten a draft article about Atlantis and renamed it “Atlantis Historicity.” The goal is to let people know that the story of Atlantis itself has a rich history in literature and human interest. I would appreciate it if you as an editor would go over the content, to see if I am keeping it simple with just the facts. I would like to get a few more comments before I submit it for approval. Thanks to those of you who have helped to get it to this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atlantis_Historicity AlternateYou 17:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlternateYou (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AlternateYou. We already have a very well developed and well referenced article Atlantis that describes the rich literary history of the Atlantis myth and discusses its historicity at great length. Please read about Splitting and Content forking for the procedure and guideline that address such issues. I see no need for a separate article. I consider it highly unlikely that your draft will be approved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi AlternateYou. Currently this draft article is forbidden original research, with you interpreting and evaluating primary sources, rather than text summarizing what secondary sources have to say by their interpretation of primary source material, as cited to those secondary sources. Let's be concrete with one emblematic example—the very first sentence:

"The history of Atlantis started with Plato and his dialogue Critias."^{[citation to "Critias (dialogue), by Plato"]}

This is original research. Critias itself does not confirm it is the start of the history of Atlantis. Without a secondary source being cited, directly verifying the information that Critias is the first mention and start of Atlantis' "history", this information comes from you, stating that the source you are citing is the start of history. The entire draft is in that nature. It may be that this primary source, interpretive essay can be transformed into a useful article, if not duplicative of content already at Atlantis or some satellite article I have not looked for, but that requires that you entirely change its nature, from the ground up. Right now, this draft has no place here. P.S., just one comment on formatting: Do not link anything in section titles. Anything you link should be in the text following the title. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary in La Luna Sangre

What happened to the Summary section of La Luna Sangre ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipamidalton (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not normal for a Wikipedia article to have a Summary section, and I have found no evidence that La Luna Sangre ever had one. It did once have a Synopsis section, which was deleted by Joongjul in this edit. Maproom (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was the first one to create synopsis section. And I removed for too much changes. The synopsis section is too long. But if you would like to add synopsis section, make it simple but short. Joongjul (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to write my own article or not?

I have looked over the notes sent to me, PaLukiWa and in part answered or questioned certain things in my previous Question on Teahouse, however, I have had other issues come to mind and I feel I must identify them at this point. I am accused of trying to have Wikipedia publish my original work. That is so untrue I cannot describe it easily yet had I intended that I wouldn't have started by having Palukiwa as my user name. I would simply have given my real name. I initially and still want my article to be nameless: Anonymous...that certainly doesn't indicate my interest in having my name mentioned for publication.

The only reason that I finally revealed my real name with Palukiwa as my "nom de plume" was because it was indicated that any photos added had to be free of copyright. Since the only photos I plan or had planned adding are my own and protected by me and therefore any confusion whether Palukiwa had the right to add them explains the source of the photos as original.

Therefore I then decided to add my own name as a source since my Essay, "My Experience and Knowledge Living Among the Telakan Karen in the Village of Laytongku." which is also in part 'a work in progress' partially sent to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford University, I felt it was really the main source to be cited indicating that I actually wrote the article off the top of my knowledge whether from encyclopedias or first hand knowledge. I was greatly honoured to actually be able to live in the village of Laytongku in the homes of the Telakan Karen who made me part of their family and gave me the name Pa Luki Wa. Luki for short. I hope that explains that part of my reasoning for this article as it has unfolded as a result of my decision of offering it to Wikipedia. I didn't want a web site and find many new web sites detrimental to the welfare and preservation of the village of Laytongku and wish not to direct anyone to them from my article. Is that clear?

Now and in the first place I did not want to use any source from living people and especially citing sources that can be found on the Internet as personal cites, .coms, .orgs, .inof. YouTube, Christian missionaries reports, or political commentaries and generalizations, and in fact other then mentioning the Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, which gives a general location of the village of Laytongku I had no interest in citing anyone other then from books. Initially I thought Wikipedia wanted whole articles quoted from ready sources, however, I found that was not the case so I am happy that they no longer exist in my article. The books I cited are those I have used for decades in various religious research or research on animism, native tribes et al and therefore my favorites I have specifically used are: Frazer's: The Golden Bough, New american Encyclopedia, 1952 Edition Encyclopedia Britannica, Reinhard's section in: Spirit Possession in the Nepal Himalayas, an area I have lived, and Pike's: Encyclopedia of Religion & Religions. I see no reason to cite any other sources since none really apply to what I intended or have written.

I now feel I should remove both Buergin, R. since there is nothing actually that he has written that hasn't been lifted from other sources and also remove R. Diran's: The Vanishing Tribes of Burma, since he didn't write the text in his book of photography but had it added from lifted info by its two writers. Besides the text is very limited and not authoritative or scholary. I will delete those two sources in due course with my next edit.

Information on Animism, the Karen, even the Telakan Karen of Laytongku is all public knowledge and citing "Pho Chaik" to Buergin is ridiculous since he got it from Paul Keenan's: Faith at a Crossroad and Keenan got it from early Baptist missionary reports dating back to the 1850s and the Baptist's got it from the Karen besides I got it directly from the Telakan Karen in the Village of Laytongku. I prefer not to cite any Christian missionary reports since they are all incorrect and basically give creit to themselves rather then acknowledging true Karen animist belief. The Creation Legend for one thing is something the Christian Missionaries claim they added to the Karen animist faith, however, in actuallity the Bible lifted the Creation Legend from the Animists worldwide as well as the Karen. I cited Drum Publication Group, a Thai organization in Kamchanburi since they are a ready source for Karen knowledge along with publishing Karen-English dictionaries and grammars as well as "Karen Proverbs" and "The Ways of Our Ancestors", a manuscript written only in Sgaw Karen language and therefore not an easy source to cite on a Wikipedia article unless one can translate Sgaw Karen and at present I cannot manage that. Perhaps in time once I manage to translate Sgaw Karen into English which is something I am working on at present.

I am now reconsidering also how much information I want to add to or edit out of my article: Laytongku, but for the moment I only plan to edit out the two: Beurgin and Diran sources since I see no reason to lead people to them or believe they are original sources or even authorities on the subject and merely commercial wanabee writers seeking recognition. If Wikipedia guidelines or rules is not favorable to my interests and procedures then I cannot see how I can accommodate Wikipedia any further and therefore ask: Am I right to take this position and/or is Wikipedia willing to work with my on this draft to make it suitable for a final review and be placed among the articles on Wikipedia? I don't mind if it is only a very simple article with references to geographic information and Latitude/Longitude coordinates (which I have already indicated) as well as the Thongyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary. What more could possibly be necessary or important to this article? Thank your for welcoming me to the Wikipedia Teahouse and the opportunity to create this article, though now only a draft, and my ability to print it out whether it is ever accepted or published. For me the experience has been intense, somewhat difficult but enlightening. I am not a wannabe Wikipedia Editor or plan to create any more articles for Wikipedia. My best wishes and gratitude for what has been for me both extremely difficult, demanding, on a time wise issue, frustrating and generally unfruitful, criticized and dragged to limits I never expected to have been subjected to, insulted, declared a copyist-pirate and plagiarist, yet an experience I am grateful to have taken on without any previous knowledge of how Wikipedia operates. Yours, and Thank you again. PaLukiWa (Luki)/a/k/a Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I get the gist. Firstly you are clearly thinking of wikipedia 'articles' as the same type of 'article' you would find in a journal at Oxford. There are no similarities except for name - they are completely different.

A wikipedia article is a webpage created entirely of information paraphrased from existing published work that anyone can reasonably be expected to be able get a copy of. where the information came from has to linked as a 'reference'.

For this reason, paraphrasing from .com's and internet sites is highly recommended and the best course of action. paraphrasing from books is allowed, but if you do, please give the ISBN number or Google books entry so people know where it came from.

Knowing something to be true is totally irrelevant, your unpublished thesis is also, for wikipedia, totally irrelevant. If a book is unknown, they you will have to prove it exists and is reliable.

Copying text directly is not allowed, you have to paraphrase it so that the copyright is not infringed.

You might want to read WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what Aguyintobooks says, but just to note that scholarly books are generally better sources than websites, where they exist on the topic. See WP:SOURCETYPES. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New NFL rivalry

I feel like we should make a new NFL page on the rivalry between the Packers and Seahawks. What do you think?20:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnylospo (talk • contribs)

Vinnylospo, I'm inclined to agree with you. In order to write an article we have to have independent, reliable sources, but given the vast amount of media coverage the NFL gets that should be no problem. If you want to write the article you might want to contact some of the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League. They are primarily the editors who write and update NFL articles. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to create a artist page.

How do I create a page for a movie artist when the cast name appears, I can click in that artist name? The name is in blue? Thegreatweird (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thegreatweird. Normally an article title appears in blue if there is an existing article with the name, and clicking on it will take you to that page. If this is not happening, the link is likely a redirect to a different article that has something to do with that subject. In some cases a redirect means that the subject is not independently notable, but in some other cases it's there for convenience because nobody has written an article on them yet. In that case you can turn the redirect into an article of its own. To do that, though, you'll have to have source material like magazine articles or newspaper coverage. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help.

I'm trying to create a page for an actor, but they're deleting. Can someone help me because I'm really having difficulties. They've already deleted 3 pages of these.Thegreatweird (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thegreatweird, and welcome to the Teahouse. The latest version of the article in question is at Owen Campbell (actor); the previously-deleted articles had slightly different names. Please do not simply recreate the same article with the same problems, Thegreatweird, as that will lead to the title being "salted" (made so that new articles with that title can no longer be created except by administrators). Each time the articles you have tried to create has been nominated for speedy deletion, there was information given about what was wrong with the articles, but you don't seem to have been heeding those warnings.

All Wikipedia articles must meet Wikipedia's notability standard, which is quite specific and not the ordinary use of "notable". In this case, you would need to demonstrate that Owen Campbell meets Wikipedia's particular notability standard for actors, and/or the general notability guideline. If you know an article is incomplete, you should create it as a draft at Articles for Creation, where it will be designated as a draft and should not be deleted for being incomplete.

Also note that IMDB is not considered a reliable source and should not be cited as a reference in Wikipedia articles.

I hope this addresses your questions. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like my article: Laytongku now?

