Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

David Biddulph, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Tropes in See Also-sections of movies.

The creator of the White savior narrative in film-article had put links to this article in every See also-section of the movies that are featured in this article. My question is: Is this OK or is this just spamming? I might think that it is the latter. I am worried that in the end, if we continue this way, all tropes can be included in the See also-section', giving undue weight to them without a proper reference. What do you think?Jeff5102 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not spam, the policy for which you should read. It is completely appropriate to put a link to a relevant article in the see also section of another article, and your constant removal of those links – often with no explanation given – makes me wonder if you don't have an ideological reason for doing so. Either way, I suggest you stop. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty spammy to me. Maproom (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeff5102. I don't think the creator of that article has been linking it a lot—at least not recently. I don't see much of a problem, as long as the links are relevant and not misleading. Do you have concerns that they're irrelevant or misleading? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe they are misleading. Read the lead of White savior narrative in film, and see if you think it applies to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Ok, the authors of one book thought so; but I doubt this will be relavant for many readers of the article about the film. Maproom (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

They're not misleading. The "authors of one book" are this, with Vera being a professor of sociology at the University of Florida and the author of several other books on race relations, and Gordon being an associate professor of English at the University of Florida and a film critic. Their assessment is authoritative, not yours. You and I are just laypersons whose opinions do not matter to disqualify their assessment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I created the article. The links to the article are not spam nor undue weight. It does not qualify as spam in any way. It is not undue weight because it is literally at the bottom of the article and not in any way played up in the article body. Nobody is introducing any film as a "white savior film". I have written multiple list articles and have ensured cross-navigation of all of them, including for this topic. If there are list articles for other cinematic tropes, they should be added to the "See also" sections as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Erik, the first thing you did after creating the article, was placing a link to it in every "See also-section" of a movie-article you thought was relevant. I do believe this counts as spam.

• Another problem I have is that the articles on movies you edited now just state that the movies have a relevance to the "White savior narrative," thus suggesting that movies like The Matrix, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or an even anti-apartheid-movie like Cry Freedom are movies which contain "inherently racist overtones" (as the article on the narrative states). Thus, by stating that these movies are at least related to inherently racist themes (without proper sourcing or context), the statement is not WP:NPOV.
• Moreover, this was already discussed at Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)#RfC on White savior narrative in film wikilink. The final advice after the discussion over there was, that "to play it up a bit more in the text: if it is this important it might well deserve a separate subsection under "Historical accuracy" or some other place like that"; a suggestion which I endorse.
• That said, some have just passing mentions in a Daily Beast-article, of which I doubt if that is sufficient for stating a bold claim like that a movie has "inherently racist overtones."
• And finally, if we should include all tropes, stereotypes and stock characters (see for them in the boxes below) that are used in a movie into the See also-sections, then they would become long and tiresome, which is not beneficial for the article. See for example, again, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which has plenty of tropes on it's list at tvtropes.org. It is a long list, certainly when you take into account that McMurphy as a Christ figure is not even included there. But on the other hand, when we only keep the "White narrative"-link, then it would certainly count as WP:Undue. Thus, in conclusion, the best thing to do is to follow the advice given at the 12 Years a Slave-page: if it all really is that important, and that well-sourced, then it might well deserve a separate subsection. But otherwise, it should go. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Stock characters}}

