Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Page Curation issue.

Hello, I have been using page curation for about 3 months, up until as soon as earlier today. I am trying to use page curation, but I can not get the panel to appear. Also, I can not use twinkle on certain pages either, mostly those on page curation. Please help me. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi ThisGuyIsGreat. If the curation issue is just that the curation tool bar has been turned off, while on a page subject to curation, go to the Toolbox list of links on the left hand side of the page and click "Curate this article". That will reanimate it. I don't know about the Twinkle issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I cant find the curate this article part. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Where do I go to ask for a new template to be created?

Where do I propose a new template?

I have an idea that I think would be very helpful to everybody who reads Talk page sections which have links to sections on fast-moving pages that soon become archived, leaving the original links red, and no clue in which archive the actual item is on. This is especially problematic in links that are old to pages with hundreds of archives. In case this is the right place, I'll just describe an example:

{{link archive |page=User talk:Jimbo Wales |section=Wikimedia project index pages |anchor=WM proj Indexes |next=196}}

This would render as: WM proj Indexes^{(ar 196)}

The idea is that this would put up a working, blue link to the desired section, with a superscript (ar nnn) link which shows up as red, because the archive doesn't exist yet, but it's the one the user predicts, i.e., most probably one greater than the highest archive number in use currently. Once the next archive is created, the link would simply render as a "normal" blue link (assuming the guess was right) with the parenthetical part no longer needed. (The one-up numbering scheme isn't fool-proof, I know, but would work well enough most of the time to make it a useful template.)

As such, this would work conversely to {{Interlanguage link}}, which does things the other way round, with a main page red link, and a blue superscript link to a foreign WP article which disappears once the English article is created.

If this isn't the right place, please let me know where to post this. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mathglot. I love that idea. I think you could make it easier for people to place by having it automatically recognize some things such as the page it's placed on using something like {{FULLPAGENAME}}, so there would be no need for a page parameter. Anyway, Wikipedia:Requested templates comes to mind. I worry it doesn't look too active from the history, though that may be a result of a relatively low number of requests, rather than the number of template wizards watching and acting on requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Fuhghettaboutit, I'll try that. I didn't know about {{FULLPAGENAME}} so I checked it out and unless I'm mistaken, it appears that it wouldn't be useful for this template, as it expands to the page it's on, whereas normally I might want to link from my Talk page, or some article talk page, to Teahouse, for example, or some other page undergoing frequent archival, in which case {{FULLPAGENAME}} won't help, unless I'm missing something? Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It might be useful in something like (mock documentation) "if the page-parameter is left out, then it assumes the link you are placing is to an archive of the same page you are posting on".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Entry keeps getting rejected

Hello,

We have had several rejections for an entry for Nature's Art Village (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nature's_Art_Village) and I'm hoping someone can help us by pointing out what needs to be fixed for the submission to be accepted.

The first rejection notice stated that the entry read too much like an advertisement, so we made changes to remove promotional language from the entry. The second rejection stated that the entry failed to show notability through secondary sources. We then added links to articles in several local and regional news publications to back up the content. We then got another rejection stating that the entry read too much like and advertisement. This is a bit frustrating since we see other area attractions like Crystal Mall, Mystic Aquarium and Mystic Seaport who have entries with fewer references to secondary sources.

Would someone be able to help us by explaining which language is problematic? Many thanks for your help!

-Chelsea

CNN519 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@CNN519: - who is "we"/"us" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Invited to teahouse by a bot

If you look at my talk page, you'll see that I was invited by the user Soni, but (I think) via a bot. This has caused some questions in my mind.

If a bot invited me (on behalf of Soni), then does Soni even know I exist? How is the best way to reply to Soni? For example, do I reply to the invite on my own talk page, or go to Soni's talk page and add a comment? If on my own page, would Soni somehow be notified of my reply, and if so, would it actually go to the bot?

And finally, this comment/reply method of editing the page seems weird to me. I would think there would be a more "message board" kind of functionality with proper threads and reply box, but that isn't the case. Am I just not getting it yet, or do most people feel the same? Thanks! Worker9 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hell, Worker9, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I am an actual human host, making an individual response.

Yes the invitation was automatically delivered via a script (bot) It uses a set of criteria to find users likely to benefit by a Teahouse invite, and invites up to 100 users per day, as can be seen at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database_reports/Automated_invites page. That page says "Currently, all automated invites are signed by a Teahouse host." I think the host whose name is used is randomly selected from the list of experienced editors who have registered as Hosts. By so registering they agree to have invitations sent in their names. (Previously hosts were expected to send such invites manually, but it often didn't get done.)

This "comment/reply" format is the method used on almost all Wikipedia talk / discussion pages. It is more like an email or USENET exchange than a web "forum". There is a proposed replacement that would be more forum-like, but it has had problems handling the many features and functionalities that are sometimes needed on Wikipedia discussion pages, and I do not look to see it implemented any time soon. This method does have some advantages, in that it is the same one used to edit actual Wikipedia articles and other non-talk pages.

In any case you are here now. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works or how to accomplish some result in editing it, please do ask here. Also, feel free to read the questions posted by others and the responses. You may find some of them helpful. DES ^(talk) 18:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi, and thanks for the response. As far as replying to the thread (like I am now) so that you know I have replied, how best do I do that? In this case, I'm trying the "reply to" template with your user name, assuming it will send you a notification of this message. Thanks again. Worker9 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Worker9. Yes, that worked. There are several templates which can be used to notify another editor of a comment on a talk page. These include {{U}}, {{ping}}, and {{reply to}}. They have slightly different formatting, but they all do basically the same thing, create a link to a user page. For the matter of that it can be done without using a template: [[User:Example]] would render as User:Example and would notify Example (if there were such a user). All of these will only work as part of a signed edit, however -- going back and adding them to an existing edit, or going back and adding a signature to an edit that contains one of these will not trigger the notification. See Wikipedia:Notifications for more detail. Also one can notify another editor by placing {{tb}} on that editor's user talk page -- this was created before notifications were implemented, but is still used.

However, in many cases one may assume that if another editor is interested s/he will put the page on his or her watchlist, or just visit the page to check it. For instance, i visit the Teahouse fairly often, and so will generally see anything that mentions me or responds to my comments even if no one triggers a notification for me. But using a notification is a good way to alert another editor. Some editors find them annoying, and ask others not to ping them, but that is not too common. I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk) 21:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is great info. Thank you. Worker9 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

semi related discussion on inactive hosts

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge#Inactive hosts and bot signatures. DES ^(talk) 23:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Misspent Youth UK Punk Band Article rejected

Hi I am completely new to writing for wikipedia and was redirected to you here. As a collector of music for many years and somebody who often uses Wikipedia to look up information on many musicians/bands etc I noticed there are some omissions so felt that with my own personal knowledge I might be able to clear up a few holes. However on writing my first article on 1976 UK Punk Band Misspent Youth I seem to be coming up against problems regarding acceptance of cited support? I have used quotes from a well recognised published book by Borderline Books, also referenced 2 major websites plus other references but not sure really what else I can use, I felt I had covered points section 1 point 7 and recordings section point 5 on artist notability and relevance fairly well. I would appreciate any help you might give me as I would like to carry on writing such articles Kind Regards Geoff Bubbles (Geoff Bubbles (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Geoff Bubbles, and welcome to the Teahouse. The primary issue here is notability. (see also WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.) This normally requires "significant coverage" in multiple independent reliable sources. So let's look at the sources currently in Draft:Misspent Youth (Band). www.punk77.co.uk seems to be a one-person hobby/fan site, and as such would not be considered a Reliable source unless the author is a known expert with a reputation for reliability on the subject. Can you indicate anything about this site's reputation or that of its author? popsike.com seems to be a search engine leading to auction results. As such I would think it constitutes "user-generated content" with no editorial control, and so again would not count as a reliable source. (Note that even if he site were considered reliable, a Wikipedia citation should never be to a search query, because the result of that can change without notice. It should always be to a specific publication or a reasonably stable web site that could be archived.) boredteenagers.co.uk. appears to be a series of album/track listings, with no commentary or analysis of any sort. It therefore does not provide "significant coverage" even if it is considered reliable for the facts it does state. That leaves only the Alex Ogg book. This looks as if it might be a reliable source. It is held by major libraries, although I know nothing about the reputation of the publisher: "Cherry Red Books". Indeed I see it is held by a library near me, and so i could in theory obtain and verify the content. However, it is at best a single source. Multiple reliable sources really are needed here, and none of the other sources cited so far qualifies. Finding and adding additional reliable sources should address this issue. DES ^(talk) 14:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Update of Wikipedia articles on Roland Berger

Dear Wikipedia-Team,

Roland Berger has recenetly rebranded its business. Therefore, there are many deviations in the Wikipedia articles as they still contain the old firm name/ logo etc. I already proposed changes on the relevant Wikipedia pages (Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, Roland Berger and Burkhard Schwenker). I could also provide you with new sources as some of the existing ones are dead links. Could you be so kind and assist me with the implementations of the changes?

Thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards,

--Franziska Poszler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franziska Poszler (talk • contribs) 12:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Franziska Poszler, and welcome to the Teahouse. (Please always "sign" your comments here with four ~~~~ tildes.) I will review the requested edits to see whether they can be sourced and are thus appropriate for Wikipedia. If so, I will make the edits. I will probably check myself for updated URLs for links that have gone dead, but yes, if you already know working URLs to replace dead links, please list them, either here or on the appropriate article talk pages. Thank you for respecting Wikipedia's policy discouraging users with a conflict of interest from editing pages about them or their organizations directly. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits template?

If I have come accross an editor that has been making a LOT of non-minor edits and marking them all as minor, is there like a bracketed template I can place on their user:talk to warn them against doing so in an elegant way? I don't know where I'd find something like that... Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, and welcome to the Teahouse. You could use {{subst:uw-minor}}. This and many other warning and notification templates are listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Do be careful that when you use a template, it actually says what you mean to say -- you are as responsible for the message as if you had typed it manually. But in this case I suspect that {{Uw-minor}} will do the job. Please remember to subst it, as shown above. DES ^(talk) 13:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lost my Account

i wrote an article on an Account.... username of that account was " tariqqureshi " , when i created that account i didnt give any email address because it was written optional on it. now i forgot the password... what can i do please help me!! Ahmadabdullahmustafai (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahmadabdullahmustafai, welcome to the Teahouse. The account User:Tariqqureshi was created in 2006 but Special:Contributions/Tariqqureshi shows it has never edited. Do you mean User:Tariqqureshiadv? That account was created today and has the edits at Special:Contributions/Tariqqureshiadv. If you don't know the password then you cannot retrieve any of the accounts. You could write on the user pages that both accounts were made by you. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

how do I add vision / mission statement to a page?