This discussion is closed. Work on the article, if you wish. Don't, if you wish. Nothing further to be accomplished here, obviously. John from Idegon (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have deleted much of my article: Laytongku, following some rules and suggestions from Wikipedia but also since I do not want this article to read as a personal experience even though my reason for creating it was for personal reasons. Placing Laytongku on the world map or or at least on Wikipedia indicating that it exists and may not exist for long due to governmental and Christian missionaries pressure to either convert them to christianity or to remove all inhabitants, not only the Telakan Karen of the village of Laytongku but all the existing villages, burn and/or destroy their villages and drive them into refugee camps along with hundreds of thousands of other Karen animists among them many fleeing from Burma into Thailand and who have been forced to convert to Christianity by an organization led by an ex-Green Beret Special Forces radical fanatic Baptist with his own army, though not supported by either the Myanmar or Thai Governments. Since my time is valuable and I have other interests please either publish my article or give me further guidelines as to how to make it worthy of your consideration. I have done all I can manage and need to concentrate not on Wikipedia, which is taking up too much of my time, but to my further research and additions to my essay: My Experience and Knowledge Living among the Telakan Karen Tribesmen of the Village of Laytongku, which is more important then any Wikipedia article. Thank you. Now what do you want considering my latest chopping edit of LAYTONGKU? Thank you, Palukiwa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have advised you before, your efforts to publish a WP article on this subject are unlikely to succeed. You should definitely concentrate your efforts elsewhere. A big step would be to have your thesis, or an article based on your thesis, published in an appropriate professional journal.

As for the "chopped" article, it still contains too much content generally or specifically referenced to your (unpublished) thesis, so this material cannot be accepted in a WP article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article or Oxford D.Phil Essay/Thesis?

My Wikipedia article does not resemble my D.Phil Essay: My Experience and Knowledge Living Among the Telakan Karen Tribesmen in the Village of Laytongku, which in part is in the Library of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford University but also planned to be sent to The Siam Society. No to explain why I call it a D.Phil essay. I am a life Fellow of the Royal society of Art and the designation FRSA is a higher degree then any university degree so therefore as a Fellow of the RSA and having read Medieval Studies in conjunction for a D.Phil, which I didn't actually need since I was elected a Fellow of the RSA long before I read for a D.Phil in Medieval Studies at St. Edmund Hall...it was superflulous to consider seeking any kind of degree after receiving a FRSA. So my paper, essay, thesis, or actually a book on the subject would be extremely personal account and that is not the case concerning what I have written as an article for Wikipedia...only indicating a geographical location for the village of Laytongku...I only added it had some connection with my essay since Wikipedia wanted something to find in relation to what I wrote. Well quite frankly there is nothing anywhere that refers to the village of Laytongku...it just doesn't exist other then in YouTube sites on the Internet and I do not wish to guide anyone to them. A few personal articles dealing with government abuse of the Burmese Karen, some info without naming Laytongku concerning removal of the inhabitants of the UNESCO Wildlife Heritage sites an massive Christian missionaries insisting that unless the Karen animists convert to christianity they can not receive any medical assistance...much like the rules of Wikipidea...do it this way or else! Fine...'or else.' It matter little if at all.

I have deleted much of my article...all having been added to suit wikipedia but not me. I do not want my personal information, opinions...though I have many...nor controversal information that I have first hand knowledge of in the article...I hardly mention anything in any book, encyclopedia or even my own essay in the Laytongku article. I am happy to know that photos and maps are not necessary...I don't want to have them included in the article. A simple mention that the village of Laytongku exists and that the Telakan Karen have lived there for centuries som information about their animist faith and the location coordinates is fine...nothing more. No pertinent information coming from any other source is available or acceptable to cite. If what I have left of the article still has personal experience or opinions still within it then I am happy to go over the content and remove all that I believe to be so. I believe the first part describing the location of Laytongku is all that is necessary...history et al below is not of any importance to me to be included. I thank you for your assistance and where to look for what...however, I do not have time to go so are into it since I do not intend to become adept in Wikipedia functions after, or if in fact my article is accepted, to go further with Wikipedia. This has already taken more time then I ever planned for this really simple article which seems from a mole hill has turned into a mountain. Thank you again, Palukiwa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Article: Laytongku has been largely deleted. Is this an acceptable format?

I have deleted all but the main info concerning Laytongku, Climate/Temperature and Geography with incite references mainly from the Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, UNESCO and Wildlife Heritate site. I have no material concerning anything dealing with the inhabitants of the village and therefore no sources to cite are necessary or available. Laytongku village is a relatively unknown place with nothing important to cite ...I have no intention of adding anything more. No photos or maps. I hope this suits the requirements that Wikipedia wants and need to add it to their articles available to the public. If not then please advise what more I need to delete. I would like to end this discourse and debate ASAP. Thank you. Yours, Palukiwa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?

If I were not a gentleman I would advise jmcgnh what he should do as he advises me and says in so many words: "My efforts to publish an article on the subject of Laytonku are (is) unlikely to succeed." Really why. As it now exists in a draft folder...it is simplified down to basic statistics...nothing but indications of UNESCO, wildlife Sanctuaries, and locations along with climate, geography and coordinates of Latitude and Longitude...nothing persona or informational that requires sources to cite. Perfect for public info especially since there isn't any source to cite or information available on this remote and totally unknown village called Laytongku. Is the present draft acceptable and if not what else should I delete since nothing is recommended that I add by the authorities, or especially jmcgnh. Yours, Palukiwa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Palukiwa. I commend you for removing the original research from your draft. However, what remains is entirely unreferenced, which violates our core content policy of verifiability. Please read Referencing for beginners, and add inline references verifying where you got the information in your draft article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my advice seemed a bit harsh, but I have been trying to help you with the article for some considerable time and have come to have the impression that you are not listening to, or not understanding, what I, and other editors, have been trying to tell you. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palukiwa, there is no need to start a new thread every time you write here. Just add to the existing discussion. Further, we put very little credence in your academic credentials, because we have no way to know that you are who you say you are. Nor do we care. Please stop adding your whole name and whatever the post nominal alphabet soup is. Don't explain, we don't care. We are all volunteers here, and posting multiple threads, one after another, seems like you are being very demanding. Please source your article to reliable sources independent of the subject and yourself, place your sources inline for everyone's ease. If you need technical assistance with how to do an inline citation, feel free to ask (in this thread - do not start another). Once you've sourced your draft to reliable sources and provided inline citation, feel free to come back to this thread and ask one of us to review it. PhD, FAC, Lld, dint matter much here. All that matters is "can you contribute properly sourced encyclopedic content to the encyclopedia." We are here to help you learn how. Learning is however a partnership. If you can't listen, we can't help you. John from Idegon (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK?

Thanks for the help. My page, Laytonkgu is my article. I will keep it as it is. See you later. PalukiwaPalukiwa (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Wikipedi acknowledges that the article/page Laytongku is my property and will prevent any other from create it. Perhaps I will decide to spend the next ten years figuring out your instructions but for now I have too many more important issues in my life that take priority.

Thank you for the trouble all of you have spent giving me instructions that are incomprehensible to follow and I appreciate finding out what it involves creating an article. I will restrain myself from creating any new ones...I think anything more that might be said best be left unsaid and unthought. Cheers!

Also forgive me for not understanding computer language...I have a basic knowledge but I don't feel the computer an important part of my life and/or work. End of discussion. PalukiwaPalukiwa (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OWN. The page is not "your property". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palukiwa, it is most unambiguously NOT your article and never was and anyone can edit it any way they choose. When you signed up for your account and each and every time you pressed the "save changes" button, you agreed to that. John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO, Palukiwa, it is not your article in any sense, and it appears that you simply do not get what Wikipedia is all about. Any editor is entirely free to modify and improve your article at any time. That is a core Wikipedia principle and you are obligated to accept it. A lot of experienced editors have spent a lot of time explaining how things work here in recent days. Please do not behave like a prima donna. That is not pretty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you understand the guidelines or not is irrelevant, new users are not expected to, the issue is that you don't understand the fundamental point of what wikipedia is. Which is making it impossible for you to understand the process. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly understand what Wikipedia is all about and I am not acting like a 'prima donna' but just trying to create a proper article for Wikipedia on a subject (geographic location) that is not very well known or documented in referenced sources. You are all strangers to me and I appreciate that you have offered things for me to search for the information I need to create an article. I tend to be scholarly when dealing with any kind of written work, it is my nature, I am not a journalist, editor of any kind of periodical, newspaper or journal. Wikipedia offers many different suggestions for learning how to be an editor, creating an article and many other places to click on for informaiton. I have checked many out but found I didn't understand the nomenclature enough to actually put any of it to use and so I decided to join or start a discussion at the Teahouse, hoping to find a quick and easy directive to understand the language of Wikipedia. I am not trying to be difficult but just hopeful that there is a very simple directive to bring my article: Laytongku my contribution. When I claim Laytongku, the article is my property I merely indicate that I initiated it and was the original source for its existance on Wikipedia. You cannot deny me that fact at least. I also understand if any one adds information that I wish not to be included that I can delete or edit it as the originator and creator of the article. I would prefer not to be called names as I do not believe this is a friendly or gentlemanly manner in witch to gain any progress toward my success in finding the necessary elements to make my article credible and acceptable. There is very little published indicating Laytongku and what is available seems not accepted by Wikipedia guidelines for source citing. I hesitated using recent articles from The Nation and/or The Bangkok Post since they are not appealing news items in my opinion, however, the name Leytongku (another way Laytongku is spelled-there are many different spelling in English, French, Thai and Burmese) since at least the name of the village is mentioned that may be a reliable source to cite so I added them hoping this will suffice at least some sort of source acceptable. If not thenI am not sure I will find any book or encyclopedia where the name of the village is mentioned anywhere. I removed the coordinates that I added since they were from my own knowledge/research witch could not be sourced but in the Bangkok Post and the nation a further geographic location is mentioned as: the Tambon Mae Chan area of Umphang. Although in my article the term: Umphang Wildlife Sanctuary is printed in "red' I assure you that this sanctuary actually exists in that area since it appears on official maps printed by the Thai Government and that I have as a guide to the area. In the Thai language I am not able to offer this as a source. The only geographic and/or climate/weather source I found, only for the area where the village exists, was in the Wikipedia article entitled: Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary which seem primarily sourced or created by Buergin, Reinard who writes extensively concerning the Telakan villages struggle to survive in the World Heritage Site set up by UNESCO in 1991. Other then my own research, experience and knowledge, which is not accepted by wikipedia, I have no other source material to offer. I have reduced the article drastically since 90 percent of it was written by me from what I personally know and have researched. Perhaps one day that research if published will be acceptable for Wikipedia but in the meantime don't see that I can add any more to the article and it seems apparent that no one at wikipedia ever heard of the village of Laytongku which doesn't surprise me since few have. Please let us not argue or call one another names. PalukiwaPalukiwa (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palukiwa, just to point out that you are incorrect when you state that "if any one adds information that I wish not to be included that I can delete or edit it as the originator and creator of the article". Starting an article does not give you to right to remove material subsequently added. Article content is decided by consensus, not by the creator of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have been misguided originally when I began my artifle: Laytongku since I was led to believe I could monitor it if any one added to it so as to keep it clean, however, since all the various discussions at the Teahouse I realize perhaps I made a mistake in creating the article. So be it since now it is too late as I have made people aware of the existence of this unknown village. I named the article: LAYTONGKU since that is its official name as located at the entrance of the village. The spelling: Leytongku is generally as it is referred to in French with the (accent aegue left off) language and for some reason it is spelled that way in the Bangkok Post and therefore copied by editors, journalists of The Nation. Properly it is Lay Tong Ku and the world for village is Ban making it Ban Lay Tong Ku or simply as the village marker reads: "LAYTONGU VILLAGE". I've been there so I know first hand and made special effort to call it what the villagers/and/Thai Government claim it should be spelled officially in English...I believe Wikipedia is an English speaking organization or at least I seem to recall that all articles should be written in English so renaming it Leytongku, regardless of what any newspaper might do would not be correct. I believe I am right in this am I not..at least right on one simple issue? As far as getting a replacement for a source other then Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary I am not certain that is possible for climate/geography but I will search what information I might have in my files. I am happy that the article will abide by strict encyclopedic information and not radical Christian Missionary accounts or opinons which I have found to be the most detrimental elements that the villagers of the Telakan Karen or any and all Karen face continually...a war against being forced to convety from their animist or animist-Buddhist faith to Baptist Christianity...this is the principal element that has caused war and genocide for the Karen both in Burma (Myanmar) and Thailand. Since nothing that I might know or have researched is allowed in the article then I suppose nothing anyone else knows or has researched is allowed either so if that is the case then my article: Laytongku is safe from others twisting or bending information to suit their own personal purpose or interests.Palukiwa (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to admit that my assessment was wrong about your chances of getting a Laytongku article accepted. I believe it is very nearly there. I too am sad that it has been reduced to such a small nubbin, but only material for which we can find suitable sources can be in the article.