{{African American caricatures and stereotypes}}

{{Stereotypes}}

• There is no spamming happening here. It does not meet any of the definitions. All sources involved are secondary and non-promotional sources, so I am not adding the link based on what I think. Also, no one benefits "in real life" from linking to the trope. In addition, you are projecting your personal feelings into this matter. When I add the soon-to-be-completed Draft:List of films featuring the deaf and hard of hearing to "See also" sections in articles, you won't care, right? So it is your perception of the topic, which has been reliably sourced, that is clouding whether or not to share it at all with readers. Your POV is not allowed to trump reliably sourced sociological classifications in excluding links as you see fit. Furthermore, WP:SEEALSO allows linking to "explore tangentially related topics", and sources connecting a film to the trope is more than tangentially related. If you want links to be accommodated with a description or inline citations, you can argue for that. Such links can be (and have been) added to the article body. However, they cannot just be shoehorned into an article body. There is no issue of undue weight when the link is at the very end of an article and even more connected to the topic than just a tangential relation (which is allowed at minimum). And TV Tropes is not a standard-bearer in any way, being user-edited hodge-podge of layperson contributions. Searching in Google Books, I found this right away. As I said before, if there is a reliably sourced list of films having tropes, then they should be shared with the relevant articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I believe the best option is to give it a try and see if I can insert the link to the article in the text (preferable in the Reception-part). Then the See-also-section will not be too long (thus solving one minor problem), while I can use the sources of your article (thus solving a second, bigger problem). It might still be a bit WP:UNDUE, but that is for later. Erik, could you live with that? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I move an article from my sandbox to actual Wiki page?

I am creating a Wikipedia page for an artist friend of mine (Still alive). I now have the layout completed in my SANDBOX. I need to create a new link on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_artists_1900_and_after#Born_1940.E2.80.931949

to get the link created that will display the Artist Bio page for David Henry.

Can anyone help?

Thanks.

Mike Mkovatch (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mkovatch and welcome to the Teahouse. There's a blue "Submit for review" link at the top of your sandbox that you should click when your draft article is ready, but it still needs some work. You need to include in-line references. See WP:Referencing for beginners for details. When the article has been reviewed and published, you will need to create a link at the disambiguation page and also at the page you mention above, but wait until the exact title is decided before making the links. Dbfirs 20:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

... later ... There are two more problems with your sandbox. One is your WP:Conflict of interest, but this isn't serious. The much more serious problem, which might result in deletion of your draft and non-publication in Wikipedia is that you seem to have pasted text from another website. This is a copyright infringement, and is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia. Please write the article in your own words. Dbfirs 21:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