Please guide me how I can add vision or mission statement on a wiki page. ThanksWillsparkles (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't. Corporate mission statements do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Willsparkles, In some cases, they are included in a form such as "XYZ company states that its mission is ..." with a citation to some company publication. However this should only be done if such a statement is relativly brief and the statement is not overly promotional, and if the article is substantial enough that the mission statement will not get undue weight by its very presence. If in doubt, leave it out. DES ^(talk) 12:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Body of Knowledge and Certification

I love the Wiki idea and community. Is there some body of knowledge or certification around this? Really engaging stuff! Well done!!Olufemi Ariyo (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Olufemi Ariyo, and welcome to the Teahouse (and Wikipedia). I dream of horses has left a bunch of links on your user page that should be of use to you in learning your way around the Wikipedia community and our policies and guidelined. Happy editing, and feel free to ask any more specific questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My article was deleted immediately!

Hello, I am Ahmad Abdullah's secretary, He is a Well known Karachi business man. I created new account on wikipedia today, I was writing the article mean while i saw the save button, so the article was saved... soon after a minute or less..the article was canceled due to some violation. please guide me about this. Thanks Ahmadabdullahmustafai (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahmadabdullahmustafai. Do you know what the title of the article was? Knowing that would help us understand why it was deleted. There is an existing article called Ahmad Abdullah, but that appears to be about someone else. What I can say, though, is that you appear to have a clear conflict of interest here, as Ahmad Abdullah is your boss. The relevant guidelines here are set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Note that the page states, "If you have a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahmadabdullahmustafai, and welcome to the Teahouse. Ahmad Abdullah Qureshi was deleted by RHaworth, a very experienced admin, with the logged reason "A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". The total content was: "Ahmad Abdullah Qureshi (Urdu: احمد عبداللہ قریشی) is presently student of class 8.He was born in 2001 in the city Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan.". That text does not in any way indicate why this person is significant, much less notable. Are you really the secretary of a 15-year-old? Or is this perhaps your boss's son or other relation? (This is the only article that your account has saved that has been deleted.) In any case, please read our Golden Rule and Your First Article before trying to create an article in future. I advise that you use the Articel Wizard and the Articles for creation process for your first few articles at least. Also, I endorse what Cordless Larry said above, and I also ask you to note that https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use requires that anyone editing with a financial conflict of interest disclose this. {{paid}} may be used for such disclosures. DES ^(talk) 12:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(fixed link to WP:42) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I start a discussion about functional changes that might be made to wikipedia

I am an extremely frequent user of wikipedia and over the years I have learned to keep track of citations in order to determine which information I can trust as fact.

I believe that there is a major problem with the overuse of [citation needed]. While I have learned to notice this overtime I believe that a majority of casual users do not. I saw a discussion on this topic on the citation needed page however it was all about controlling its abuse, which is in itself a daunting task if the feature is not outright removed.

I want to suggest and discuss a format change for any information still requiring a citation. At the very least [citation needed] should be in red like with missing citations, however I believe that something more noticeable like having all un cited text in red would do a much better job at solving the problem. Thesowismine (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thesowismine. This is something that would need to be discussed at the Village Pump Proposals board - the Village Pump is Wikipedia's general discussion area for project-related topics. Major changes to functionality are generally put forward there for consideration by the editing community before being implemented. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki page flagged again for promotional content

Dear Wiki -

Somewhere around March 2015, our company's wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_and_Resources_Institute) was flagged as having promotional content. To resolve it, certain corrective changes were made to conform to Wikipedia's standards. The re-written article was approved, until recently, when the article has been flagged once again as having promotional content.

This comes as a surprise, as we have not made any recent changes on page which warranted the change of the promotional content flag suddenly.

Can Wiki please help and guide us in identifying the issue(s) which we are missing in handling the flag correctly, so that it is no longer flagged as being promotional?

It would be very helpful if you can please point out specific instances in the Wiki page which is being deemed as promotional so that necessary action can be taken from our side to resolve the same.

For your reference, this is the Wiki page being referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_and_Resources_Institute

Thanks in Advance!!

Neeshu30 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Neeshu30. The first paragraph of the article includes the words, "with a focus on formulating local- and national-level strategies for shaping global solutions to critical issues." That is vague, promotional language filled with meaningless buzzwords. That kind of language belongs in a marketing brochure, not in a neutral encyclopedia article.

Since you speak of "our company", you clearly have a conflict of interest regarding this article. Editors with a conflict of interest almost always have a very hard time editing neutrally or detecting promotional content which is quite obvious to uninvolved editors. You should not be editing the article directly, but should instead propose well-referenced changes on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Neeshu30, I think you have also perhaps misunderstood how Wikipedia works when you say that "The re-written article was approved, until recently, when the article has been flagged once again as having promotional content". Edits to Wikipedia articles aren't "approved" in any real sense, they just stand until another editor comes along and changes them or, as in this case, decides to flag the content as problematic in some way. As there are millions of articles on the English Wikipedia and rather fewer active editors, it can take time for these things to be picked up on. That doesn't mean that article content is "approved" by anyone in the meantime though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks wiki for your guidance.Neeshu30 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bio on existing article of person

The article, "Ohl" with the complete name of: Russell Ohl is about an American engineer. I'm happy someone (unknown to me) created the article. It has special meaning to me because he is my grandfather and I would like to add some “Bio” to the article if this is appropriate. I've been a member for a few years however, have not taken my (valuable) time to learn all the ins and outs of Wiki editing. I read some of the rules saying you should not post about yourself so thought to ask here.Karl in Spokane (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Karl Shoemaker. Your grandfather Russell Ohl, the inventor of the silicon photovoltaic cell 75 years ago, is definitely a notable person and it would be wonderful to have a greatly expanded article about him. However, you cannot expand the article based on your unpublished personal family memories. We call that original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You must rely on summarizing what published reliable sources have written about him. Detailed newspaper obituaries may provide a good overview of his life, for example. Please read Your first article. Even though you will be expanding an existing article instead of beginning a new one, I think you will find a lot of useful advice there. And please free to return to the Teahouse at any time with more specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I cut and paste from a sandbox to an existing article?

Hi! I've rewritten an article that is under discussion for deletion that I believe addresses the issues cited. What I'd like to do is add to or replace the existing stub that doesn't have much content without rewriting everything and the citations. It doesn't appear appropriate to "move" my rewrite since the page already exists. It seems the best way is to copy the article then paste it into the one that needs help. What is the best way to do this? Thanks!PH Solution (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PH Solution and welcome to the Teahouse. If you really want to do a total replacement, and no one but you has edited the sandbox you have been using, you may copy the wiki-text of the sandbox and paste it over the wiki-text of the article, or the relevant part of that text. Since the article is under deletion discussion, you should post to that discussion explaining what you did and why. DES ^(talk) 01:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I'm the only one who edited and I already put a message a week ago on the deletion discussion that I wanted to take a crack at a rewrite. I guess my original question is a bit more simplistic- do i just open the wiki-text on both pages and do a "right-click" cut, then paste? Or is there some more formal method?PH Solution (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, PH Solution, that will be fine. If any contributions by other editors were included, more formalites would be needed, and a WP:MOVE might well be better. But in this specific case, simple cut and paste is ok.

By the way, you have twice now blanked your own comment (and the second time the entire thread) here. Did you intend to do that? It is not usually a good idea. DES ^(talk) 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Something weird is going on with my computer. I've twice had my response not show up and other times the whole text blanks. Must be poldergeists. But I appreciate your help and now know what to do.PH Solution (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Need more links template

Hello. My question is for pages that have the 'more links' template, how many links does an article need to have that template removed? Thanks. New User Person (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, New User Person, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is a judgement call. Terms which might help or inform the reader should be linked. Any editor can remove such a tag if s/he thinks in good faith that additional links would not be helpful. I have added some links and removed that tag, but added some other maintenance tags which seem appropriate in my view. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

However, don't go overboard! Link things that would help the average reader, but not those that every reader should know. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the helpful responses. New User Person (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How can I move a page created in my sandbox to a main article

Hello,

I would like feedback on the first article I have created under User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottelli and how can I move this article from my sandbox to a main article. I've seen a video with explanation and under User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottellibut it does not appear the "move" tab in the upper right of my page.

Please I need help! Thank you - Lumeigpo Lumeigpo (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lumeigpo and welcome to the Teahouse. You can't move a page until your account is autoconfirmed. This happens after your account has been used for at least 10 edits, and is more than 4 days old.

But User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottelli isn't ready for mainspace in any case. It still has significant amounts of promotional language such as "Yo Limpio a Puerto Rico programs achieve success in the island making YLPR the most call to the action and educational rganization in the Caribbean.", "capturing the attention of the whole island,", and "This organizations have the unwavering support of celebrities, including Oscar & Grammy winners, to serve as spokespeople for education campaigns, the support of several organizations, companies, leading scientific, and educational experts.". There are statements in need of citations. The draft needs copy-editing for spelling, grammar, and idiomatic English. Some of the citations need improved metadata, and duplicate citations need to be combined. See Referencing for Beginners. You shouldn't try to move this to mainspace until these issues are fixed, in my view. DES ^(talk) 20:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @Lumeigpo: DES ^(talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lumeigpo: Welcome and thanks for stopping by. The "move" function is part of a suite of tools which are throttled to prevent abuse, users need to achieve "autoconfirmed" status in order to move a page. Autoconfirmed status happens once your account is over 4 days old and you have at least 10 actions. If you'd like to help out some other Wikipedia articles for a few days until you reach that threshold, the move button will automatically appear for you once you get there. Or, if you just want someone who is autoconfirmed to move the page for you, let us know and someone can do that post haste. --Jayron32 20:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lumeigpo and Jayron32:, what Jayron32 said above is correct as far as it goes. But in this particular case, i strongly advise against moving or asking anyone to move the page into mainspace until more of the issues above are fixed. It could be moved into draftspace, say at Draft:Ignacio Barsottelli. As it stands, if moved into mainspace it might be speedy deleted as promotional. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How to protect against libel-slander attacks from competitor?