The policy regarding the name of the article following what the sources call the subject is called WP:COMMONNAME. I'm afraid it would override your choice unless we can get a consensus from other editors to retain your preferred spelling. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the correct spelling of the name in English and constantly used by the Thai Government it is LAYTONGKU so you might want to search Google and Bing by typing LAYTONGKU as your search. There you will find many sites that also use the proper and acceptable spelling title: Laytongku..in various sites and maps it has been spelled LayTongKu or Lay Tong Ku and as I mentioned the French spell it Leytongku. What French influence may be indicated in the writers/journalists of the Bangkok Post, which must either be copied from The Nation or vice versa (as newspapers always copy from one another often with incorrect information and/or spellings) I feel it unjustified to rename my article from my original spelling and therefore keep it spelled LAYTONGKU. I hope we don't have to argue every tiny point since I feel very threatened by many of you rather then accepted by what appear, sorry in my opinion, a very haughty and dominating kind of attitude among contributors in the Tea House..."Just what have you all been drinking?" [quote from: James Cameron's movie: AVATAR.] "The juice that make the British bold?" [Quote from: Henry Purcell's Opera: KING ARTHUR] Sorry for my (overlooked) typos in earlier missives. LOL-Laughing Out Loud & LOL-Lots Of Luki, sorry again but you are all so amusing. ThanksPalukiwa (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too am sorry that the article: LAYTONGKU has been reduced to such a degree but since there is nothing written given the name but only general information referring to Karen and Telakan Karen villages in the area of the Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary Wikipedia article and in it Buergin does not indicate any names of villages in that UNESCO area simply I suppose in order not to draw attention to the villagers since they are undergoing a struggle to remain in their villages and have to submit to extreme new government ordinances to live in harmony with the forest sanctuary which is threatening their survival to grow rice in their fields to sustain themselves...it is presently a very explosive and sensitive area just having been relieved by a 'cease fire' agreement between the Myanmar and Thai governments...I almost dared not even begin a Wikipedia article on this particular village or even mention it to anyone because of this, however, I felt giving credence to the village worldwide in a reasonable content in Wikipedia it might help the Telakan Karen villagers to remain living their villages in the forest sanctuary where their ancestors have lived for centuries. My own reasons are to assist and preserve their way of life and not further alter it. I am a NPR (no particular religion) and am supportive of their animist faith as they live and practice it. I found my best effort is to supply them with a pain relieving surgical dressing to relieve them from cuts and bruises which they often suffer from their work in the jungle and rice fields. I am also interested to learn more of their belief since I believe within animism (believing that all things have a soul is the basis of all other religions). I realize this is of no interest to any of you nor am I of any importance to you in any way, however, I am very protective of the village and villagers and also my article: Laytongku. I have another three sources that mention the name Laytongku that could be used and accepted as proper sources to cite. They use the spelling Laytongku as well so I will look over my files for them and add them for consideration. Also please note: as per the comment claiming that my article contains personal information is now not the case since I have removed all of my own personal content even the coordinates of Latitude and Longitude since that was from my own source and not found anywhere else exactly as I listed it.Palukiwa (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the spelling of Laytongku. It is spelled with an 'a' by the Thai Government. It also is spelled Laytongku on the village marker when entering the village. Google and Bing have several sites that are listed as Laytongku and Lay Tong Ku/LayTongKu. the only possibility that the French spelling appears in the Bangkok Post and 'The Nation' is possibly due to their research from French sources that spell it with an 'e' and accent ague. This is a spelling error on their part It be a unfortunate for my article Laytongku since any Google or Bing search would perhaps not easily be found and I would appreciate that no change to the spelling is made as I was careful to make the decision to spell it as it is generally found in situ. Search Laytongku on Google and Bing and you will fine the spelling I use is the universally accepted spelling and proper one. I also believe comment no.3 on my Draft-Laytongku no longer has any of my personal material as I have deleted all but general information. Thank you,Palukiwa (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue pointless discussion here. If you want to discuss the draft, the place to discuss it is at Draft talk:Laytongku. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

How do you put in a help me citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookis (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lookis. Assuming this is about including a citation inside a Wikipedia article, you will find guidance at this link. If you still have questions, do come back. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lookis, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is worded ambiguously.

If you want to know how to use the help me template, the answer is to simply place the text {{help me}} on either your talk page or the talk page of whichever article you want help with.

If you want help placing inline citations, there is a guide at Help:Referencing for beginners, and you're welcome to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have.

Also, please "sign" Teahouse and talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Crud

I hope that a question about stupid Wikipedia behavior isn't a stupid question. On New Page Patrol I frequently see stuff that clearly has no resemblance to anything that would ever be in a Wikipedia article for more than the few hours it takes until it is tagged for speedy deletion. I am thinking in particular of "articles" about companies that are written in the first person ("we"), but I see a lot of other types of "articles" about which I have this question. The question is whether the authors of these articles really have never bothered to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and so really have no idea that what they are submitting is completely inappropriate, or whether they know that what they are submitting is completely inappropriate and are hoping that it doesn't get thrown out. (This question isn't about half-plausible descriptions of companies, written in Wikipedia style by paid editors. Those are clearly intended to get past the reviewers.) Is the complete junk being submitted by people who really haven't read the policies and guidelines, or by people who are trying to end-run around them? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert, wouldn't it be better to ask this sort of question at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers?

No. Most of them will either agree with me or agree with the official party line of the WMF, which apparently just wants growing numbers. In this case, I wanted possibly different perspectives. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's openness to new editors comes with a few drawbacks. There is no required training that a new editor must go through before they start editing. We can suggest things, but nothing is really enforced on the front end beyond the limitations on anonymous and very new editors creating new pages (if ACTRIAL is really happening). I think it's a good bet that people creating these completely inappropriate pages have no idea what WP's policies and guidelines are. The trick is to guide them into becoming decent contributors without scaring them off. I don't have a good answer to that dilemma. You can work with some people for days and they still don't get it. Other people catch on with a few corrective comments. The key differentiator, if it exists, may be the determination the new editor has to become a WP editor vs just wanting their subject to have a page on WP.

I personally believe that many people who take advantage of the fact that anyone can edit will never, with any amount of help, be decent contributors, for various reasons. However, if we want as many newcomers as possible to become decent contributors, we need a more formalized meeting and greeting function to acculturate the new editors into Wikipedia. Expecting the reviewers to do that isn't good business, and requires that people look two ways at once and take on two different inconsistent roles, quality control and training. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other unknown is whether new editors are coming here with externally-sourced instructions on how to create a WP page. Some of these are pretty good about explaining the ethos and procedures, while I think there are others that are just cheat sheets for gaming the system. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One class of editors who do come here with externally-sourced instructions is students who are participating in classes that have projects to create Wikipedia pages. In some cases, the instructor does know what Wikipedia policies and guidelines are, and works with Wikipedia well. In other cases, the instructor has given instructions that are in one way or another inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially with regard to neutral point of view, advocacy, and original research. Such class projects can be seriously troublesome, especially because the students have no reason to believe that they are being given improper instructions, and are caught between the instructor and the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's the former in most cases. You only have to observe Teahouse questions to see the frequent misunderstanding/complete lack of knowledge of how notability is judged, which suggests to me that people are writing articles without reading about policies and guidelines first. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Cordless Larry that it is the former (total cluelessness). In particular, I have observed that there is a corollary to Murphy's Law, and that is that if great care has been taken to ensure that a particular mistake is not made, then that mistake will be made anyway. Murphy's Law originally came from the US Air Force, and assumed that there was some degree of training of the people, and that the people all were in the same organization. In Wikipedia, where there are no constraints on the people, all of the possible mistakes will be made, and all of the impossible mistakes will be made. An example of an impossible mistake is the assumption that one should create an account with the same name as the one article that one is planing to create. We tried to explain, but some editors just push on. So I think that many editors simply have no clue and that they aren't likely to acquire clue. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon, and welcome back to the Teahouse. There is no good way to determine the frame of mind of new editors who try to post clearly inappropriate articles here. We promote Wikipedia as the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" without explaining as prominently that their edits must comply with our policies and guidelines. I have looked at hundreds of speedy deletion nominations in the month plus since I became an administrator. Some is obvious "crud" to use your term. Some seems based on the assumption that any referenced article about a dentist, author, lawyer or musician is acceptable. Some are borderline and I do not delete those. If there is a strong claim to notability, I decline the speedy. In one case, I expanded and saved an article. This is a project to build an encyclopedia and I do not think that we should be trying to delete articles about notable topics. The real badge of honor here is detecting, improving, referencing, expanding and saving poor quality articles about notable topics. I recommend that you make that your primary goal, and everything else will naturally fall into place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, Cullen328, I usually find I agree with you 100%, but here in the context of the Teahouse, I'd want you to say that the real badge of honor is helping another editor become a more useful contributor. That way, you amplify the contribution of good WP content far beyond your own tremendous, but (inevitably) limited, ability. Our NPP instructions certainly include discerning when a poor contribution is about a notable subject but that's usually going to be a gray area; we should not be blaming beleaguered NPP reviewers if they occasionally miss one. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is covered reasonably well here. I agree that the former is applicable in most cases, while the latter can only be revealed after engaging with the new editor. Alex Shih ^Talk 07:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a bit off-topic, but I'd like to insert a note of optimism. At the Teahouse, we're used to dealing with new users who fail to read the guidelines, create unnacceptable articles, ask for advice, and then often don't follow it. We may get the impression that all new users who create articles are like that. But they're just the ones we notice. A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of meeting (in person) a new user who had read and understood the guidelines, and has been competently creating new articles, without violating any policies or creating any problems for other editors. If I hadn't met her, I'd never have been aware of her work. Teahouse hosts should remember that what they see here may not be typical. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now and then, we have people asking a Teahouse question at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, despite a prominent warning not to do so; or asking a RefDesk question at the Help Desk, despite a similar warning. If you go to any software help forum, you are bound to find multiple questions that would not have been asked if only keywords from the question had been searched online or in the provided documentation (though the question itself may or may not be trivial, the answer to that exact question is stated in easily-available sources).