... and later ... I see that the website from which you copied is actually a self-published biography by the subject of the article so perhaps the copyright issue is not a problem if the text is not under any restriction. Wikipedia has very little interest in what artists say about themselves on self-published sites. You will need to find independent WP: Reliable sources in which David Henry has been written about in detail, and use these as references for the Wikipedia article. Dbfirs 21:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mkovatch, I have tagged the sandbox for deletion as a copyright violation. I'm not sure why Dbfirs withdrew that claim, since I see "Copyright© 2000-2017 askART All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of the page. We do not tolerate copyright infringements even in sandboxes or user pages. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I missed seeing the copyright notice. (It was late evening here, and I was tired.) The text appears to have been written by the subject, but presumably became copyright once submitted. I hereby restore my claim "This is a copyright infringement, and is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia.". Dbfirs 22:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Dbfirs Non-free copyright attaches the moment you write something that is sufficiently creative for copyright to apply (and the standard is very low). No notice is needed for copyright (though a notice was required before March 1, 1989)). Anyway, unless we have affirmative evidence to the contrary (e.g. a copyright release notice published at the external site, or some situational status like it was published before 1923), we are required to assume any content we see is fully non-free copyrighted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the copyright laws, but does an originator of text lose control of copyright on that text as soon as they publish it on some website? I agree with the deletion because we have no way to know that Mkovatch is a friend of the subject as claimed. Even if the text had been published here first, it would not have been acceptable to Wikipedia without references. Dbfirs 06:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Dbfirs: Whether or not the writer loses control of the copyright once it is published, is a matter between the writer and the publisher. Wikipedia is concerned with whether the material, once published, has been explicitly released under a compatible licence. Wikipedia will not care whether it is the website that claims copyright, or a person who (plausibly) claims to hold the original copyright, that makes that release. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that. I was trying to see things from the point of view of the artist and his friend, but the article as published wasn't in a format suitable for Wikipedia, so it would have needed rewriting with in-line references anyway. It looks as though they have decided not to bother trying to get an article here. Dbfirs 06:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks wikipedia a$$holes. IF you could read, you would realize that I am trying to create the Wikipedia page on behalf of artist David Henry at his request. And yes, the content is the same as Ask Art because David Henry created that page, and just wanted to copy the content for Wikipedia, but couldn't figure out the extremely difficult process for getting his bio published here. I am going to request that he NOT publish his bio on Wikipedia. Getting any content published here is ridiculously difficult. While I understand all the concepts you idiots are trying to monitor to prevent unauthorized entries, your policing is way too strict. Mkovatch (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sticks and stones. Wikipedia's policies/guideline are as strict as the Wikipedia community feels they need to be, but they can be changed if there's a consensus to do so. So, if you want to make suggestions, the thing to do is post them on the talk page of the relevant policy/guideline (every Wikipedia page has a talk page where for discussion purposes) or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and see if you can establish a consensus for the changes you'd like to see made. Other than that, the Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place for asking for general advice about editing. Calling others names is not really going to make people volunteering to help build an encyclopedia want to help you resolve whatever problems you're having and is also going to be seen as a personal attack. Wikipedia is like any other organization in that it establishes its own rules that its members are expected to try and follow. Wikipedia is also not intended to be a free publishing house or web host and is not obligated to "publish" things on request. If you or the artist wants to publish his bio and wants (expects) to have total editorial control, then Wikipedia is probably not the right place for either of you. Encyclopedic articles are written about people who satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, they are not bio pages written for people just because they want one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Mkovatch. Would you like it if some asshole took something you wrote and used it, even made money off it, by taking your writing without your permission? Probably not. That is what you and everyone are being protected against, because from our perspective, we don't know you from a hole in the wall. Oh, you know you are who you say you are? That's a special case fallacy. If you accept the premises that this happens, you have to concede that you needed to do your due diligence to learn how to deal with the copyright issues. Had you, you would have learned that not only must the owner of content demonstrate authority so that we don't have people claiming copyright over what they don't own, but that to use the content here, it has to be released to the world, irrevocably, which would then allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to take the content, and use it, even to make a buck. Are you sure your artist friend doesn't mind if his content was used like that? By the way, if askART requires text posted there to be donated to them, you infringed their copyright and could be sued. The people you are talking to donate their time to make this great resource, as opposed to people who stop by to post about themselves, friends, businesses etc., often in the most shameless self-aggrandizement, without bothering to read the rules in basic consideration for the privilege of abusing the ethos of this site with conflict of interest editing, and then have the gall to insult everyone because their chickens came home to roost. The problem here is not us and I doubt this is your finest hour.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Mkovatch:, your friend made the serious mistake of publishing his text elsewhere. It cannot then be copied to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not make copyright laws, it just obeys them. Dbfirs 06:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

More information about responding to Talk

I am teaching 2 classes this semester that are using Wiki Edu as part of their project. I have completed the training but I can't figure out how to respond to anyone on talk pages. Can someone point to the training where I should have learned this? Thank you! JButlerModaff (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Go to Talk page, click on Edit, go one line under what you want to respond to, type in two colons  :: at the margin, and start typing and click on Save changes! Regards IiKkEe (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! JButlerModaff (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi JButlerModaff, agreeing with everything IiKkEe told you above, I think you might fill in some gaps by taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial, and on this specific issue, see Help:Talk pages. You might also bookmark (the horribly renamed) Help:Cheatsheet. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I am headed to the Help: Cheatsheet right now! JButlerModaff (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Is removing letters/misspelling vandalism or disruptive editing?

Is removing letters/misspelling vandalism or disruptive editing?