Take it somewhere else please

Help is needed I do not understand the Wikipedia maze, but I was advised to submit this question/situation to this discussion page. How do you protect against a competitor that commits libel-slander against you and then builds another page for self-advertisement for the purpose of promoting their page on Wikipedia as well as advertise for search engines? I put a picture summary report together with a small amount of historical background – please click to view summary report: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf I have identified tag teaming efforts of editor Nefariousski in latest Impact Self-Defense attack against Model Mugging. In her edit comments she is loaded with hypocritical contradictions such as COI, biographies of living persons (BLP), lack of editing balance, failure of editing in a NPOV, disregard to consensus for disputes, using an unreliable source to make libel-slanderous statements. And she is involved in a campaign to promote a competitor, Impact Self-Defense. Nefariousski-Impact tag team planned to link the Wikipedia ESD page to a derogatory Model Mugging Wikipedia page highlighting a tabloid source written with accusation heading, “controversy”. Impact also wrote a promotional page and pasted it into Nefariousski’s Sandbox where it has remained. They are also getting around Wikipedia rules against self-promotion and using Wikipedia for increasing search engine ranking by keeping their page in the sandbox status - FIRST PAGE on search results for "Empowerment Self-Defense". PLEASE CLICK the pdf link as evidence to view images in summary report of her COI campaign promoting Impact Self-Defense - again: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf Is this "nefarious" behavior? Should she be blocked and all her edits scrutinized? Does Wikipedia see a problem with hypocritical editor(s) attacking others for self-promotion of themselves or associates? Thank you for your assistance: (Wikiipedia-posting (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @Wikiipedia-posting: Hello there and welcome to the teahouse! One of the first things you do is stop tossing around claims of slander. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC) I think, instead of bringing these accusations to this forum, which is the wrong forum, you might be better advised to ask us here what the appropriate forum is. Please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG when raising matters of this nature. Fiddle Faddle 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Yikes. Sorry you're so upset, hopefully this will clear things up. 1. I'm not a "her". 2. I'm not affiliated with nor do I work for any self defense group. I'm just a regular ol Wikipedian who works in the Tech sector that has an interest in various topics. 3. I've been editing in good faith as the talk page will show, nothing I've added or changed on the page is unsourced, hyperbolic, or in violation of anything. If you or anyone else disagrees I'd be more than happy to discuss that on the talk page. 4. You not agreeing with something that is properly sourced doesn't make it NPOV. Your personal opinion of the events or the subject of the interview doesn't counter published and generally accepted sources, I'm sorry but that's just now how an encyclopedia operates. You can't just arbitrarily delete things you don't like because you don't agree with them. 5. My sandbox is exactly that. It's a place I go to put together potential articles that may or may not ever go anywhere. I think you give me way too much credit if you think a draft of something in my sandbox is actually somehow manipulating SEO against your company. 6. Although It's certainly challenging to have NPOV discussions with someone who's admittedly working for the company/group the page is about I've always been open and frequently used the talk page to detail / explain any editing and I'm more than happy to take the discussion to your talk page since this not the right venue Nefariousski (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hi, so I just joined Wikipedia yesterday, and I tried to add a few things to some pages with sources, but people kept deleting them saying they were't "reliable sources." What exactly is a reliable source? Smoore95GAGA (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Smoore95GAGA and welcome to The Teahouse. A reliable source is a respected journal or newspaper or a book by a respected publisher. It has a reputation for editorial oversight, accuracy and fact-checking its information. You would not want to use The National Enquirer. A blog, in general, is not considered reliable. Many web sites would not be considered reliable. This incldes Wikipedia. And you would want the source to be independent of its subject. No press releases, no interviews, no company web sites for anything but non-controversial information. And at this stage you want extensive coverage of the article subject, not trivial mentions. See more at WP:RS.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: if you use the more selective books.google.com or news.google.com that tends to bring a pretty high ratio of usable sources to non usable sources. There will still be non acceptable sources from both (blogs, and Wikipedia scrapings passed off as "books" for example) and you will miss a bunch of potentially reliable source coverage (such as major magazines) but they are good places to start than just a plain google search. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of MicroAssist

Hi, I've created a article for MicroAssist. Unfortunately, the article didn't get approval. I used neutral wording and and cited from different sources including news. I've visited other companies' pages to see what they have and been accepted and revised mine several times. But still the content is marked as advertising. I don't know what I can do to edit the the content. Could you please help me with my content and give me more specific guideline on creating a wiki page for company?

Thanks. Jessicahuma (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessicahuma hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Draft:MicroAssist needs a lot of work. What we really want is to know not what the company says about themselves, but what others not connected with the company say about them. The history is a list, but it would be better as a story.

Some of your references could be better. At this stage, you don't want press releases. And there is not a reference for every fact. At the very least each paragraph of each line in the list would have one reference. There is also some promotional-sounding language such as "actively participating" and "engages".

You want to provide more details than just a list of the company's activities. And of course those should come from someplace other than the company's web site. Right now that's what the first part of the article looks like.

If there is well-sourced negative information about the company you should include that too.

The article is not being deleted, but it just can't appear in mainspace, as we call it, until these issues are fixed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:FEI2015/Ingmar de vos

Hello, For the second time, the above draft was rejected. I must admit to be quite lost as I do not know what to do to improve the page. I have added outside sources to prove who Ingmar De Vos is but this doesn't seem to be sufficient.

Also, one of the comment I have is that the sources (do you means References) should not include wiki references .... How can I move them under a "See Also" section as recommended.

I really need help to get through this issue. Thanks in advance, Nicole FEI2015 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

To create a "Seel also" section enter

==See also==

on a blank line and then populate it with the things that ought to be in there

Those things where you have wikilinked already and have redundant faux citations to Wikipedia: I have handled some f those for you. You can follow my example and do the rest. Fiddle Faddle 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @FEI2015: What you need to do is establish that reliable sources ( not Wikipedia or blogs) that are independent of/no ties to the subject (ie not FEI), have found the subject someone that they wanted to cover in a significant manner.. This would be things like major newspapers, or magazines or books from traditional publishing houses. If those sources do not exist, then we cannot write an encyclopedia article about the subject that follows our content policies of verifiable claims and not creating analysis or commentary ourselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Afd nomination

Hi, can a withdrawal of Afd nomination be done under this - "the author states that he/she wants to work more on the article and need more than a week" ? For details, visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resources Development Administration (RDA). What is a go ahead in this case ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

One may withdraw for any sensible reason. My view is that this probably ought not to include the author's wishing to do more work. Under those circumstances I have noted that in the past and asked simply that the discussion be extended for a further period to allow work to complete. I have then left this in the hands of whoever might close the discussion at the due time. Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that one may not withdraw once someone has supported it. In reality people do withdraw. Articles can improve or the nominator may have mind change. So we need to be pragmatic, which is what WP:IAR is about. Fiddle Faddle 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi since there is not much scope for the subject to have a stand alone article in main space as basic research done by me and one more editor strongly supporting the Afd. So, I will left it to the closing administrator. And I was not aware of this rule - WP:IAR Thank you for letting me know. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Help on deleted article

I have contributed an article Anupam (Politician) with various links as evidence but now it showing, article has been deleted. Kindly guide, what should I do? Shreeneth (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shreeneth. The article was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anupam (Politician), because it did not appear that the subject met Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. You have two options here. Firstly, you can try recreating the article as a draft, addressing this issues raised at the deletion discussion. If your new version shows that the topic is suitable for Wikipedia, you should be able to move it into mainspace, but be aware that if the problems are not fixed, it will just be deleted again. Your other option is to challenge the outcome of the discussion at Deletion Review, although the close appears to have been correct and I doubt that it would be overturned there. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How to edit a page?

Hi guys, I'm new here. Why when I edit the category and there always somebody delete it? Can you guys teach and guide me how to create a right and correct page? Thanks Luda88 (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luda88, stay well away from categories until you have a good understanding of how the system works, particularly in biographies where they can be a very thorny issue even for veteran editors. Rather edit article text; fix typos, improve grammar, etc. and engage in talk page discussions until you're more familiar with the Wikipedia environment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Luda88, part of the problem seems to be that you are categorising people by ethnicity, without providing a source for that ethnicity classification. I'd suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which states "the inclusion of people in an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability related category, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

new heading makes unwanted block quote

When I want to make a new section, I hit return twice, the use the ==new heading== markup. It works normally for a couple of sections. Then, repeating the same thing, it makes the heading, but puts the previous paragraph into a block quote. Why? How do I either get rid of the box or stop it from creating it in the first place.? the page is User:Eagledj/Kye Fleming. Thank youEagledj (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the block quote appearance is that you started the text of the paragraph with a space. The solution is to delete that space. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy and lists of words

Hello,

I am considering creating an article similar to List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom, except that it would have to do with French words used in France but uncommon in Quebec. I would like to have help understanding how the policies Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_words would apply to such an article.

I would much prefer to have the list on Wikipedia than on Wiktionary, because my intention is for every single entry to be reliably sourced (as not being common in Quebec), and I understand Wiktionary doesn't insist on sourcing its information that way. So there would be the risk of a reliable list eventually becoming unreliable.

I am confused as to why List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom is not much longer than it is. I am certain that such a list could be extended to many thousands of words, all reliably sourced to dictionaries. Is this because nobody has bothered to do it, or is it because making such a long list would possibly contravene Wikipedia policies or guidelines? I would like to know this before embarking on a major project.

Thanks. Ivujivik (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ivujivik. When I look at List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom, I see it as a pretty long article while you see it as a fairly short article. Perceptions can vary. If you want to expand it, please feel free to do so. But if it had thousands of entries, it would be unwieldy and overly long. If expanded that much, it should be broken into sub articles.

As for your idea for an article about words common in France but not in Quebec, it seems to me that such an article would be appropriate for the French Wikipedia. Articles here on the English Wikipedia should be written in English, not French. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with this line of reasoning. IF it is established that the comparison of vocabulary lists of one dialect to another dialect is encyclopedic and notable (big if), then it wouldn't matter if the dialects are English or French or Swahili, as long as the third parties are making the comparisons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you can only add what you can source. If there are no reliable sources that discuss a particular word difference it cannot be included in the article, doing so would be original research. While we do have articles about various languages here I agree with User:Cullen328 that a French word list as such would not be appropriate here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The example article is not even supposed to be here as an attractive nuisance , guiding people in the wrong direction: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom. No one ever got around to transwiki it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Dodger67, Thanks for your replies. The list could always be broken into sub-articles by alphabetical order. The individual entries would mostly be sourced to dictionaries, so I really think original research would not be a consideration. The article would be written in English, but the topic would be the French language. The only mention of language in Wikipedia:Notability is that to establish the notability of a subject, the language of the sources is immaterial.

In these circumstances, do you still feel that such a list would not be appropriate on the English Wikipedia? What I would like is to understand in a detailed way how Wikipedia policies and guidelines might apply to the article.

TheRedPenOfDoom mentions that the article I mentioned was supposed to be transwikied. It seems that that decision in 2009 came after a string of Keep decisions on a family of related articles here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of American and British words What is the status of the other articles in the group? Ivujivik (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There are (almost) four such articles, three of which have multiple issues and the fourth one is a section of another one.Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Xx236 I meant status with respect to deletion. In principle, it should be possible to verify entries in the lists using dictionaries. Ivujivik (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

mere existence is not sufficient rationale for an article, the topic must have been covered by reliable sources and not merely be generated by Wikipedians cross referencing dictionaries. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenofDoom The topic of lexical differences between French French and Quebec French is obviously of interest to scholars and has been written about extensively. The question is how this requirement applies to lists specifically. For example, the list of all episodes of some TV show is not a normal "topic" that must have been written about - it is the TV show itself that must be notable.