There are people who just cannot RTFM. Some don't care or don't want to; some have mental health issues of varying degrees; some have trouble understanding English. But I believe some, maybe even most, simply do not understand the concept of reading the manual. They genuinely want to help, can take time to ask a question, and more often than not listen at the answer; but they cannot learn anything in non-interactive mode. I see no reason to assume that it would be different on Wikipedia than elsewhere. It could be that creating an article is difficult and hence weeds out those who don't care or cannot understand English; but some are bound to stay.

As said above, we tend to notice them because that is how our brain works, but it is still a relatively rare occurrence. I am not even sure these people are significantly more lazy/stupid/bad faith than the average newbie in any other respect. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First timer unsure about process or protocol.

Hello, I edited the plot and reception sections of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Love_and_a_Time_to_Die because the plot was inaccurate and I thought an addition to the reception page might offer better balance. Both of them have been reverted. I'm not sure how to communicate with the writer of the article (the person who reverted my changes) to explain that the plot as it exists is incorrect and I don't understand why my quote from a book about the film has been refused. Perhaps by looking at the page, you may be able to elucidate? Richard White Squishband (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squishband, welcome to the Teahouse. I can't claim to speak for Lugnuts (the user who reverted you), but it seems likely that he felt your additions made the plot section overlong for the article (we generally prefer shorter sections detailing the plot of books and films). You can talk to him about it by leaving a message at his talkpage, or you can start a discussion on the article's talkpage at Talk:A Time to Love and a Time to Die. Either way, be aware that you can't just keep switching back to your preferred version; this isn't allowed by Wikipedia's policies - you need to have a chat first and come up with a compromise that you're both happy with. You seem like a reasonable guy, so I'm sure that won't prove difficult. Best of luck, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked again, it seems that your additions were copied from another website - we can't permit copyrighted text to be used on Wikiepdia (see WP:COPYVIO). Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

retaining Appuraman's article

how should I retain the Appuraman page? how many references should I give to retain? Jay Jefferson (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least three reliable news reports or other reliable sources to show he is notable, and then enough references to prove all the film appearances mentioned. The fact the article is at AfD suggests that people can't find enough sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:N guidelines. the guideline for sources is WP:RS. I recommend reading all three. You can't use Imdb, facebook or anything published by the actor himself because they are viewed as unreliable. Interviews and obvious press releases are also often discounted. Generally speaking, the more written about him in a source, the better, passing mentions will often be ignored. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have located the sources, make sure to say so on the Afd page, as well as explaining how the article now meets WP:N guidelines, accessed via the red template box at the top of the article page. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My changes are being reversed.

I have made some changes, due to errors on the page, such as a website link but someone has changed it back. They stated the change was "unexplained". What should I do so that the changes are not deleted? 87.244.120.49 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to HandMade Films were certainly unexplained – you didn't use a single edit summary. If you don't want your edits reverted, you should, among other things, avoid unexplained deletions of content. Maproom (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your fellow editors are much more likely to allow your changes to remain if they are both explained and sourced. Updating infoboxes is tough because standard practices are not insistent on sourcing for infobox content. In principle, nothing should appear in the infobox that is not sourced in the article. If you have a source for your changes and can mention it in the edit summary, while not ideal, that will generally be considered as documentation for the change. Otherwise, you need to discuss the changes on the article's talk page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

England in 1650

Salutations,

I am writing a book that is set in Europe during the year 1650, and I would like to discover more about the Third English Civil War and how it affected the modern-day region of North East England. Any information about daily life there during this time period would also be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks for your help!

Occurrence of Magic (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Occurrence of Magic[reply]

Hello Occurrence of Magic and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since your question is not about editing Wikipedia, we will not answer it here. You may want to ask at the reference desk, which is the place where more general reference questions, such as this one, are answered. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Occurrence of Magic:. The overview articles 1650 and 1650 in England could be a good start. Or Third English Civil War and the categories: Category:English Civil War and Category:1650 in England. You may want to improve some of articles you come across. Good Luck! Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck

Hi,

I wanted to work on Broad_concept_article on legal theory article related to "legitimacy of law". "legitimacy of law" term Google search is giving 67,800 searches If I put the term "legal legitimacy", out of that 12,000 searches in google books. "legitimacy of law" term gives 1,090,000 google searches out of that 142,000 are google book searches.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says this "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." . I had requested Legitimacy (law) title, that stood declined since probably I lost a perception or english grammar battle in an RM discussion two months back.

Even an alternative title acceptable to community will do for me. Since last two months I am stuck and do not know how to proceed further. Can the community help in some way.

Mahitgar (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Mahitgar.

I can only suggest that you develop your article in a sandbox without worrying overmuch about the title. I think you may perhaps be misunderstanding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (although I've evidently never grasped it, either, when I see how it gets applied in practice).

In addition to developing your article, there may be some other pages, such as Jurisprudence or Philosophy of law where a short summary of your topic might legitimately be inserted. Based on how that content settles in, you may discover a consensus on what to call your new article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mahitgar. I'm not sure what you want to write about as distinct from the existing articles—and suggesting a suitable title without understanding the topical scope is difficult—but would either Legitimacy in the law or Legitimacy (legal concept) be of any use?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahitgar:. The terminology you are referring to is mostly covered at Legitimacy (political) and Legitimacy (criminal law), and to a lesser extent the concept of the article is covered at Jurisprudence. I suppose some other articles related to Jurisprudence could be considered also. I prefer the title Legitimacy of law over the various other options, mainly because Legitimacy (family law) is not going to get confused with it that easily, the title clearly refers to the topic, and is a commonly used term, whereas Legal Legitimacy is both ambiguous and unclear, and using (law) brackets is unnatural and not recommended for this type of page. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: Thanks for reply. Legitimacy (political) is parallel at times over lapping but not exactly the same as of "Legitimacy of law" (For example one may doubt political legitimacy of British rule in India in colonial times, but british did comparativly perform better on legal legitimacy: that is my personal view) and I suppose aproach of people from political/social sciences will be bit different than that of aproach from legal background. Legitimacy (criminal law) is an offshoot and If we have an offshoot then why not parent too. Present content in Legitimacy (criminal law) is not meant for Legitimacy criminal law but for parent thing Legitimacy of law, since I wrote keeping in view of Legitimacy of law. We/I will need to rewrite Legitimacy (criminal law) once main parent article is written.

Actually I tried Sources of law also but while actually expanding I realised that it would not be able to handle entire gamut but only few parts.

Thanks again for replies.

Mahitgar (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend going straight in with the new article, at the moment the topic is split over several articles and blended with other things, which is fine, but in dire need of someone pulling it all together as you suggest. You could simply cut and paste what you started in Legitimacy (criminal law) into the new article to start it off. (you have to point out where it came from in the edit summary if you do that). obviously a hatnote to avoid confusion with Legitimacy (family law) is obligatory. and all these other articles that have pieces of this topic in them will need to be linked to the new article. So plenty to do here. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Mahitgar. Just a slight clarification to the post above. It's quite important but not difficult: under our free copyright licenses, suitable credit requires that when you copy and paste content from other articles/pages you provide copyright attribution in a specific manner that includes a hyperlink to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., Copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. See more at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. (You might note an apparent gotcha—that this post copies and pastes content from that page, and yet I do not provide attribution in the edit summary in the manner I've suggested; this is an exception, b/c the content I am pasting from there was added to that page by me.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Inside the NFL"

It's not really a question. I am wondering who would be in charge of updating the Showtime series Inside the NFL. I happened to noticed the "hosts" are incorrect. Should be James Brown, Phil Simms, Boomer Esiason, and Ray Lewis. Adam and Brandon are not presenters. Adam hasn't been in two years. Marhsall has been replaced by former Baltimore Raven, Ray Lewis.

I don't know how to edit so thought I'd pass this info on to someone who does. Thanks!

2601:602:9901:3913:546E:EFE0:61D3:213 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, anonymous, to the Teahouse.

The fact that you managed to post a message here indicates that you have already mastered some of the elements of being a Wikipedia editor. If you don't wish to make these changes yourself, you could make a suggestion on the talk page of the article with the information that you think needs to be updated. Someone who is more familiar with editing, and who knows where to look for suitable references, will likely be along to update the page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an autobiography but a factual page of Tunku Harun's existence

Hi,

Tunku Harun is from the Royal Family of Kedah, Malaysia. He is the son of Tunku Annuar (already on wiki) and the nephew of current Sultan of Kedah, Abdul Halim of Kedah (already on wiki). This is not a page to advertise Tunku Harun, but to merely acknowledge that he is from the royal family on wikipedia.

Please advise.

Tunku Harun (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tunku Harun. I do not understand what you're getting at. You named your account "Tunku Harun", and are attempting to write a draft about "Tunku Harun". Are you indicating by your message that you're not "Tunku Harun"? If so, you should not have named your account by a title that implies your name is the name of the subject you are writing about. In fact, this is not allowed under WP:MISLEADNAME. If that is what you meant, I suggest you seek a name change at Wikipedia:Changing username. On the other hand, if you are Tunku Harun, then any page you write about yourself is by definition an "autobiography", which is all that word means – a biography written by the person who is the subject. (Though it's quite true that writing an autobiography here is a very bad idea.) Meanwhile, since AFAICT from looking at you edit history and your talk page, no one has left you any messages about advertising, I'm wondering why you posted the message above. Did you try to post a page about this person previously, using a different username or by your IP address? Do you have a specific question about the draft in your sandbox? By the way, any page about Tunku Harun should be continued as a draft, such as in your sandbox, and not in your userpage. That's not what userpages are for, and since you had already duplicated the content to your sandbox, I have deleted your userpage. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, I previously discussed the need for Tunku Harun to read WP:GNG, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#How long does it take for the biopage to go live on wikipedia? Thanks for following up. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the pointer to that discussion GrammarFascist, missed it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a vague statement in two articles concerning the Russian Army in WW1

Two Russian high ranking members of the command staff, Sukhomlinov and Yanuskevich, both have wiki pages. Both articles list the reasons for the failures of the Russian army early in the war, especially the communications within the staff. Both articles reference the bad communications with some odd sentence structure. Sukhomlinov article:

Sukhomlinov was not allowed to interfere with Sergey Sazonov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stavka, c.q. Grand Duke Nicholas; all the briefing with through the hands of Nikolai Yanushkevich, his assistant.