I want to know this so I can tell if I should warn a user for Vandalism or disruptive editing. LakesideMiners (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are doing the right thing. Occasionally, an editor accidentally removes letters, so go easy on the warnings, starting at level 1, until you see a pattern of vandalism. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for details. Dbfirs 19:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello LakesideMiners and welcome to the Teahouse.

The term vandalism should be reserved for clear cases of adding utter nonsense, or deleting large amounts of properly sourced material without explanation, generally by someone repeatedly doing this. There are all sorts of lesser problematic edits that may result from errors and misunderstandings that don't qualify as vandalism even if they can't justifiably be characterized as perhaps disputed content. You can safely err on the side of assuming good faith and warn the user for disruptive editing. In the end, admins will block obvious vandals pretty quickly before they can do much damage, but will often wait to see if an errant editor can be warned or persuaded into following the rules. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with the general tenor of your posting, jmcgnh, I don't agree with the first sentence. There are clearly cases of vandalism where somebody changes something (often a date or a number) to something that is not obviously nonsense, but that with a little knowledge of the subject is clearly wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's a pattern, you may be able to call it vandalism. I remember one series of edits where an editor made unexplained changes to numbers in a large variety of articles that, on the surface, looked like erroneous data. In the fullness of time, it turned out that they were attempting to add the latest figures, just doing it badly, with no edit summaries and no sources mentioned. So I've learned to confine my claims of vandalism to more blatant instances and AGF otherwise. Some editors have better "noses" for vandalism than I do, but such an editor wouldn't be looking for advice here in the Teahouse. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay here is a real example.(I forgot if I gave the user a warning for vandalism or disruptive editing.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=X-ray&diff=next&oldid=800949617

Would that be Vandalism or Disruptive Editing? LakesideMiners (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Unclear; this might very well have been a slip of the keyboard, inserting a word at the wrong position by mistake. I'd suggest that when in doubt, assume good faith and fix without accusations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Request not understood

الفيسبوك بطيئ جدا مع ان قوقل واليوتوب ممتاز — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.92.82.154 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

When I asked Google translate what to make of that, it asked Did you mean: Facebook is very slow with Google and Youtube is excellent?

So maybe you'll be lucky and someone else can answer this. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Google and Facebook cannot be used as sources here. Generally speaking youtube videos also cannot be used. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, Google translate can also render it as "Elvis Batei Gidan m I am Google and the office is excellent" and sometimes "Facebook slow Gidan what Google and YouTube is excellent" ? Elvis may be living in Gidan and have an issue with his connection speed, but mostly with Facebook?. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking for suggestions of things to work on

Although I have been reading Wikipedia for years, even things like the Village pump, I don't really know what area to jump into that needs help from someone still learning the ropes. Anyone have any suggestions of problem areas where I can help out? Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Billbo T. Baggins. There is actually a tremendous amount of things to work on. Probably the first thing to determine is what you might be interested in. Are you interested in doing major content creation, digging for sources, raiding a library, and adding a lot of meat to articles? Are you interested in more routine work like copy-editing articles, and fixing things like grammar, punctuation and formatting? Is there a particular topic area you've been fascinated by and have a few good books on? Do you live around or visit beautiful or historic areas and have a good camera at your disposal?