The policy on original research doesn't say anything about "cross-referencing dictionaries", however I saw that in an edit summary you mentioned this might be "Synthesis". But please have a look at Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition. No new thesis would emerge from gathering the information together. Ivujivik (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that a list is the most appropriate presentation rather than prose? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think on the one hand for readers' ease of reference, and on the other because it would be an almost impossibly difficult task to work a comprehensive list of words into well-sourced prose. Imagine if you asked that question about, say, List of municipalities in Ontario.Ivujivik (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How to correct "mark for deletion"

Hi Teahouse,

I'm new to Wikipedia and recently posted an article. The article has been flagged for deletion, but I don't know why so I don't know how to fix it. Can you offer some help?

Thank you!

Publichealthnerd (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Publichealthnerd, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are referring to the article Brendan Miles. It has been nominated for deletion, and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Miles. The main suggested reason for deletion is lack of notability. What you need to do is find and supply independent reliable sources that have written about Brendan Miles. This means not things that Miles has written, not blogs or one-person web sites. It also means not directory entries or other places where he is mentioned but there is no significant content about him. It also means things not from his partners, business affiliates, family members, or other close associates. Newspaper and magazine articles would be good, as would be books from reputable publishers, or web sites with comparable quality of editorial supervision, such as some online magazines have. Once you have such sources, they need to be included in the article (see Referencing for Beginners for the needed formats) or if you find that hard, list them at Talk:Brendan Miles. Once they (or even some of them) are listed, add a note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Miles indicating the sources that you have found. Also, I suggest that you read the golden rule of article basics. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 18:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Publichealthnerd, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would add to DES's excellent advice that the kind of sources you're looking for to establish notability would be something like this article about another politician with the same name in Connecticut, USA. Articles which simply mention (Canadian) Brendan Miles in passing while talking primarily about another topic are insufficient. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DES and GrammarFascist! Publichealthnerd (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Publichealthnerd, I have also nominated Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures for deletion, out of a similar concern about notability. If you have any sources that demonstrate that the study is notable, I would be happy to hear about them, but I haven't been able to find much independent coverage of the study. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I need help getting my page approved.

Hi, I need help with my page, but not sure where to go. Any ideas? 108.38.131.129 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You're in the right place to ask for advice, but it would help if you could tell us which article you need help with. The comment you have just made is the only one that has been made from your current IP address, so I presume that you are currently logged out from your account? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP, so the requester may not understand that we can't trace their previous edits. - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is the entry for ZendyHealth, but it is in draft mode. I really have no idea how to navigate here, since I'm not familiar with this format. RonjiniJoshua (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the location of the post (I think) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RonjiniJoshua/sandbox/ZendyHealth RonjiniJoshua (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RonjiniJoshua, and welcome to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia).

I have taken a brief look at your draft. One problem with it is that the citations are not formatted correctly; you are not supposed to manually enter numbers enclosed in brackets like [1]. Instead, we use Wikipedia's built in citation software to tell it what the source being cited is, and where in the article it's being cited, and the result looks something like ^[1] (though that isn't a real citation). The easiest way to do this is to put your cursor after the statement of fact that needs a source citation, then click "Cite" in the blue bar at the top of the editing window, then click "Templates" in the second blue bar that appears, then click the appropriate template — "Cite web" is usually fine. This opens up a handy form that you can just fill in with the source URL (if online), title (required), author's name if given (click on the + if there's more than one author), date the source was published if given, and website name, then click the icon next to "Access date" to fill that field in automatically.

You should also make sure that at least three sources are cited that prove ZendyHealth is notable by Wikipedia's definition. My brief Googling shows that indeed it is, but that needs to be demonstrated by sources cited in the article itself.

If you have not already, you should also read Wikipedia's policies on paid editing and our guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest, in case they apply to you. While editors with a conflict of interest are not forbidden from creating or editing articles about themselves or their companies or organizations, they are discouraged from doing so. Uninvolved editors are often willing to step in and work on an article begun by someone with a conflict of interest, however; I myself have helped create a number of such articles. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have formatted one of the cited sources in User:RonjiniJoshua/sandbox/ZendyHealth as an example, RonjiniJoshua. Note however that this one (the Tech Crunch article) has only a brief one-sentence mention of the subject, so it is of little value to establish notability, and PRWEB is normally a source of press relases, which are not independent, and so are of no value at all in establishing notability, although they can be cited to support specific facts, if those facts are non-controversial. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist I am completely out of my element, would you be able to help me get this page up and running? RonjiniJoshua (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, RonjiniJoshua. Yes, I will give you some more assistance. You should see my first edits to the draft you created shortly. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits to the draft, RonjiniJoshua. You can see them at Draft:ZendyHealth. One of the things I did was change the phrasing in several places so that the article sounds less like an advertisement; promotional language is not allowed and the draft would have failed AfC (Articles for creation) review worded the way it was. I also separated the content into sections, formatted all the citations correctly and placed them within the article itself, and added another source and some content I found. I also marked where facts were asserted that I could not find proof of in the sources cited so far. The article could still stand to be improved substantially, but it stands some chance of passing review and being accepted as a Wikipedia article now. Feel free to ask for more help if you need it, bearing in mind that the more specific you are in your request, the easier it will be for us to help. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Marking page as Patrolled or not when using WP:PROD

Hi, when using WP:PROD (with Twinkle) on any unpatrolled article. The article doesn't automatically gets patrolled. So, should an editor "mark it as patrolled" manually or leave it. What is the standard procedure in these cases ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Peppy Paneer: My logic suggests that Twinkle could/should also mark this as patrolled. This is a question best asked on the Twinkle talk page, so please raise it there. With regard to manual marking, I think the answer is that you ought to mark it patrolled (whether using Twinkle or manually), but that it is of no earth shattering importance either way, Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi, Thank you for answer. I will put the question there. And when tagging page with CSD using Twinkle, the article gets automatically patrolled but not in the case of PROD. I too second your logic. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I did not receive a fair and evenhanded appraisal from some of the editors involved on Wikipedia.

I have been referred here by other editors on Wikipedia.

A page about me has twice been opposed and defeated. I believe that I did not receive a fair and evenhanded appraisal from some of the editors involved on Wikipedia because of religious bias. Where can I appeal? Here or elsewhere?

Here's the Wikipedia back files or pages. I have continued to publish and receive an extensive worldwide recognition of my writing but am still not in Wikipedia perhaps because of this opposition:

At the time the “Frederick Glaysher” article on Wikipedia was under debate in 2008, Wjhonson observed,

"Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_4#Frederick_Glaysher

"The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson 4 April 2008" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frederick_Glaysher

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please advise.

My newly created account is fglaysher

Fglaysher (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have advised Fglaysher to come here to ask this question. I have looked at Frederick Glaysher and seen such of the history as I am able as a non admin and can see a deletion review. It seems to me that it is possible for this editor to use the WP:AFC process in order to create a neutral article, even as an autobiography. He needs to be aware of the process, and that reviewers will give him reviews based upon what they see in the draft article as both text and referencing. If the gentleman passes WP:BIO, despite the WP:COI of being the gentleman he may write about, he will eventually have an article here. It must however, be 100% WP:NPOV and must be very well referenced indeed.

I invite further opinions on the matter, please. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fglaysher: As a frame of reference, Fglaysher, you were never appraised on Wikipedia- the article about you and the potential for creating a suitable article about you were appraised. And they were appraised in a fair manner: the process by which all articles are assessed, the AfD process. And the results of the process, as determined by a number of well established editors who are still all in good standing as far as I can see, was that there was not evidence that an article about you could be created that meets the standards for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the appraisal was 7 years ago, the status of coverage about Glaysher may certainly have changed, but a quick google books search finds him listed as editor a lot, but nothing in the first three pages of results about him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the challenges is that subjects of biographies often stand too close to the subject matter to be able to make an unbiased judgement on their notability in a Wikipedia sense. Such notability is determined by references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL may bear some fruit here. Time has moved on since the prior deletions and notability may have been achieved. I have not followed up the searches to check.

I should declare that I have no knowledge of the faith Mr Glaysher writes about, nor any interest in it. I care solely about article quality. Fiddle Faddle 17:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fglaysher: Welcome and thank you for bringing your concerns here. A few general statements on the issue, before getting into the details. 1) The discussion above was from 2008. That's quite a long time ago, and things change a lot in those years. I would pay a seven-year-old discussion very little mind except where it makes cogent points regarding Wikipedia policy (more on this later), and anywhere that statements it makes have changed in seven years, by logic, do not apply. 2) If, perchance, Wikipedia does need an article about you, neither you, nor anyone you know, work for, employ, hire, or pay should ever create or edit it. This is because Wikipedia has fairly stringent conflict-of-interest policies (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information). Now that doesn't mean that an article about you cannot be created (pending other conditions, see below), nor does it mean you cannot help people at Wikipedia in certain ways, but we do ask people who are under a conflict of interest to refrain from directly writing about themselves or those they are paid to work for, but instead act as a resource by providing reliable sources of information (again, see below).

Now, some of the more details. Wikipedia does not publish information on everything which has ever existed. Wikipedia articles must only be about subjects for which there is ample 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) thorough source material in existence. That is, before a Wikipedia article can exist, there must have first been other writing about a topic. That writing must meet three basic criteria 1) it must be written in reliable sources. Reliable sources are ones with a reputation for fact checking, and solid editorial control, things like respected magazines and newspapers, books published by respected academic presses, peer-reviewed scholarly journals, etc. 2) It must be based on independent sources, that is the writing must be written by and published by people who themselves have no connection to the subject. For a person, such as yourself, this would mean interviews in a newspaper, in-depth biographies in book form, magazine articles about you and your work or personal life, etc, where the publisher was not hired by you or your employers to do that writing. Sources such as CVs, resumes, press releases, company bios published on employer websites, self-created or self-published works, etc. are generally unacceptable for this purpose. 3) It must be in depth enough to be able to write a reasonable-length encyclopedia article. For example, a magazine article which mentions a person's name in passing, but does not directly write about that person's life or work in detail is not considered an in-depth source. You can read Wikipedia:Notability for a lengthy, in-depth discussion of these policies or Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for a more pithy overview.

Why does Wikipedia have all of these standards and requirements? That's because of Wikipedia's core mission: Wikipedia is built upon the reliability of the information that is published in it. So our articles are only as good as the source material used to research and write those articles. If we don't have good, in-depth, reliable, and independent source material as our research base to back up what is written in our articles, Wikipedia loses it's standing as a trustworthy source. So, if a subject does NOT have, already in existence, right now, solid, reliable source material (good writing our there in the world outside of Wikipedia), then Wikipedia should not have an article about that subject, whatever it is, be it a concept, place, person, thing, product, historical event, etc. Good raw material in the form of good, reliable writing is what is needed before we create a Wikipedia article.