Yanuskevich article:

According to the Russian Minister of War Sukhomlinov in his memoirs he did not, all the briefing with through the hands of Nikolai Yanushkevich, his assistant.[7]

I've only done a few edits, and I honestly don't know where to go to fix this.Pthomas745 (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Pthomas745, and welcome to the Teahouse!
I agree that unclear text can be very problematic to fix, as it is sometimes so unclear that it is impossible to discern what the editor intended to convey. In this case, I believe that the passage is intending to say something like the following:

Sukhomlinov was not allowed to brief senior officials such as Sergei Sazonov, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Stavka, the Russian high command; or the Grand Duke Nicholas, commander-in-chief of the Russian armies early in the war. Briefings were instead conducted by his assistant, Nikolai Yanushkevich.

This is, however, merely my best guess, and it does not answer the question of what Sukhomlinov (or possibly Yanushkevich) "did not" do; that is a very awkwardly inserted passage in the article on Yanushkevich.
Both passages could really use some additional clarifications, which unfortunately will only be available by consulting the original sources. The Yanushkevich article's passage cites a book (Erinnerungen) by what may be a contemporary relative (Vladimir, 1924), but In the case of the Sukhomlinov article, the editor has only provided an inline citation to this, which unfortunately refers to another Wikipedia article; I believe the intent was to cite the actual book (A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891–1924) and not the article about the book. In both cases, unfortunately, verification would require quite a bit of time and work on your part to locate a hard copy at your local library (or perhaps even an interlibrary loan, if they can be found at all) and review them yourself. It is completely understandable if you do not want to take on this task; even though you have found an unclear passage that should really be researched, copy-edited, and properly cited, you are merely a volunteer and are not obligated to actually fix it (though it obviously is greatly appreciated if you do). If you choose not to perform the research yourself, you can try to clean up the wording as best you can and then tag it with {{clarify}} (and fix the Wikipedia reference). I would also recommend starting a conversation on the articles' talk pages about these passages to see if other interested editors have some additional information. I hope this helps! Cthomas3 (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ping @Pthomas745: @Cthomas3:

The peculiar sentence structure is due to the author probably being Russian, and therefore using Russian grammar and some odd word choices. in this case I would guess 'interfere' means 'contact', and 'briefing' means briefs ie. 'communication' and could be letters or orders. but not a meeting. Therefore:

Sukhomlinov was not allowed contact with senior officials such as Sergei Sazonov, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Stavka, the Russian high command; or the Grand Duke Nicholas, commander-in-chief of the Russian armies early in the war. Communication was instead conducted through his assistant, Nikolai Yanushkevich.

Would be a correct translation. (And makes more sense given the article is about communication failure). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aguyintobooks, that makes sense. I am not a speaker of Russian, so the help is most appreciated. Cthomas3 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

citations

Hello, Im brand new and my page was flagged as needing citations. I'm not sure how to do it, I included tons of references. Thanks for any helpMKM208 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You'll find a number of useful wikilinks (in blue) in the notice on the article, including to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations. You'll find further advice at WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a new article ODA watch I am about to write is notable?

Dear Sir, ODA watch is an old wrist high quality watch (SWISS?)which is a family thing. I guess this watch was bought by my grandfather in Odessa (present Ukraine) between year 1920 and 1940 (born ~1899, Russian Eprire - died 1940, Stalino (Donetsk at present), Soviet Union). As long as I could find no mention on the subject in English Wikipedia, I kindly ask you to allow me to start a new Wikipedia article, actually as a title only. This is of importance for me and some other people. Thank you kindly, Yours sincerely, Dr Kostiantyn Ostapenko, MD (retired). Odessa, Ukraine 78.26.151.211 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article with just a title would immediately be deleted. If you read the advice at WP:Your first article it will give you some advice, and in particular you need to read Wikipedia's definition of notability which determines whether an article is appropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that these watches are a fairly niche item, you really need to find some references that show it is notable, or if the manufacturer has/could have a Wikipedia page, a title only redirect could be made. I can't find any sources about this watch, and the watch itself is not a source. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I upload on my Wikipedia account?

I've noticed that everyone has an 'upload' tab. How do I upload on my account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Middleton (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Wikimedia Commons to give pictures to Wikipedia. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and normally you should. You should only upload them English Wikipedia in rather unusual circumstances. So it's odd that there's an "Upload file" option in the menu to the left of every page, taking you to the English Wikipedia upload page. Maproom (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it does give an option to upload at Commons. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to replace files with new versions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charax_(Peutinger_Map).png#file

I want to edit this file and replace it, but I don't know how. The Verified Cactus 100% 00:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At commons:File:Charax (Peutinger Map).png there is a link labelled "Upload a new version of this file". You will, of course, need to specify the licence correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to change logo of an institution?

Hi, Concerning the International Trade Centre Wikipedia page: The International Trade Centre updated its logo a few years ago. However, on its Wikipedia page there is a UN logo. But ITC has its own logo. Does anyone know how to change this? Thank you! Chiarachiara11 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Convenience link: International Trade Centre. The infobox for UN organizations automatically inherits the UN logo, so that is still there, and the ITC logo has been added. --Gronk Oz 09:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk)Thank you! However, since the International Trade Centre only has a joint mandate with the United Nations, it is wrong if we keep the UN logo on the website as well. Could you remove the UN logo? Thank you

Chiarachiara11 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I upload a Picture and link it to a person already mentioned on Wiki?

My grand father's name is mentioned in the recipients in Khan Sahib and Khan Bahadur pages. I want to make page for his achievements and upload his picture on the page and link it to the two pages mentioned above. Can you please help me with that?AliHKhan (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AliHKhan: Does your grandfather meet this guideline? In the sense that he is notable, he will meet the general notability and biography notability guidlines? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he does. My Grand father was awarded the Titles of Khan Sahib & Khan Bahadur which is already mentioned and so must be verified. Those titles were awarded to him by the British Government for his excellence in the service. Plus he fought in the World Wars I & II for the Royal Army, that must also be verifiable for you. Also he was the 1st Director General Survey of Pakistan, so that also can be verified. Lastly, he was Honored with the Rank of Lieutenant Colonel by the Pakistan Army. There were many more contributions that our countrymen need to know so I would like to mention them on his own page.

Then, my father too was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Pakistan Army. He became the Chief Instructor Inter Services Intelligence. Plus he also served as Advisor to the Prime Minister UAE. So tell me, how shall I proceed?AliHKhan (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, he clearly has a lot of background to him. That clears loop one -- that he is significant. Yet notability comes in the existence of sources and references to back up these claims. What could you show us?

Because you have a relation to him, you have a conflict of interest. This will mean that if and when you do create this article, it must be created via the articles for creation process, and when that article is submitted and approved for mainspace, you must not make any direct edits to the article due to your conflict of interest.

^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the request on Article for creation will take forever, I suggest you make a page for (Muhammad Hassan Khan?) at User:AliHKhan/sandbox/COI-draft/Muhammad Hassan Khan and include any sources you can find to make it easier for some to create an article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AliHKhan: Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: Thanks a lot for your time and the suggestions. Also I would like to add that the Sources and References to back up the claims are reliable institutions of a country. Do Wiki Editors have any access to their records or do I(The Claimant) have to provide them?

When you said "Include any sources to make it easier for some create an article" in your last sentence, does that again mean I have to provide the sources? Please clarify.AliHKhan (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how can I upload a Picture?AliHKhan (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AliHKhan: Ok, it is actually quite simple. When an editor says "provide a source" what they mean, and all you actually have to do, is provide a link or citation to direct someone to a document which proves what you have written is true.

For evidence provided by an institution, you will need to identify the publication where it was written. (book, webpage, audio or video recording etc.)

If its on the internet, insert the URL into the citeweb template. Example:

 <ref>{{cite web|title=https://www.mocaf.gov.ae/en/about/about-prime-ministers-office|url=https://www.mocaf.gov.ae/en/about/about-prime-ministers-office|website=www.mocaf.gov.ae|accessdate=12 September 2017}}</ref>

.

If its a book,

 <ref>{{cite book|last1=author|first1=name of|title=Book Name|publisher=publisher name|isbn=0000000000000|accessdate=12 September 2017}}</ref>

. It is important to find the ISBN, and if you cant, then finding an online store that sells the book and providing the link is a good idea.

If its a report, government announcement etc. then you should write down details such as its title, publication date, author and subject so that someone has a reasonable chance of finding it.

The sources do not need to be in English, any language is fine, and you do not need to translate.

To clarify, the source is not the institution you got the information from, but is the actual document you have obtained. So you should describe the document, rather than describing how you got it. Generally speaking the document has to have been published, the definition of this is quite broad, but a personal letter received from the government will not count as a reliable source. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures can be given to Wikipedia at: wikimedia commons. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great help. Almost clear about these things, still one ambiguity, how to upload the picture on this page?AliHKhan (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't actually keep the images on the page (it just looks that way). So the image has to be uploaded first, and then a link is put on the page and the image will appear when you save it. Example link:

  [[File:Wikipedesketch1.png|thumb|left|alt=A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop.|The Wikipede edits ''[[Myriapoda]]''.]]

. for more detail see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. If you have a spare hour, you can also read about references at Help:Referencing for beginners. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an article.

Hi I'm new to this and I'm really interested in creating a new article. How do I do that? Please reply and thanks again 😊 Lulmaxs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulmaxs (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lulmaxs: Check out the article wizard. It will help you with this. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lulmaxs, and welcome to the Teahouse. You probably also need to read WP:My first article, WP:Referencing for beginners, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Notability before you start. You might prefer to create your article in WP:Draft space so that you have the opportunity to work on it without the risk of getting it deleted. Dbfirs 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purge button

I think it would be a good idea to have a purge button on the page: Wikipedia:List of current and old AfDs. I have a script which links me to this page as a shortcut to my top navbar, the other day though, I had to do a null edit to refresh it as it was showing days from last month. I don't want to drastically break anything, so can someone look into this please. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; I've stuck a {{Purge button}} on it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and howdy, Aguyintobooks. Two things: If you have a clock on your tool bar, clicking that will purge the page you are on. Second, I learned that because I added Template:Tip of the day to my user page. You can learn all sorts of weird little known esoteric junk from it! John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion Inquiry

Hello. I contributed an article on behalf of company Haver Analytics for submission which was subsequently delted by an editor. I have read the guidelines regarding relevancy and souring, and provided lots of cited articles and publications to satisfy these requirements. Our page is not marketing material, but ackwoledging the contribution of our CEO and her company to the field of economics and data analysis. Furthermore, similar companies in our sphere have featured pages with apparent less external source qualification:

Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eikon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoWin

How are these acceptable and my submission was not? I would like to link to the draft page to allow you to gain my perspective, but it appears that upon deletion, I am not able to even access the draft space of my article that I was able to edit and review prior. Can you please inform how this can be recovered? I find it hard to believe that I would have to start over from scratch because of rejection from one editor.

I would be in great appreaciation of some guidance on how to move forward with my contribution.

Thanks very much Peteuberg (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peteuberg. Am I correct in assuming that by ...on behalf of company Haver Analytics... you mean that you are paid for your contributions by this company, in a broad sense? (If your boss asked you to do it, it counts as "paid contribution" even if it is not directly linked to a bonus.) If so, please immediately read WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure.

You can ask to retrieve the text of the draft at WP:REFUND to keep working on it, but usually, if it is deleted even from draft space, it means you should start from scratch.

You say you have read the guidelines about notability and sourcing, but I am not sure you understood them. I am guessing here (since I cannot read your draft, and after all errors happen), but if it got deleted, it most likely was not sourced remotely well enough. The point is not to have some or a lot of sources, it is to have good sources, that simultaneously (1) address the topic subject in detail, (2) are reliable, and (3) are independent of the subject. If you can provide such sources here, I could tell you if they are OK in that regard.

As for other articles, please read WP:OSE. Feel free to nominate those articles for deletion (I can do it on your behalf if you give a detailed rationale) if you think they are too lightly sourced, but don't bring up the point to discuss another article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteuberg:. Hello and welcome. I would add to the above that OSE or "other stuff exists" is a poor argument, because each page here is judged on its own merits. Wikipedia is not like social media or directory websites, it is more selective about its content. Please understand that not every company merits a page here, even companies within the same field. In addition, a page does not have to be formal marketing materials or selling something in order to be considered promotional; I can't see your page either, but if all it did was cite primary sources explaining what the company does, that is not sufficient for an article. Wikipedia has little interest in what a company says about itself, but what third parties state about it instead.

You may also want to click on and review WP:ORG, the notability guidelines for companies, to learn what is being looked for in terms of notability. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteuberg:, some information in WP:FAQ/Organizations might also be helpful and covers most of the commonly asked questions about company-related editing. GermanJoe (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has an interesting deletion history, from what I'm able to discern. Alex Shih deleted Draft:Haver Analytics on 6 September, under CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", presumably the version Peteuberg was referring to. A non-draft Haver Analytics article was deleted back in 2007 for essentially the same reason; that version began "Haver Analytics is a leading provider of economic, financial, industry and forecast information." If the draft was anything like that, its deletion was appropriate, because Wikipedia's voice should never designate any entity as "leading", "award-winning", "innovative", etc. — such language, if used at all, must be in the form of a direct quotation from a reliable source. The draft had been restored via WP:REFUND in January of this year after having been deleted as abandoned (i.e. not edited in over 6 months) in December 2016.

While it is sometimes possible to strip out promotional language from an article or draft, doing so can be difficult and tedious, and sometimes the entire structure of an article or draft is promotional, making it more practical to "blow it up and start over". Perhaps Alex Shih, a regular Teahouse contributor, will stop by to shed further light on the state of the draft most recently deleted. It's worth noting that only Wikipedia administrators (not just any editor) can delete articles, and all administrators have significant experience which led to the community granting them administrator duties and privileges. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at both deleted pages, the mainspace version was a fairly typical "corpcruft" advertorial - singing the praises of the founder and CEO and name-dropping "notable relationships" with other orgs - the kind of article that is routinely zapped under G11. The draft version was simply blatant spam. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same thoughts with Roger. There are borderline cases on occasion, but this wasn't one of them. Alex Shih ^Talk 02:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peteuberg. I'm afraid that if you are even entertaining the concept of contributing an article "on behalf of company Haver Analytics", then you have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose and operation of Wikipedia, nd you're likely to hve a frustrating experience. Wikipedia articles are not "on behalf of" anybody except Wikipedia: as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is not Haver's business whether or not we have an article about them, or what it contains. Having said that we do wish our articles to be accurate as far as possible, and if we had an article, Haver (or you) would be welcome to make suggestions for improvement. As for creating an article: you are discouraged, but not forbidden. But please take note of what other replies have said. --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WIki pages deleted: Knights of the Cauliflower Ear

Someone removed a page about the Knights of the Cauliflower Ear. I can find nothing about it on Wikipedia. It had no remarks about citations or references, no criticism that I could find about it's style or quality. If it was removed because it was deemed ephemeral or unimportant, I say here that then Senator Harry S. Truman, and soon to be President Truman was a member of the Knights of the Cauliflower Ear, along with other important members of that organization. It is not about: "Fight Club". Is there traces of the original Wiki post? Can they be restored? 2602:306:8039:CC20:1D51:BB35:513E:3C17 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pages Knights of the Cauliflower Ear or Draft:Knights of the Cauliflower Ear have never existed here. Are you sure it was on this site, the English-speaking Wikipedia? Do you know the exact title under which this page existed? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At [2] it says Knights of the Cauliflower Ear. I can't imagine why the article would be named differently. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir of Wikipedia that page does not mention Wikipedia at all, so where do you get the idea that we have ever had such an article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dodger67 I was not saying that it mentioned Wikipedia, just showing from a reliable source that the naming is correct. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Emir of Wikipedia, I mistook you for the OP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tone issue about an article being created

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

I need help doing a final revision of the tone of the article linked above. I have attempted to make all the adjustments recommended by the reviewers. Please feel free to give guidance and revisions recommendations.

Insulatedpolar (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads like an advertisement. Which of the references do you believe provide evidence that the subject is notable? Maproom (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Insulatedpolar because it seems Maproom forgot to when answering. And repeating the pings to Maproom and Insulatedpolar because I forgot to sign my comment. /o\ GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jornal Economico is one of the biggest sources of media in Portugal, it is essentially the Portuguese version of The Economist. Dinheiro Vivo and Marketeer are also reputable Portuguese sources. Before being recommended to remove the section, I had references to the Ceo of the Group passing from Business Insider and Forbes. This company is a part of the biggest Cork Manufacturing company in the world, and is the biggest cork flooring company in the world. I'm not sure how to further prove it's notability outside of that fact.

Insulatedpolar (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insulatedpolar: Jornal Economico may well be a totally reliable source, but the only reference to it appears to be based on either an interview or a press release from Corticeira Amorim, and so is not independent of Wincanders, and is incapable of contributing to their notability as Wikipedia uses the term. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can i list the Toss Zone on Wikipedia?

The Toss Zone is not on Wikipedia and I would like others to learn more about it. However, the Toss Zone has not been used on many reliable sources. What do i do?Ewonderworld (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ewonderworld: Hello and welcome. Without knowing what the "Toss Zone" is, if something is not written about in independent reliable sources, it will be difficult to have an article about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for just posting information to help people; articles must have independent reliable sources(WP:RS) that indicate how the subject is notable(click WP:N to review). If you just want to write about the Toss Zone somewhere, you might be able to find an alternative forum to do so by clicking WP:OUT. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that answered my question. I have another question. If the the Toss Zone is similar to something that already exists, can i use those references to write information about it? Ewonderworld (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can use those references. But they will contribute nothing to establishing that Toss Zone is notable. Maproom (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would help us give a better answer if you could specify what the "Toss Zone" is. Is it a business of some kind? An aspect of a sport?(like strike zone) 331dot (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ewonderworld At the Teahouse we always ping OPs because newbies almost never know how to watch a page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ewonderworld, is it a fair assumption that you are talking about the sensory learning device marketed by a company that's name happens to be the same as your username? If so, what is your connection to the company? Educational toys are sometimes notable, especially if they have been discussed in peer reviewed academic journals. I would not suggest going forward with anything until you clear up the issue of your potential conflict of interest. John from Idegon (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Un-ping

Is there a way to un-ping an editor? I nominated someone for Editor of the Week just a few minutes ago and I think I mistakenly "pinged him". The award is intended to be a surprise. Did I blow it? ―Buster7 ☎ 17:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Buster7: Hello and welcome. As far as I know, once you ping someone, it's done. I don't think it's possible to undo it. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to User:Benjamin Loomes and Syrinscape

Can someone please give some neutral or friendly advice to an editor who ignored my advice? User:Benjamin Loomes created Syrinscape about a music-generation software package. The article was promotional, and stated that Benjamin Loomes is the developer of Syrinscape. I tagged it as G11. The author replied on my talk page, saying that they would like to try to make it neutrally worded. Well, it isn't easy for a conflict of interest editor to make their piece neutral, and I moved it to draft space, and advised them to ask for neutral help at the Teahouse. They promptly restored the article in article space, and said that they would ask a few other experienced editors for help, and would then get back to me. Since it was back in article space, I tagged it for G11 again. It was then deleted, as was Draft:Syrinscape. G11 is a general speedy deletion code, and can be used in draft space. They now asked me what to do next. Since they wouldn't listen to my initial advice, I don't have any more advice. Requests for Undeletion usually declines a request to undelete a G11 deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they're going to ignore your advice anyway, I see no reason to be particularly accommodating. You could advise them to give up on Wikipedia for promoting their product, and advise them to use Facebook instead. Maproom (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to their user talk about their use of "we" on your talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aand I replied on Robert's page. ~~Avengers~~ Teahouse Assemble! TJW ^talk 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So I see I wasn't the only editor who felt a little unfriendly. At first I was inclined to be friendly because they were asking for help, but this appears to be a case where they wanted to know exactly how much promotional content they could keep and how much they had to take out. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pages with citation links that are dead, including company website

I'm trying to clean up a bit in the electronic musical instrument categories, its a bit of a mess, and quite a few pages I'm finding have many or all of their citation links and even company website links that go nowhere. Some of these companies appear to be out of business and were not notable enough for inclusion wikipedia in the first place, from what I see -- examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroeder_Amplification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodsell_Amplifiers (

There are more, but I was wondering if it's best to just leave them or to at least delete the citations that are dead? If all the citations are dead, and it has already been listed as appearing as an advertisement, should the page be deleted? Skyhenge11 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Skyhenge11. If you believe the subject of the article is non-notable, then you should consider nominating it for deletion. However, this does require you to do some investigating beforehand to try to verify that there isn't additional sourcing available other than what's in the article. Gotta remember that, as a general rule, articles are deleted because the subject doesn't meet our notability standards, not because the article doesn't.