Here's where you can come in to help. If Wikipedia is going to have an article about you, and if someone who ISN'T you, your employees, your employer, or someone you hire to do so, then that person, who doesn't really know you, is going to need that source material to work from. You can help that writer by gathering as many reliable, independent, and in-depth sources as you can find, and go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and file a request that the article be made about you, where you lay out all of the good, quality writing about you that the person who is eventually going to create your article is going to use to write about you and your life. Now, with all this being said, there exists the possibility that the source material doesn't exist. That is, there is not enough reliable, independent biographical information written about you. THAT was the reason why the article was deleted 7 years ago; as I stated things can change a lot in 7 years. If things HAVE changed, then you can provide links to those biographical writings to Wikipedia:Requested articles as I noted above. If the situation has not changed, and there is still not enough source material about your life, then I'm sorry, but Wikipedia still will not have an article about you. I hope this lengthy explanation helped explain the situation in some detail, and if there is anything else we can clarify for you, please feel free to ask. --Jayron32 17:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure whether I'm supposed to post here or not, but here are some sources that might be independently verified. There are others but computer is running out of time. Admittedly, I'm biased:

Frederick Glaysher | W. W. Norton & Company W. W. Norton & Company Frederick Glaysher studied writing under a private tutorial with Robert Hayden at the University of Michigan, http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Author.aspx?id=4294967812

“My Odyssey as an Epic Poet: Interview with Frederick Glaysher.” Poets’ Quarterly / Spring 2015 (April 6, 2015), http://www.poetsquarterly.com/2015/04/my-odyssey-as-epic-poet-interview-with.html

Book review by Umme Salma in Transnational Literature, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2328/35084/Salma_Parliament.pdf

Frederick Glaysher’s “The Parliament of Poets” http://www.albanypoets.com/2013/02/frederick-glayshers-the-parliament-of-poets/

The Parliament of Poets by Frederick Glaysher (I believe it's in the UK) http://spirituality.today/categories/myth-story-telling/the-parliament-of-poets-by-frederick-glaysher

The Myth of the Enlightenment by Frederick Glaysher (UK) http://spirituality.today/categories/faith-belief/the-myth-of-the-enlightenment-by-frederick-glaysher

Modern epic poem reaches for the moon (Canada) http://landmarkreport.com/dgordon/2014/12/modern-epic-poem-reaches-for-the-moon

The Parliament of Poets by Frederick Glaysher (Africa) http://freduagyeman.blogspot.com/2013/10/41-parliament-of-poets-by-frederick.html

Perseus (Sweden) http://www.odyssey.pm/?p=1771

Fglaysher (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good start. I do not have the time to review all of these myself right now, and assess each one, but this sort of thing, where you help by pointing writers in the correct direction by providing sources, is excellent. If you have any more time in the future to provide more, please do so! --Jayron32 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed a couple. One thing to be sure about is that writings by Glaysher are unlikely to be appropriate as references, but writings about him are much more promising. Let me try to explain. If he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for him, simply because it is the product he makes. So it is with writings, poetry etc. However, a review of his work by others tends to be a review of him and his methods, so is a reference.

Regrettably at least one or two seem to be by him, but it's a great start. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fglaysher, and welcome to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia). As explained above, our notability standard means that multiple in-depth treatments of your life and accomplishments must have been published by third parties; while I believe enough of the review of you at www.examiner.com/article/frederick-glaysher-s-the-parliament-of-poets-a-modern-day-epic-poem seems to be about you, the author, to count toward establishing your notability, I did not find any other biographical articles written about you by reliable, third-party sources in an initial Google search. I will review the sources you linked to above for suitability. It is possible that other eligible sources exist offline, for example in books published by authors not affiliated with you. Please keep in mind that while interviews with you can be used to establish facts cited in the potential Frederick Glayser Wikipedia article, interviews do not count toward establishing notability. Material about you put out by a publisher of your work is considered promotional, and also does not count toward notability.

As the subject of the proposed article, you would be discouraged but not forbidden from contributing to the article about you. It so happens that I make it one of my hobbies at Wikipedia to help people in situations like yours, by involving myself, an editor without a conflict of interest, in the creation of the article in question. If sufficient sources do exist (and enough of them are accessible to me online or via my library), then I would be happy to work with you on this at Draft:Frederick Glaysher, and the draft article could then be submitted to another uninvolved editor for review and promotion to article status.

Please keep in mind, however, that at Wikipedia one of our principles is to assume good faith about other editors, and not for example accuse them of being part of a vast conspiracy. Meaning no offense to your beliefs, most Wikipedia editors have never even heard of the Baha'i faith, much less taken sides in its internal disagreements. I will disclose that I have one friend who is a Baha'i, though we lost touch after she moved out of state some years ago. It appears that the decisions to delete former versions of the Frederick Glaysher Wikipedia article were based on the same standards every other Wikipedia article is held to, not bias. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the fix it direction the discussion is taking. I went ahead and started the the draft. You're welcome over there, Frederick, as well as any and all other editors willing and able to work on the draft. It may grow to an acceptable article or fail but deserves a go. See you over in the draft's talk page. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Doctree, for creating a draft, and others. I've posted to it, hoping appropriately. Since I updated the sources above, should I copy them there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fglaysher (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added several sources, along with some content based on them. Note that only one or possibly two of the sources I added would count toward establishing the notability of Frederick Glayser; one of those sources was published by Examiner.com, which domain is currently blacklisted on Wikipedia. I have not yet researched the reason for the blacklisting; it is possible that the exact page on which the in-depth article appears could be whitelisted, but I have not yet made a whitelist request for it. The other source I found that might go towards notability focuses entirely on one of Glayser's works rather than the author himself, which some editors may consider to contribute insufficiently to notability. All the other sources I added are brief mentions, which are useful for establishing facts, but cannot prove notability. Hopefully this will give you something to go on, Fglaysher. I also recommend looking at other authors' articles for ideas about what kind of information should be included, how it should be presented, and where it should be referenced with citations. Good luck, and don't hesitate to ask if you need more help. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, Examiner.com is noted for not excersizing any meaningful editorial control over the various publications that it hosts, for doing no fact checking, and for paying contributors on a formula which encourages them to write many posts/articles, while spending little time or effort on checking them. Also, it frequently includes slightly modified versions of stories from elsewhere, which has been considered plagiarism in the past. Requests to white-list particular articles from that site are most often declined, unless it can be shown that the author of the particular story is a noted expert on the topic, such that a personal blog post by that person would be considered reliable. Mostly it isn't worth bothering with as a source for articles here. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate tag for bio photo

Greetings~ I would like to upload a portrait photo of a subject whose bio page I was hired to write (my first wikipedia entry). My client is the owner of the photograph and the son of the subject. I definitely have permission to use the image however I'm unclear on which tag is the appropriate one to use as none of those listed seem applicable. The photo was probably taken in the 1960's. There is a credit stamped on the back of the print, so I searched the name of the photo studio and found nothing. It's highly likely that the photographer is gone from this life. I'd be most appreciative of advice on how to proceed. Thank you!Biowriterinpa (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Biowriterinpa, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the photograph was taken in or after 1964, it is probably still in copyright, particularly if it was never published. This is true even if the photographer has died. (If the photo was published without a copyright notice before the 1978 effective date of the US 1976 copyright act, it might be in the public domain.) It is in fact unlikely that the son of the subject owns the copyright of the photo, for this to be true he would need to have a written agreement with the original photographer specifying that the photo was a "work made for hire" or transferring the copyright to the subject (or possibly the son). This is unusual for ordinary personal portrait photos, but is often done if the photo was intended for professional use, for example to form part of an actor's portfolio. (I have a photo with such a contract, it was taken for publicity purposes for use in a political campaign.) In the absence of such a contract, permission would need to be obtained from the heir of the photographer, whoever that might be. This is a frustrating situation which the US Congress has declined to deal with althoguh it has been presented to them on several occasions. See http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ for some additional details.

Also, if you have been hired to create a Wikipedia article, you must disclose this in accord with our terms of use. Using {{paid}} is one way to so disclose. Please read our conflict of interest guideline. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate tag for bio photo_follow up

Thanks very much for your response, DES. The photo in question was surely published somewhere as that would be the primary reason portraits of the subject were taken. Finding the heir to the photographer would be a time consuming and likely unfruitful quest, so I will have to forego using the image. Regarding my compensation for improving the content and accuracy of the bio for the subject of the page, I have opened up an ethical can of worms without knowing it. To follow the proper procedure you explained in answer to my initial question, I've disclosed the source of compensation in the edit box, and now there are 2 unsightly warnings on the page, the first of which was already there when I began working on the page. How is a page evaluated to determine if it qualifies as being neutral? Also, I'm unclear on how or where {{paid}} would be placed to identify the page as such. Thank you again for your time. Biowriterinpa (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Biowriterinpa. As it says on https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

{{paid}} is designed for use on the user page. Its documentation says "For article talk pages, use {{Connected contributor (paid)}}." It also gives examples of how to use {{paid}}.

Yes it is possible for an experienced editor with no COI to review the article and remove the COI tag (notice) if s/he believes that the article does not violate WP:NPOV. This should probably not be done until you are done editing the article directly, and the citations are in a much better shape. The tag about needing additional citations can be removed as soon as there are in fact sufficient citations. Any editor may do this in good faith, but you would be well advised to ask some experienced editor to review and give an opinion about whether there are enough citations before removing it yourself. I hope that helps. DES ^(talk) 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thomas B. McCabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - just so we all know which article is being discussed...--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Word not listed

I notice the word Civic Entrepreneur is not listed, despite many academic publications and books on this topic. Is it hard to add plz? Thnx! 2602:301:77C6:D250:E99F:C056:902C:395A (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia covers the subject under the article Social entrepreneurship, which seems to be a synonym of "civic entrepreneurship". If there is information which needs to be added to the article, feel free to do so. I am also adding redirects from the relevant terms, because of this connection. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! --Jayron32 16:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, 2602:301:77C6:D250:E99F:C056:902C:395A. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Do you think there is enough published by independent, reliable sources about this term to have an actual, useful article about it? See the Golden Rule and Your First Article for the relevant standards. If you do, you could use the article wizard and the articles for creation process to start such an article. DES ^(talk) 16:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't a redirect from Civic Entrepreneur (with a capital E) to Social entrepreneurship, yet, which was the specific title the IP user at 2602:301:77C6:D250:E99F:C056:902C:395A asked about. I'll fix that momentarily. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello Teahouse, Fritzmann again. I was wondering how to create a redirect or an alternate name for an article. If anyone could give me a brief synopsis on how to do this I would be very appreciative. Fritzmann2002 15:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzmann2002 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Fritzmann2002, and welcome to the Teahouse. For details, see Wikipedia:Redirect. The short form is that you create a page whose content is #REDIRECT [[Target]]. This will make that page a redirect to the target page. (Replace "Target" by the exact name of the desired destination page, and leave off the nowiki and code tags). You can also include categories and templates such as {{R from initialism}} where appropriate, but they are not required. (It used to be required, years ago, that "REDIRECT" be all upper case, but I don't think it is any more.) Redirects from pages in article space should normally go only to articles, not to Wikipedia: pages, or Draft: pages, or Talk: pages, or other non-article pages. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much DESiegel! This was very helpful!