If you're finding dead links, it's usually better to try to find an archived version first by following the instructions at WP:DEADLINK. If you still can't find it, you can either tag the link with Template:Dead link, especially if you're not yet confident in looking for alternative versions, or you can remove the link. If you remove the link, you can either replace it with something like Template:Citation needed, or try to find a different source all together to support the same information. If the content seems particularly outlandish, or if it is content about a living person (of any variety), consider removing the information if you cannot find an alternate source. TJW ^talk 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and locking of pages

Hello, a page (titled 'Karlal') I had worked on for a really long time using credible primary and secondary sources keeps getting vandalised. Recently, a user removed all the sources and deleted chunks of data along with adding inaccurate information and locking the page from any edits for a period of 6 long months. My question is, how do I counter this vandalism and locking of a page that I created? Shoaiborakzai90 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoaiborakzai90: Hello and welcome. Administrators have the ability to protect a page from editing at the request of any user(typically done by posting at WP:RPP) if the administrator feels it is necessary to. This can be due to vandalism or an editing dispute of some kind. Please note that having one's edits reverted is not necessarily vandalism. I don't see any edits by your username to that article itself(though you posted to the talk page) unless you had edited the page as an IP user. A content dispute should not be dealt with by continually reverting the change in dispute; this is called edit warring(click WP:EW to learn more) and is not permitted. The proper means to resolve a dispute is to first discuss the matter with other editors on the article talk page. If necessary, there are further dispute resolution procedures available to you. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaiborakzai90, who has now been blocked for repeatedly adding unreliably-sourced (apparently not so credible) information to the article Karlal, would probably benefit from reading WP:OWN, which explains why it doesn't make any difference who created an article and that no one editor can claim ownership of, or protect a preferred version of, a Wikipedia article. As we are reminded every time we prepare to save a change to an article, once we do so, our work is free to be modified by anyone. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I copy text from another article which I wrote myself?

Hello, I have a question about copying my own text for a new article (page). I have written the text for this page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni

Now I am working on an article which concern more or less in a section the same information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough#Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough I explain:

the first article was about all the works of the author Juliette Benzoni and her books.
the new article is only about her first bestseller Catherine, One love is enough - that is, a series of seven books. Already I believe I should have called the page: Catherine (Juliette Benzoni) because the story is nowadays better known under the name of Catherine. Back to my question, I wrote on Juliette Benzoni page so much about that first bestseller, that I am afraid that I will more or less repeat myself a bit. Yet I wanted the story to have its own article where we can link to.

Its not that I do not know enough of those books, but I thought it would be great if I could use my own words again. But I want to make sure it is fine. I have read so many rules in the last couple of weeks and I admit it is pratically not possible to remember everything. Looking forward to your answer, thank you. Kind Regards Laramie1960 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Laramie1960. The short answer is Yes, as long as it's done correctly. In your edit summary, you should leave something to the effect of "Content taken from the article ARTICLE NAME, please see the history there for full attribution". It's also good form to leave a note on the talk page of the first article that content has been copied from, since deleting that article (for whatever hypothetical reason at some point in the future) gets complicated, because that means also deleting the full history you're referencing. TJW ^talk 19:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TJWtalk,

thanks so much for your quick reply, that was awefully nice. Great news for me, I do hope I shall now be able to do a nice article. But let me repeat to see I got this right:

After I have copied the text from my other article, I write on the summary of the new article (page) that I copied it from ...
On the talk page of the old article I leave a message that I have shared some of the text on the new page?

Is that correct? Also, am I aloud to change now the name from : Catherine, One love is enough to : Catherine (Juliette Benzoni) because this can all get confusing. The page called Catherine (TV-Series 1986) is also about that story, yet about the TV-Series of that book. Thanks again for your help, it is much appreciated Laramie1960 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Laramie1960. While it would not hurt to always do the above, if the content you are copying from the source page was written 100% by you, with no changes by any other users, then you do not need to provide any copyright attribution, because you (personally – not Wikipedia or Wikimedia) own the copyright to all parts of that original content (i.e., outside of included quotations), and so you do not need to comply with the credit provisions of our free copyright licenses where you are copying yourself. Again, though, if there were any changes made by others to the parts you are copying (and without getting into the exception to the exception of whether those changes met threshold of originality), provide the attribution edit summary. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Laramie1960, I don't see anything wrong with your suggested name on the face of it. As long is it does a good job identifying the subject, and isn't overly complicated, it usually works out okay.

As to the order, yes, you are right there. Also Fuhghettaboutit is absolutely right above. Personally I usually leave an attribution edit summary whenever I do it regardless, just because it can be a pain in the neck sometimes to be 100% sure that you wrote 100% of it, especially if the article has been around for a while. TJW ^talk 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the title – I think "Catherine (Benzoni novel)" would be more in line with Wikipedia's policies. See Katherine_(disambiguation)#Literature. Maproom (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all three of you who have given me great help now.

Yes the text was all written by me, except of course little invisible helpers who correct my spelling mistakes or sign mistakes ;-) feels good to know there are people out there who do that. You can all believe me, I look from now on with different eyes on a Wikipedia article - and that is not flatering, but pure admiration to all these people who take their time to share their knowledge. I send all my best wishes to all of you. Laramie1960 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to upload a DVD cover from 2007

Hello friendly helpers, I would like to upload on this page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_(1986_TV_series) the DVD cover from this television series. https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/English/TV_Series/Marion_Sarraut/Marion_Sarraut_TV_Serie_Catherine.htm (I have a copy in a larger size of course, even with the autograph of the girl on the cover ;-)

Can someone please guide me how I have to upload it, where and what I have to write? All I understood so far is something about fair use? Thanks a lot for helping me with this matter. I know that Wikimedia Commens is very strict. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Laramie1960. It's not totally clear which image you're wanting there. Maybe if you can be more specific someone can walk you through it, or you can file a request at WP:Files for upload. Right click on the exact image you want, click "open image in new tab" and then copy/paste that url, rather than the url to the website, at least if you can. TJW ^talk 19:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TWJ talk,

okay, this is again a link to see the cover: https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/images/dvd/catherine-il-suffit-d-un-amour-dvd-1986.jpg maybe best without the signature of the actress. I got this also in a higher resolution if necessary. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laramie1960

Done TJW ^talk 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TJW talk,

almost forgot to thank you here in the Teahouse also for your great help. Without your advices and helpful hand that lovely cover would never be there now :-) I was told to give up, but I said it cannot be, an article is so much nicer with an image. Have a nice day and believe me your help is not just appreciated by me. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources are deemed acceptable for a Wikipedia article?

I want to make a wikipedia page for my late grandfather. He was an important journalist, publicist and politician in Peru, who helped ensure the freedom of the press during years where the government was buying the media. He created the first Peruvian owned publicity company and was also one of just three Peruvian journalists who got to interview Ernest Hemingway during his visit to Peru. Anyway, after his passing I realize that all his contributions to others have not been recognized in the digital age. And since I cannot give him anything now, I figure my way of giving back and honoring him is formalizing his achievements. My question is: What kind of sources are deemed acceptable for a Wikipedia article? Can it be newspaper articles? Can it be government records? Luminous86 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Luminous86, and please accept my condolences on the death of your grandfather. Thank you for asking about sources first, rather than jumping in with poor sources and having to rewrite the article. To answer your question, the best sources are usually newspaper articles, magazine articles, and/or books. But note that the first thing you should do is choose sources which demonstrate your grandfather's notability (as Wikipedia defines that term). Put simply, this means you should have a minimum of two sources (but three to six is best) which are each reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines that term), which are independent of your subject (so interviews with him, and articles published by any of his journalistic employers, do not count), and which each cover him in some detail — more than a few sentences. If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid there is no point to trying to create a Wikipedia article about your grandfather. On the other hand, if you do have such sources to hand (or are able to find them), then feel free to return to the Teahouse with any questions you may have, and to create the first draft of the article at "Draft: [your grandfather's name]"; because you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the finished article, but may work on it in draft form. You should also read the pages WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO for further instructions on how to handle writing about someone so close to you. Again, please accept my condolences. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would Vötgil be considered "notable"?

I have noticed that Vötgil does not have a wikipedia page! Of course, i'm not experienced enough to know whether it is or not, and, especially in the conlang critic circle, Vötgil has gotten plenty attention. I have noticed that other conlangs such as Lojban or toki pona have wikipedia pages, and in there defense, do have books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooys1 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC) oops! Thanks sinebot[reply]

Hi Mooys1, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess it's the same as Votgil which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votgil. Article subjects should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that it hasn't got an entry in the Constructed scripts section of Simon Ager's excellent and comprehensive website Omniglot, which suggests it isn't yet very well known and hence is not yet notable. The OP or others could of course apply to Omniglot for inclusion, using the appropriate link on its home page, and see how they fare. [Disclaimer: I have no personal connection to Ager or Omniglot.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.137.12 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upload gone wrong

I tried uploading a new version of an image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charax_(Peutinger_Map).png) but it compressed vertically and got all messed up.

How do I fix this and why did it happen? The Verified Cactus 100% 23:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Verified Cactus: I made some purges. commons:File:Charax (Peutinger Map).png and the article uses look OK to me now. Server issues sometimes cause the former image version to be displayed but stretched to the dimensions of the current version. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 00:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV}

I've attempted to edit the Assault Weapons page, and I keep getting a message saying that I'm not in compliance with the NPOV policy. My only edit was to the wording, by adding the term arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"

I inserted the word into this sentence. "Assault weapon is an ARBITRARY term used in the United States to define some types of firearms." It is 100% percent accurate. By definition, and as stated later in the page, that term is arbitrary. The term has a completely different meaning depending on the user and depending on the audience. The fact that I am being blocked from making this change to reflect that change is a biased, or at the very least Non-Neutral Point of View form of censorship to an accurate edit. Strizzychris (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to use the word arbitrary in the sense you are using it, Strizzychris, you would have to first show that there are reliable sources that have used the term in the way you used it. Even then, the use of the term in the article would be subject to establishing a consensus to use it. The thing about using a single word is that you'd have to convince the other interested editors (through the use of sources, not your opinion or the definition of the word) that the word is the appropriate descriptor. And pretty much for every source you can find that uses that term in that way, there is likely another that doesn't. John from Idegon (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Strizzychris: The key point here is that you should discuss this on the article talk page. Looking at it I think your best bet is to expand on the section of the article where a cited source states that the term is manufactured(history of terminology). 331dot (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would revert you, though not on a NPOV basis. Your addition of "arbitrary" to this sentence is unpointed, results in a peculiar construction that immediately calls for explanation ("uh, in what way is the turn of phrase arbitrary?") and adds no useful information for the reader.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the subject of gun control has been the subject of disruptive editing in the past, and, as a result, the Arbitration Committee has imposed discretionary sanctions. The sanctions regime permits administrators to impose penalties, including topic-bans, restrictions on reverts, and blocks, on editors who edit stubbornly or disruptively. So it is always a good idea to edit collaboratively, but it is an even better idea to edit collaboratively when it is the way to avoid punishment under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

indiankanoon.org

indiankanoon.org is cited on 217 pages yet no page 64.175.41.75 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, editor at IP address 64.175.41.75, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether a given entity can have an article about it on Wikipedia is dependent on there being independent reliable sources which each treat the subject at some length. Officially, there only need to be two such sources, and they do not need to be cited in the Wikipedia article, but in practice an article is likely to be deleted if there are not 3-6 such sources and/or they are not cited properly in the article. Creating a successful Wikipedia article is actually one of the hardest things to do here, so you may want to learn your way around making edits to existing articles for a while before jumping in with both feet. That said, based on a couple minutes of googling, it looks to me like there may be sufficient sources to support a Wikipedia article about indiankanoon.org, so if you want to get started, I recommend using either Draft:Indian Kanoon or (if you want to sign up for a Wikipedia account) your user sandbox; just click the red link to get started. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article as a first step, however. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. That seems to be a website that hosts judgments from Indian courts, and it looks like many editors consider it a reliable source. I haven't looked into that. But there is no requirement that there be a Wikipedia article about a website in order for it to be accepted as reliable. The notability of a media outlet (its threshold eligibility for a Wikipedia article) is very different from its reliability. The worst kind of lying media outlets like Der Sturmer and Weekly World News are notable, but completely unreliable. Conversely, a historical journal published by a state or provincial university may be highly reliable but not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Keep these two concepts separate in your mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a history of spamming around this, I've had to block an account and a couple of socks for copyvio and spam from that site, will re-look at it if I can find the history. —SpacemanSpiff 07:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discouraged by reviewers feedback

I am a first-time contributor to Wikipedia, but I am still not finding my way around getting my article accepted. The first review was somewhat useful and related to missing notable sources, which I (thought I) provided. But the second review feedback is not very helpful and is very vague. I am not sure how \ what to improve and what am I missing. What should I do?

Huma.hamid (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huma.hamid. First of all, try not to get discouraged. Writing a proper Wikipedia article is a pretty challenging thing to do, especially for someone who is not very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines or Wikipedia's Manual of Style. From your user contributions, it looks like you joined Wikipedia and then immediately tried to create a new article. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this per se, but it is kind of a big project to undertake right from the start. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia and sometimes you can learn more about Wikipedia and how to write an acceptable article by trying to improve existing articles instead. With an existing article you get to see the kind of edits other more experienced editors are making and get a general feel for what is typically considered acceptable and what is typically not. There are currently over 5,000,000 Wikipedia articles and almost all of these can be improved in one way or another. Some editors just look for random articles to try and improve, whereas others look for articles about subjects they are interested and see if they can help out.

Since your draft appears to be Draft:Code for Pakistan, I assuming that you're interested in articles about Pakistan. Therefore, you might want to consider asking at WP:PAKISTAN to see if there are any existing articles you can help try and improve. This does not mean you need to give up working on your draft, but it's easy to get frustrated as a Wikipedia editor when you focus too much on one particular thing. Looking at some featured articles or good articles can also be helpful since these are article are reviewed and assessed by experienced editors and are pretty much written in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

As for your draft, you can always post a comment on the user talk page of the AfC reviewer who reviewed your draft. Often templates don't leave lots a space for long explanations on the ways a draft needs to be improved, but AfC reviewers tend to be a friendly bunch and they are usually more than happy to go in more detail when asked. Just try and remember that AfC reviewers are just volunteers like the rest of us, so they may get busy and be unable to respond right way. They also, like the rest of us, respond better to civil posts than rants/raves, so keep that in mind as well. In addition, the members of WikiProject Pakistan might be able to offer some specific suggestions on how to improve the draft or where to find additional/better sources.

In general, AfC reviewers tend to mainly reject drafts because the Wikipedia notability of the subject is not clearly established. Since you're writing about an organization, you're going to have to show (or better show) how it meets WP:ORG. Many editors mistakenly believe that the way to show Wikipedia notability is to write a lot and add lots of sources, but too much detail and too many sources can actually make it harder for a reviewer to sift through everything, thus making it harder for them to approve the draft. One thing I did notice is that the draft has embedded external links in the body of the article, which is not really a good thing. Another thing which stands out to me is referred to as puffery, which can give an article a promotional tone instead of a neutral tone. These things in and off themselves usually will not make or break a draft when the subject is clearly notable, but when combined together with some iffy notablity they can make it harder for a reviewer to approve the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for integrating Social media links in Knowledge graph

I happened to come across several cases that in Google search using some company name or person's name brief Wiki info along with social media links also appear on the right had side of the search window. According to my knowledge when we want to integrate such links through Google knowledge graph Social media schema codes can satisfy the need and in Wiki's case how we could make social media links made available in Knowledge Graph Trishna2017 (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Google, not us. John from Idegon (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trishna2017. Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

communicating with editors

I have started to add information to wiki pages and now a user (Iztwoz) who is "Guild of Copy Editors" and member of various Wiki projects has kindly reverted my addition. So, how can I communicate with Iztwoz to learn in what way I best can contribute to the pages that he/she edit and looks over? I can´t find a textbox which I can direct to Iztwoz??? /Figgep

Figgep (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Figgep: Welcome to the Teahouse. There are two ways you can communicate with the editor. At your talk page, type {{ping|Iztwoz}} and the editor will get a notification. Alternatively you can visit User talk:Iztwoz and click "New section" on top of the page to add your comment. I must be very clear though, do not copy and paste directly from a source. It's called plagiarism (or copyrights violation) and it will usually result in indefinite block. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 08:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Figgep. I've just finished reverting the rest of your edits (those Iztwoz did not revert) and I've redacted all of the page histories. You must not infringe on copyright and engage in plagiarism again, now that you've been informed of the issue. We take these types of violations very seriously, and as Alex Shih indicates above, they quickly result in blocks. That being said, we are a forgiving community, assume good faith, and if there's no repeat there's no problem. Here I assume you just did not realize you could not take previously written text and paste it here as your own writing. I will leave you a canned template on your talk page about this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fuhghettaboutit, I am of course fully aware of the word and meaning of plagiarism! Was just the first time writing anything here on wiki and did not think about this, since all the text written on Human Protein Atlas about normal tissues, cancer etc. have been written by myself. But, since they are publicly available at our site (proteinatlas.org), I will start re-phrasing and minimize re-use of my earlier sentences. Thanks for pointing this out, one has to learn somehow how this works! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been marked for speedy deletion, but I rewrote the page. How will I know if I've solved the issue?

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I haven't even submitted my page yet and I received,

"A tag has been placed on User:Shelbypaiget/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic."

I've re-written and taken out "puffy" wording. How will I know if it's okay now? Shelbypaiget (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelbypaiget: Hello and welcome. While pages in sandboxes usually are not speedy deleted, they can be in certain circumstances, like if the page is considered too promotional even for a sandbox. Since it was deleted I can't tell you exactly what was promotional about it(an administrator who sees this page will likely look at it, or you can ask the deleting administrator) but I can say that if it merely told of a company and its services, or used promotional language, it likely would not be acceptable even in a Sandbox. Wikipedia pages must do more than merely tell about a company, they must indicate with independent reliable sources(click WP:RS to review what those are) how the article subject meets notability guidelines, in this case WP:ORG(those for businesses). Wikipedia is not like social media; not every company merits a page here, and Wikipedia is more selective about its content.

I'm not sure if you are associated with the subject you are writing about; if you are, it would be what is called a conflict of interest; click on WP:COI for more information. If you have other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shelbypaiget, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like the page User:Shelbypaiget/sandbox already got deleted, repeatedly. It's a good idea to ask – which is exactly what you did. We'd need to see that page to have an opinion though. Since normal users cannot see deleted pages and the page has been protected from further re-creation, I suppose we need to ask an admin for their opinion. Just keep in mind that promotional content is not just a style issue. Related problems like notability also often play a role. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I've just taken look at the last version of the page, and yeah, that ain't a suitable article by a long shot, sorry. It reads like something you'd see on the company's website: the company's policies, how the product can be used, notes on how great the security is, the advantages of its business solutions... The deletion was entirely in line with Wikipedia's policies; I'd have nuked it myself if I'd seen it first. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Panwar

How to unblock and undeleted my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A141:DC93:0:0:1E2C:80AC (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which includes instructions in how to request your account be unblocked on the user talk page of the blocked account. Please do so on the talk page of your original account in the case that the original account (whichever one that is) complies with our policy on usernames. Your article has not been deleted, it has been moved, and is currently at Draft:Alisha Panwar. TJW ^talk 13:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...which has now been deleted G5. TJW ^talk 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Panwar

How to unblock and undeleted my account can you undeleted my account address is here Alisha Panwar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A141:DC93:0:0:1E2C:80AC (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Alisha Panwar was deleted and creation protected. You are currently logged out, but I know of now user accounts in connection with this article that are blocked. If you want to re-create the article based on Draft:Alisha Panwar, you need to file a request here: Wikipedia:Deletion review. Note that at its current state the draft is not admissible. You need to cite all information you give with reference to reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you attempted to appeal here Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Alisha Panwar but your request is empty. Please improve the draft up to standard and re-file the request. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It looks as if Alisha was was blocked for sockpuppeting. Block evasion is a very bad thing, you shouldn't do it and I think it's too late for you to regret. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of Usernames in red

I have a student who is working in a contested subject area. When we look at the history page for the article, trying to get a sense of the interested community, many of the usernames are in red and there are no user pages associated with them. Does the red indicate these accounts have been deleted? Are these users no longer active?Jagrif02 (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jagrif02. Any page which hasn't yet been created - including userpages - will show as a redlink. Deleted pages will also show as redlinks, but in the case of user pages, it's usually just the case that the user in question is relatively new and hasn't created their userpage yet. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Yunshui:Jagrif02 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a source

how do you add a source to your edit? Ilovemathtothe6power (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovemathtothe6power: Hello and welcome. If this relates to the edit you attempted to make at Hall, Montana, we need an independent reliable source(WP:RS) that states the information you are attempting to add. All information in Wikipedia articles needs to be cited. Information on citing sources can be found by clicking WP:CITE. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that since it seems to be a population figure you are adding, you may be able to get information from the US Census Bureau or a different government agency, either state or federal. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

Ilovemathtothe6power (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit individual references that are part of a Reflist?

I have found an error in an attribution in a reference. When I click (edit), the Editing page shows the following:

==References==

...followed by "Reflist" enclosed in double braces. No actual markup is displayed for the individual references, and (so far) I can't figure out how to get access to the individual references so I can make the correction. I've read the Template:Reflist page, the Help:Footnotes page, and the Help:Automatically generated reference list page, but without success.

How can I edit individual references that are part of a Reflist in a page I haven't created?

Thanks!

@@ Line 963: / Line 963: @@
 [[User:Ilovemathtothe6power|Ilovemathtothe6power]] ([[User talk:Ilovemathtothe6power|talk]]) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
+== How to edit individual references that are part of a Reflist? ==
+I have found an error in an attribution in a reference. When I click (edit), the Editing page shows the following:
+<blockquote>==References==</blockquote>
+...followed by "Reflist" enclosed in double braces. No actual markup is displayed for the individual references, and (so far) I can't figure out how to get access to the individual references so I can make the correction. I've read the [[Template:Reflist]] page, the [[Help:Footnotes]] page, and the [[Help:Automatically generated reference list]] page, but without success.
+How can I edit individual references that are part of a Reflist in a page I haven't created?
+Thanks!