Fritzmann2002 19:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help me add information to existing article

Hi! Can anybody add information about Commander One to following articles

Comparison of file managers Comparison of FTP client software

Commander One page here Commander One

Thanks! DashaG11 (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to refer to a Wikipedia page, rather than using URLs as in your question, better to use wikilinks like Comparison of file managers, Comparison of FTP client software, and Commander One. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Rider over Article

Hello Editors I recently saw two riders over my article on Carey (surname). The first which said my introductory paragraph didn't cover the points in the article I objected to as it does a perfectly succinct job, given the nature of the onomastics. That has now gone.

The second, stating that the article is too long to navigate and suggesting splitting into smaller articles, condensing or adding or removing subheadings (both?), I have responded to by condensing the information and adding subheadings. It's much shorter now, but short of excluding essential information However, it's still there.Patrick FitzGerald (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Patrick FitzGerald: and welcome to the Teahouse!

As a starting point, it is probably best to reframe your approach from "my article" to "the Wikipedia article that I have been working on - and that other people will edit and re-edit".

As far as length, the article as it currently stands is still REALLY long. When articles get too long, it is can be a good idea to leave a summary overview of the sub-topic, and spin out a child article that explores the sub-topic in a more detailed manner.

As for the introduction, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so has conventions for presenting information. For substantial articles, it will have a lead sentence that encapsulates the basics of the topic, and then a lead section which summarises the main points of the article. When an introduction / lead section says "There are 9 facets" , the article should then have 9 sections - one dealing with each of the facets. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lost my User page

I started a new article and cannot retrieve it. How do I get it back on the screen. It was created from within my account

Guy Duczynski (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hullo, is anyone there??? Guy Duczynski (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski - It helps if you tell us what the article was - if it was User:Guy Duczynski/Systemic operational design - that is still there - if not, what was it? - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Guy Duczynski, welcome to the Teahouse. Click "Contributions" at the top right to see your saved edits. Special:Contributions/Guy Duczynski shows User:Guy Duczynski/Systemic operational design. Is that it? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Found it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a plain language version of 'what you type' alongside 'what you get'. Learning the language is torture and I find myself creating all sorts of bizarre text with probably inappropriate results - links and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski - I'd start with Help:Cheatsheet - there are links to explanations of more complicated formatting at the bottom of that page. Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski I am not a Teahouse host, but I did notice that in the External Links section of the article there is mention of a Duczynski, G. If that is you, it might be worth your while reading WP:COI to prevent wasted effort. A Teahouse host could explain better why. SovalValtos (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

edit page with right info for the distance of mars from earth

if distance of mars from sun is (1) 227,900,000 km, and distance of mars from earth is (2) 225,300,000 km, then how can be distance of earth from sun be (3) 149,600,000 km. it should be 2,600,000km according to above data in (1) & (2) which is obviously a very short distance. kindly edit the pages with the right information115.111.227.210 (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Mars and Earth are both rotating around the sun. You'll find details at Orbit of Mars. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the distance between Mars and Earth varies between around 55 and 401 million km during their orbits. The average distance is about 225 million km. If a Wikipedia article is unclear about this then please name the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? 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. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Trouble With Citations

I am a student editor, and I was trying to add some citations to The Mask Of Agamemnon for a school project. I was getting by mostly through trial and error, and I made an error that I think pasted the last half of the Wikipedia article on The Mask, and also a photo link, into the description of the reference I was citing. I saved this erroneous change in a way that I don't know how to undo, because I was hunting and pecking and I don't know what the wikipedia equivalent of ctrl+z is after you save a change. Next time I will play around more in my sandbox than on an actual article, but this time I have made a poor edit that I don't know how to fix. How do I put the article back the way it was?

Achurn333 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, @Achurn333:! welcome to the Teahouse!

On Wikipedia, the equivalent of a control z is to go to the History tab, find the line of the edit that includes the mistake, and select "undo" and save the restored version. and dont worry, you cannot permanently break anything! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

this page Help:Diff gives more information about how to navigate through the edit history, which would probably be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the rules on "trumping" an article's primary photo

Specifically, A Tribe Called Red has a biographical photo of the trio performing at an event. However, if I came across a "better" (which can be quite a subjective term) free picture, what the rules and protocol for determining it is indeed worthy of trumping the previous picture?

Furthermore, for a musical group, what's the guidelines for what the infobox's picture should be? Them at a live show? Their work? Them at a non-event?

Thank you! —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 01:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @F3ndot: Welcome to the Teahouse!

The first thing would be to ensure that the replacement image is appropriately licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 License free use terms by the legitimate copyright holder.

If it is, then you can either be BOLD and make the change and see if anyone dissents. If they do, start a discussion on the talk page. Or you can start a discussion on the talk page and if no one objects, make the change. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with rejected Article

Our article about Real Music was rejected. There are many pages about independent music labels, what should we delete or change to make our page more acceptable? Thanks RealMusic (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RealMusic, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The grey box within the pink box at the top of your draft page actually answered your question pretty well: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." (I bolded the links for you so they're easier to see.)

I would also point out that every Wikipedia article also has to meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. Put simply, at least three of those independent reliable sources have to have written an article (or published a book chapter or TV segment) that is entirely or at least substantially about Real Music, or Real Music cannot have a Wikipedia article about it. If such sources do not yet exist, you can wait and come back once they do.

And you should also be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy under which editors closely connected to the subject of an article are strongly discouraged from creating or editing that article themselves. Ideally all Wikipedia articles are written and edited by people unconnected with the subject of the article.

Finally, you should know that Wikipedia accounts are for use by a single person only — there are no multi-user or shared accounts allowed — and Wikipedia policy also forbids usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, as yours seems to.

I know I've just thrown a lot of rules at you all at once, but they are rules all Wikipedians have to abide by. Please feel free to ask if you have specific questions about any of these policies. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist while most of the above is quite correct, and I endorse it, it is not at all correct that "t least three of those independent reliable sources have to have written an article (or published a book chapter or TV segment) that is entirely or at least substantially about Real Music, or Real Music cannot have a Wikipedia article about it" There is no such requirement. It is usually required that there are multiple independent sources that devote "significant" coverage, which is often spoken of as "coverage in some detail." But if, say, a reliable 500 page book on "Current Pop Music " devoted 3 pages to a particular group, that would count as "significant" coverage in my view. Similarly, and perhaps more probably, if a 5-page article on "hot bands" in a reliable magazine or similar publication devoted multiple paragraphs to a particular group, that would also count, although it isn't anything like the majority of the article. And if a single reliable book-length source were largely devoted to a single subject, that one source might be enough to establish notability. DES ^(talk) 23:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You're correct that I over-simplified things somewhat, DES. Thanks for the clarification. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please help?

I don't know anything about creating the perfect wiki page. I am way too new to Wiki. If I knew the correct way to create a page, I wouldn't be in this problem. I started a page the other day and I am so lost. Where do I go, what do I do. I know I have an issue with building things. My attention gets very distracted and I lose focus. That may be the issue here. What seems okay to me is not okay to those on Wiki. I need real help. Someone guide me through the steps. My page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Velazquez I would like to continue to add, but I am afraid that my added work or writing will NEVER be good enough. Pleaser help and Thank you teahouse for the invite. Trippit (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Trippit, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you need to do is consider whether Mark Velazquez is Notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. Then see this summary of the basic requirements. Note that on Wikipedia, "notable" primarily means that others, not connected with the subject, have written about him (or about it for a subject that is not a person) in some detail, and been published in reliable sources. If this has not been done, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about this subject, and there probably won't be for long. See also Your First Article.

Secondly, you should not use any "Description provided by artist representative". Content should be based on sources, particularly independent sources, but should be rewritten so that it does not directly copy or closely paraphrase any of them.

Thirdly, what the subject has written or created matters less than what others have written about him. Therefore the iTunes and Google Play links should be removed. Moreover, they look like an attempt to sell Velazquez's music, and that is never taken well on Wikipedia.

Fourthly, read Referencing for Beginners. That will tell you how to cite the sources I said were needed. However, if you can indicate clearly where the sources are, enough to allow others to find them, others can help with the job of formatting them properly. But without proper sources, nothing can be done. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Trippit, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is guidance on creating articles at Wikipedia:Your first article, and you'll see a link to the article wizard, which is a tool that will help you get things right next time. As for the Mark Velazquez article, I'm afraid that there are quite a few problems. Wikipedia requires material in articles to be verifiable, which means that you need to cite reliable sources that support the content of articles. This is all the more important when the article is about a living person, and more important still when the article contains details about potentially sensitive details about the person - such as their sexuality. If that material cannot be sourced, then it must be removed. There is also the question of notability. Put simply, in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about a subject, werequire significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And on another note, just to be utterly pedantic, you should not think of it as "your page", but rather as "A Wikipedia article that I created - and other people will edit" - per the notice on every editing screen, any content you submit to Wikipedia can (and likely will be) edited, and re-edited and re-re-edited by anyone who follows the Wikipedia content policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I want a page

How do you make a page on the app I want to give info please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerzone2500 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Questioner is indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Nthep (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Grading

Hi, I have an article (Benji Lovitt) currently graded as "start" and wanted to know how to get it considered for a B grading class please. JamesSmithUT (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi JamesSmithUT, and welcome to the Teahouse. Article grading is dealt with by WikiProjects. That article is within the scope of a number of WikiProjects (see its talk page). Given that it's a relatively new article, I would suggest asking for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, but you could alternatively ask on the talk page of one of the other WikiProjects it's been graded by. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick help and suggestions, Cordless Larry! JamesSmithUT (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Featured Articles and WP:Good Article ratings have formal process that are outlined on the pages linked. Other ratings are made just by any Wikipedia editor making a personal assessment against the criteria. If you change an rating and someone disagrees then discuss and consider bringing in a third party to give their review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

CSD and PROD logs

How does one go about creating their own CSD and PROD logs? Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Hey Rubbish-- these CSD and PROD logs are generated by Twinkle. First, Twinkle needs to be enabled under the gadgets tab under your preference. Then, under your preferences with Twinkle, check the boxes for the CSD and PROD logs under this CSD section and this PROD section. Getting past nominations in there is possible, but takes a bit of manual work. Let me know if you're interested and I can show you how I did it. Take care, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@JethroBT: Thanks, could you show me please? Cheers, --Rubbish computer 17:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Well, it's not working for me at the moment, but I used Snotty Wong's edit summary tool several years back to find instances where I used CSD / PROD using Twinkle, which produced standard edit summaries (e.g. Proposing article for deletion or Requesting speedy deletion). So you'd want to use this tool search through your contribution history for those instances. Try it out and see if it works. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Thanks, but can you get logs that are filled in automatically when you CSD or PROD a page? --Rubbish computer 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Yes, the logs will start to populate with subsequent CSD / PRODs you make, but past ones you've done have to be filled in manually. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

bookmarks

is there a way to bookmark articles on to your account instead e.g. a computer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavestory116 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not specifically, Cavestory116. But something that a lot of editors do is to keep some links to pages they are interested in on their own user page. So you could edit User:Cavestory116 to have a section containing links you want to remember. (Anybody can see these, and in theory anybody could edit them, but it is not considered polite to edit somebody's user page without their permission, so it is unlikely to happen). --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you add them to your watchlist, this cannot be seen, and others cannot alter it - but you may confuse them with things you have added to your watchlist for other reasons. Even if they have not recently been altered, you can still see them via the "View and edit watchlist" option at the top - Arjayay (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

question about where cited works appears on the page

I WROTE THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO DATHUS A FEW DAYS AGO, BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT I ACTUALLY SENT IT!!

Hi Dathus. Thanks for contacting me. I have a technical question you will probably be able to answer. I have written a few paragraphs under the heading "Research Assignment 1." I am required to list a Wikipedia article as Work Cited. When I did so, the cite dropped to the bottom under References. I was expecting a "Works Cited" section to appear directly under my entry. Can you shed any light on this? Thank you. Jlefish (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Jlefish (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jlefish, and welcome to the Teahouse. You successfully "sent" your message on your own talk page, but because you put it there and not on Dathus's talk page, and didn't include [[User:Dathus|Dathus]] in your message, Dathus probably didn't see it. He should see this conversation now, though, because I used a similar code in my reply, so Wikipedia software will send him a message like the message you received about me mentioning you here.

To answer the question you asked Dathus, Wikipedia uses what's called inline citations. It's normal for the actual information about each reference in an article to "drop" to the References section, leaving just a superscript number like so^[1] in the body of the article. So the References section in the page in your sandbox you have been editing is correct in terms of format. You should know, however, that Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source (by Wikipedia's standard for references) and should not be cited in actual Wikipedia articles outside your sandbox. I will leave some more links about writing for Wikipedia on your talk page. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with copyright for photo

Hi Teahouse editors, I would like to add this photo found at http://asianwiki.com/File:Seo_Ye-Ji-p1.jpg to Seo Ye-ji's Wikipedia page. Could you help talk me through the process of how you would find proper copyright information for this photo and go about uploading it. Thank you KoreanEntertainment (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, KoreanEntertainment and welcome to the Teahouse. As things stand, this can't be used on Wikipedia. The source you link to above is a wiki, but the user who uploaded it there didn't indicate what the ultimate source of the image is, nor is any copyright license specified. Unless that user took the photo, or the copyright holder licensed it to allow use on asianwiki.com, its appearance there might be a copyright infringement. In any case, Wikipedia cannot accept this or any image until the author (photographer) and the original publication of the image is identified. (There are exceptions for images published before 1923, or otherwise clearly out of copyright, but they wouldn't apply here.) You can't determine the proper copyright information until you know, and disclose, accurate origination and publication information. Even if those are found, this image would only be usable if the copyright holder (most often the person who took the photo, but not always) released it under a free license, one that allows anyone anywhere to reuse or modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. In some cases permission of the subject might also be required. DES ^(talk) 10:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response DES I think I will give up on using images. Its so hard to find the right image you want to use and have the proper licences to use them. KoreanEntertainment (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

need help in editing footnotes for Draft:Therr_Maitz

Hello! I'm trying to put an article about Therr Maitz. The last comment I got was to "cite your sources using footnotes" Sorry, I cannot recognize what to do for sure because of my english (it's not strong enough) Please, help me to fix the problem Heldexa~enwiki (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Heldexa~enwiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will try to explain simply for you. (Your English is much better than my Russian!)

English Wikipedia uses something called "inline citations" in articles, to show what information in the article is based on. Inline citations cause a number, like so^[1], to appear in the article indicating a "footnote", more information at the bottom of the page. Every fact in an English Wikipedia article should be cited to a reliable source. (Wikipedia's standard for what "reliable" means is that the source must have been published, by someone who is not connected to the topic of the article, and someone with a reputation for fact-checking, such as a newspaper or book publisher, or a television news program.) Inline citation footnotes help readers check the source for each fact.

To put the reliable sources proving each fact into the Therr Maitz article you are writing, you will want to use what we call citation templates. There is a handy shortcut for these, so you don't have to do them by hand. While editing your draft, look for the sky-blue bar above the window where you type. At the right-hand side, click "Cite" — this will open a second sky-blue bar. Click "Template" at the left-hand side of the second bar. For most citations, you can use "Cite news". Clicking that will open up a form. In the form, you can simply enter the information about the source you have found into the fields provided. Not every field has to be filled in; the most important are Last and First (the last and first names of the writer of the source), Title (the title of, for example, a magazine article), Work (the name of the magazine, newspaper, TV show etc. which published the source) and Date (the date the source was published). Access date is the date that you visited the website where you found the source, and there is a button next to that field which fills it in automatically. If the source is online, you should also fill in the URL field.

I hope this is clear enough, Heldexa~enwiki. If not, I (or another Teahouse volunteer) will go to the draft and put in a citation to give you an example to follow. Thank you for contributing to English Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Heldexa~enwiki. Here are a couple of links to pages to help you further with adding references: User:Yunshui/References for beginners and Help:Referencing for beginners. The second one also have videos showing how you insert references. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

making a wikipedia page for a new company

Hi, I am a new user here, and this is my first time attempting to create and edit a page. I made a page for my new company, and immediately after saving it a "speedy deletion" notification popped up. What are the requirements for creating a page for an up and coming company? Since it's a new company, the only information I included was the purpose and uses of the company. Obviously, there is no history or monetary information yet, so it's literally just an overview about the company. What can I do to prevent my page from being deleted? I was hoping wikipedia could be a source of exposure for my company as well a place in which potential customers could gain some basic iinformation about it.

On a side note - how can I add an infobox to my page, as well as the company logo?

Thank you so much!!!

Suzyvginosyan (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You obviously have a mistaken impression of what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle of promotion for your start up company. Short and sweet, Suzyvginosyan, your totally non notable by your own admission company will not have a page here until it is notable. John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with everything that John from Idegon said, Suzyvginosyian, I think he might have been a bit friendlier to a new editor. It's not personal to you or your company: Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind - which means that it may not be used for "exposure" for anything. A Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject; so until there have been some in-depth independent articles about your company (and we do mean independent: interviews with you, and articles based on your press releases, do not count), there is literally nothing which can be put in such an article. Please see WP:CORP for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of non-free, but officially released images in Mecca Crane Collapse article?

I've done some work on the Mecca crane collapse article, and I would like to add an image of the actual accident. I've looked rather extensively on Google Images and Wikipedia Commons and can find no free or appropriately licensed image. Currently the article is illustrated only by an 2010 image of the Masjid al-Haram.

I've found two good images that are credited as having been released by the "Saudi Interior Ministry General Directorate of Civil Defense" AP Link to Photos. I know that Wikipedia's non-free use rationales sometimes allows for the use of "press release" photos. I think these photos could be uploaded under a non-free use rationale, but I'm not sure how to write it. They have been widely reproduced by news sources (see: Crane Collapse 1: Large, Crane Collapse 1: Medium, Crane Collapse 2: Large, Crane Collapse 2: Large)

I started a non-free use rationale, but I'm not sure if I'm going in the right direction here, or even if it is applicable:

{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = Mecca Crane Collapse
| Source            = Saudi Interior Ministry General Directorate of Civil Defense (via AP) http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2015-09-11-ML-Saudi-Crane-Collapse/id-df55c31fe2904032a04adc0b5863c7b4
| Article           = [[Mecca crane collapse]]
| Portion           = All
| Low_resolution    = 512x385
| Purpose           = To illustrate the topic of the article
| Replaceability    = No free equivalent found via Google Image Search and Commons Image Search
| other_information = Released to media by Saudi Interior Ministry General Directorate of Civil Defense. Image has been widely used in multiple news sources.
}}

Any help would be appreciated. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Carl Henderson:

Copyright is tricky!

The first thing is that if the release is not a fully compliant CC BY-SA 3.0 License release for free use, reuse and adaptation, then it doesn't matter that it was "released" or not.

if it is not freely released, then it might be able to be used under the WP:FAIR use doctrine, but it MUST meet ALL of the WP:NFCCP criteria. The first one is "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Its not "i did a google search and didn't find one" it needs to be more : "Everyone who holds a copyright image would have specific reason that they would not release it under a free license." that is a hard argument to make . particularly when you did find images with varying levels of use given. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carl Henderson. Have you tried asking about this at WP:NFCR or WP:MCQ? To add on to what TRPod posted above, I think the you might have problems with satisfying WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 for such an image. Meeting the no free equivalent criterion does not mean that a free version of a non-free image needs to currently exist, but that there only needs to be a possibility that a free version could be made available someday. It might be argued that somebody took a photo of the accident site which they could upload to Wikipedia as free. It doesn't have to be exactly the same photos you linked to, but it could provide equivalent information to the reader. For example, this photo seems to have been taken the day after the accident, so it's not unreasonable to assume that there are others like it which have also been taken and which could possibly be uploaded as free.

In addition to NFCC#1, you will need to establish the "contextual significance" of the image. Non-free images are generally not allowed for purely "decorative" reasons, so establishing contextual significance can be fairly hard sometimes because it has to be demonstrated the image significantly enhances the reader's understanding in a way that cannot be achieved through text alone, so that not having the image is detrimental to that understanding. In some cases, this can be relatively easy to do when the image is used within the infobox, but it tends to be much harder to do so outside of the infobox because this typically means that the image itself needs to be the subject of sourced commentary. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carl Henderson. In the wake of major news events, amateur photographers often post very good photos on social media. I have had some success in reaching out to such photographers and asking them to consider uploading some of their photos to Wikimedia Commons. Professionals are usually reluctant to release their work under a Creative Commons license, but some amateurs may feel honored to have their work included in Wikipedia. Be prepared to offer "hand holding" for the technical details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank all of you for your advice. I will look to see what I can find on social media. Perhaps I can find someone willing to release a photo as Cullen328 suggested. (What I was looking for was one photo of the accident for the infobox). Carl Henderson (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Pasting text from the edit page on an iPad

This is an actual editing problem, but I couldn't find a better place to put it...

Anyway, I had some questions for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science and sandboxed them here. Once I thought they were good enough, I tried to paste them from the preview page (pasting from the actual page removes the links) but I couldn't get the range right. (I might upload some screencaps or describe it (or both) if you don't know what I'm talking about). Is there a solution?

This isn't strictly a problem with WP, but I couldn't find a better place to post it (if there is, direct me there).

Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually pasting in general on iPad seems to be wonky. Can someone on a desktop paste it from here to WP:RD/S?

P.S. I'd paste this to the top if I could (but then I wouldn't need to ask this).

Hello, Hop on Bananas, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry no one has been able to address your question before now, though I see (because I went to do it on your behalf) that you did manage to get your question pasted over at the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk.

I'm afraid I have no experience with iPads. Although it is outside the scope of the assistance the Teahouse normally offers, I know someone with an iPad and will ask if she has any ideas about your difficulties with copy and paste. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Licensing an improved copy of an existing image

Hello, all

I should like to consult you about licensing File:The_Rhinoceros.png, which I recently uploaded as an improved version of File:Dürer's_Rhinoceros,_1515.jpg. I received a notification to the effect that my upload will be deleted unless I specify missing copyright information. That information I simply copied from the original image with a note that my version was produced by converting it to grayscale and adjusting the contrast. Should it be enough?Ant 222 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Ant 222! No, it was not enough. Every image has to have a license attached to it as well as full info about the picture on the page of the image. If you copy and improve an image, you copy the license that the original was published under. When you added the license, you mistakenly put the license in the "Permission" space (which is supposed to be used for something else) and if the "License" section does not have the appropriate template, bots will immediately tag it is faulty. I see that a helpful editor has been kind enough to fix all that for you at the Commons. Copyright is taken very seriously on all Wikimedia sites, so you have to be thorough all the time. But don't be discouraged, the copyrights and the licensing of picture is one of the most difficult areas of the WP!! There are very few editors who understand it fully. ;) Btw, you should also look at the Categories (bottom of the page) that the original picture is listed under and copy those to the new picture as well. If you have any trouble with this just ping me. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, W.carter. I must pluck up my heart, collect my courage, and read and have read the several the pages treating of the licensing process.Ant 222 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Query about status of Mercury Prize nominations

I registered with Wiki in order to edit a page where a Mercury Prize nomination for Album of the Year had been described as "...one of the Barclaycard Mercury Prize Albums of the Year", which I found misleading because the album had been shortlisted but hadn't won that award, but when I went to the Mercury Prize website to check the source I saw the following: "All of the 12 shortlisted artists receive a specially commissioned ‘Album of the Year’ trophy, with the overall winner also receiving a coveted winner trophy. " It still seems misleading to say that it was an "Album of the Year", but is it actually necessary to edit this to say "shortlisted for Album of the Year", or do you think they're within their rights to phrase it the way they do? Or does the phrasing need a slight tweak? If I were them I would be happy to use "shortlisted" as that's prestigious enough anyway.

Does anyone have any input on this?

Incidentally, the page needs other types of editing for neutrality, but I wasn't looking at that on this occasion.

(This is my first message here so please forgive me if I'm doing it wrong.) Gateteller (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gateteller, and welcome to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia). I think "shortlisted for Album of the Year" would be less missleading; even better might be "shortlisted for Album of the Year, and received a special 'Album of the Year' trophy awarded to all shortlisted nominees." Note that for technical reasons plain single quotation marks, 'like so', are preferred to the "curly quotes" that appear in the source where it says ‘Album of the Year’.

You should feel free to go ahead and make the edit whichever way you think best. One of Wikipedia's principles is to be bold. You're encouraged to make other edits you think would improve the article (or any other article) as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist, for the welcome and the help. Gateteller (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Gateteller. I saw you still hadn't edited the GoGo Penguin article, though, so I went ahead and did it. You could still help by adding the reference you found about the trophy, since the statement is currently unsourced. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia; I hope you stay around! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pasting text from the edit page on an iPad

This is an actual editing problem, but I couldn't find a better place to put it...

Anyway, I had some questions for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science and sandboxed them here. Once I thought they were good enough, I tried to paste them from the preview page (pasting from the actual page removes the links) but I couldn't get the range right. (I might upload some screencaps or describe it (or both) if you don't know what I'm talking about). Is there a solution?

This isn't strictly a problem with WP, but I couldn't find a better place to post it (if there is, direct me there).

Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually pasting in general on iPad seems to be wonky. Can someone on a desktop paste it from here to WP:RD/S?

P.S. I'd paste this to the top if I could (but then I wouldn't need to ask this).

Question answered here (sort of).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Upload an improved copy of an image

How can I upload an improved version of an existing image so that it should be automatically used instead of the previous version? Whereas the image's page contains a File History section I thought one should be able to do it.

Ant 222 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ant 222, and welcome to the Teahouse. To upload a new version of the image, go to the current image's description page, which you can get to by clicking on the image where it appears in an article and then clicking "More details" at the bottom right. On that page, probably about halfway down, you should find a link called "Upload a new version of this file"; click on that, and follow the on-screen instructions. And don't be afraid to come back here if you need more help — copyright for images is complicated, and the process of correctly licensing an image for use on Wikipedia (or at Wikimedia Commons) can be confusing. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GrammarFascist. I hope I shan't have any copyright problems, for I only intend to edit the existing image. It is a reproduction of a woodcut, so I will convert it to grayscale and adjust the contrast. Ant 222 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ant 222, you can do as GrammarFascist so rightly explained above, but when it comes to art it is sometimes better to upload a new version of the file separately in case someone wants to use the original file for something. Remember that the pictures can be used on many Wikipedias, and changing the picture itself will change the pic on all Wikipedias using that picture. Some of them may not want to display it in greyscale. In this example you can see how it is done: original file and the new one. On those pages you can see how to say that there are other versions. After the uploading is done you simply switch to the new file name in the article. Here is another example: grainy and small & less grainy and bigger. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a fragment showing my proposed edit. Should not you think it an improvement certain enough to replace the original image instead of uploading a new one?

Ant 222 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: It is not a question of what you or I think is the best picture. Some art aficionados here (who know a lot more about how art should be displayed than I do) may prefer the original since the new version looks a little too perfect, almost more like a Marvel comic monster than a woodcut. Making a second upload takes very little time and will ensure that you do not end up in some editing war over which version is the better. It is simply an advice, take it or leave it. w.carter-Talk 20:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: I will upload a new image as you suggest, but I would also contact the uploader of the original. What is the proper way to do it?

Ant 222 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: On each file's page at the Commons there is a section called "File history" (scroll down) where you can see who uploaded it. That editor is stated as "User". Click on the "(talk|", that will take you to that editor's talk page on Commons where you can leave a message. You can also check if that editor has an account here on the Wikipedia and leave a message on her/his talk page here. w.carter-Talk 20:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: You have my thanks. Here is the modified page: [Durer's Rhinoceros]Ant 222 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: You're welcome. Changing the picture was a very bold move since the article you changed it in is a Featured article about that particular woodcut. This is indicated by the little gold star in the upper right corner. Please read about such articles in the link. Any changes to such articles should preferably be discussed on that article's talk page before they are made, since the contents of such articles are formed by consensus in the Wikipedia community. That page is watched by 83 editors and has a couple of hundred views every day, so I would not be surprised if any of them has another view about the picture than you. Oh, and when you link to an article, don't use the "https-thing", simply use the bracets like this: Dürer's Rhinoceros (look in the code). Since you have only done a hundred or so edits, for your own good, I would suggest that you stay away from making bold changes to Featured articles until you have learned some more. If you want to change anything, make a suggestion at the article's talk page instead. If you had read the whole text at the file's Commons page you would have seen that the original picture (before you changed it) was sold for $866,500, and you do not mess with such expensive art as you please. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 21:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: I see I have been somewhat rash and reckless. Henceforth I will be more chary and will offer my suggestions at the talk page.

Yes, I had read the full Commons page. My position is that the paper decayed into fallow is as impertinent to the original work of art as the clicks heard a shellac disc to the song it contains. If the defect may be removed without harm, then it is the way to go. Notice that some of Durer's other line art are presented in high-contrast black and white (as becomes line art), for example: The Cannon and The Small Horse (does the engine support local links images as it does to articles?)Ant 222 (talk)

@Ant 222: Once again, I'm not the art expert! I'm not the one you should present your case to, do it to the art people at the article's talk page should need be. I understand your reasoning, I'm just not sure they apply in this case since the aging is part of a piece of art's appeal. I'm sure you could also do wonders lifting away all the years from say Mona Lisa, not so sure it is the right thing to do though. And please sign your posts with the four ~~~~, otherwise the 'ping' will not work. w.carter-Talk 22:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)777

@Ant 222: Sorry, I forgot to answer your last question. Yes, files can be linked to like this: File:Nürnberger Feldschlange.JPG and File:Albrecht Dürer - The Small Horse - Google Art Project.jpg. Don't forget the initial ":" otherwise the picture will be displayed in full. And also a comment about those pics: They are just examples of Dürer's art, they do not have their own Featured articles attached to them. The rhino is a special case. w.carter-Talk 22:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: Thanks for a great consultation.Ant 222 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: I have found a much better scan of Durer's Rhinoceros on the Commons and applied thereto most delicate contrast adjustments (contrast adjustments). Should you deem it meet for uploading as a new version of that image?Ant 222 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: If you have found another version and want to do yet another cleanup of the print, then by all means do so, but do it as before as a new separate upload. Most old, great work of art have a number of versions uploaded at the Commons so that editors can pick and choose the one they find most suited. Just look at all the versions here and here There is never one definitive version of an old work of art. Only keep in mind to add them all to the same categories so that users can compare them easily when choosing for an article. Also, if you have a question directed to me or any other editor, you can also ask at my or their talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: I also forgot to mention that there are already a number of versions of the print already, see here. w.carter-Talk 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: As I have shown in this animated .gif, I do not propose serious changes as before, i.e. removal of the paper background and conversion to high-contrast black-and-white. My edit is only a slight adjustment of a digital photograph. If it is not fit for uploading as a new version, then what is? I understand the keeping of different scans/photos/reproductions of the same work of art as separate Wikimedia entities, but thus to separate mere edits of the same digital image seems too much as long as those edits are minor improvements.

Fore safety's sake I will upload my image separately as you suggest, but still I should like to know what file versions are for.

As to communication on the talk page, I will do as you prefer. I though the talk page was somewhat more personal like private messages in a forum...Ant 222 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ant 222: The concept of what the "new version" should be used for varies greatly from editor to editor, as do many other things on the Wikipedia. Mostly it is used for when an editor is say working on a photo or a picture s(he) (or someone else) has taken or made, adjusting and tweaking it to get the perfect. Examples here, here and here. When I was new here I also made corrections of art and placed them as new versions, I have since learned to be more cautious and make new uploads instead to avoid conflicts. As you will learn there is nothing that is personal or private here on the WP. :) Discussions on personal talk pages can be more productive and involve many more editors than discussions on forums. Example. It seems that you have yet to learn about talk page stalking. w.carter-Talk 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Justify paragraphs

In preferences-gadget tab, there is a part "justify paragraphs". After checking and unchecking i didn't find any difference to an article's paragraphs. NewMutants (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Works for me - using W7 IE11 and Vector skin - I'm not sure if it works on all skins - it may be worth trying to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache - Arjayay (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It works in all four skins for me in Firefox. It's ignored in the mobile version. @NewMutants: What is your browser? And just to be sure, do you know it should make an even right margin? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Chrome.NewMutants (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@NewMutants: It works for me in Google Chrome 45.0.2454.101 on Windows Vista. Can you enable it again, wiew an article you haven't seen before, and confirm that you don't see an even right margin? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: No not seeing any difference. If this is very ordinary gadget, I must ignore it. I have Windows 8. NewMutants (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)