There's usually something for everybody who wants to volunteer and help us build a better encyclopedia. Maybe if you could offer up a few clues we can point you in a more specific direction. TJW^talk 00:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I really don't know. I'm pretty good at research I guess but I don't know if I'm comfortable yet rewriting articles. I thought someone might be able to point me in the direction of a todo list or something so I could work on minor things while I get the hang of things. Maybe I'll ask over at the military history project and see if they can give me some ideas. Thanks for the help. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Billbo T. Baggins: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. If you are interested in helping out, have you thought about browsing through Category:Wikipedia backlog? One of the areas that came to my mind which I think doesn't require much expertise was Wikipedia:Peer review, because many editors over there are just looking for second opinions on the articles they are working on. Alex Shih^Talk 00:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope never heard of those. Thanks I'll take a look at that backlog one. It looks like there is a lot of stuff to do there I can poke at. Thanks again. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are interested in military history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks is a good place to start. I work with the military history project sometimes too. Alex Shih^Talk 00:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Billbo T. Baggins, something that I default onto from time to time, is Category:Articles with too few wikilinks. You end up at some really interesting parts of the project, help improve the encyclopedia, and it's really good for times when you don't have a lot of energy to invest but want to do something productive. TJW^talk 00:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas, I'll check those out. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me also say, "Welcome to the Teahouse", Billbo T. Baggins. You could start by taking every article related to The Hobbit to Featured article status. Once you have finished that, you can move on to all The Lord of the Rings articles. Come back here for further suggestions in five to seven years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. That's what I like about you Cullen328, ambition. Shoot for the moon. If you miss you hit the stars the vast emptiness of space. TJW^talk 12:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Billbo T. Baggins. Some more: the Wikipedia:Community Portal (which is a permanent link under the "interaction" menu on the left hand side of the interface), lists a wide variety of tasks you can help out with. You can transclude its list of open tasks into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Billbo T. Baggins, if you really like doing research, ie. finding good sources, you could provide citations where they are requested: Category:All articles with unsourced statements. If you can't find sources for those claims, remove the challenged statements. That's an improvement too. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for the suggestions but it looks like someone just range blocked my IP again, which happens all the time and is why I finally took the time to create an account to try to work around that I live in a big city next to a couple universities so needless to say, there are a lot of people and not all of them edit positively and it's not worth it to me to keep hopping IP ranges just to help out. So, I tried. Good luck. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Single person

Hi Nthep, your cat is beautiful. Users are expressing their concerns about my name. I am fond of poetry. Mir and Sauda were famous Indian poets. I have joined the names of those poets in my username. I'm only one person to use this account. Do i really need to change my username. Mir & Sauda (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mir & Sauda. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions that any knowledgeable editor can answer. In my opinion, you made an innocent mistake selecting a username that will continually imply that is an account shared by two people, even if that impression is incorrect. Our policy does not allow shared accounts and therefore an account name that strongly hints at shared use is also a violation of policy. I suggest that you change your username, selecting a singular one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, User:Sauda has been renamed. Can I become successful in changing my name to this? Mir & Sauda (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mir & Sauda: User:Sauda exists, but they have made 0 edits in the 9 years they've been registered. According to Wikipedia:Changing username, such usernames may be transferred to another, active user. Instructions are here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been renamed. Red Fire (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Good, Red Fire (Mir & Sauda). I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Added a section, but it was removed/

Hi ! I added a section "Around the world" and then added a subsection "Motorcycle Training in India" on the page "Motorcycle Training". But it was later removed. I cited a notable source (Newspaper). Why was it removed? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_training

Motocoach vicky (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The user that reverted it wrote this: "Reverted 1 edit by Motocoach vicky (talk): Vauge stuff about maybe India needs rider training, but who knows? Not actually an encyclopedic fact" From User talk:Dennis Bratland.

Considering what you wrote: "There is a severe lack of motorcycle training schools in India. There is a need for Motorcycle Riding schools to train bikers", I can't say that your edit greatly improves the article, you should try for something more substantial, possibly referenced by more than one source. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  08:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

categories and lists

Hello everyone, I am quite new on editing on wikipedia, so sorry if it's a silly question. The questions are actually 2, but connected

I was editing Arbutus unedo and it is in the drought tolerant plants category. So far so good.

1. Now, the plant is shade tolerant, so I thought of adding this category too, but the category doesn't exist, only a List of tree species by shade tolerance. It is very tiresome to manually add every tree, when you could just add the tree in the category, so I was wondering: any reason to have such a list instead of a category? Any guideline I should follow to use a list instead of a category?
2. Also, is there a way to cross-search between categories? For example, I'd like to see all drought tolerant ornamental mediterranean plants (this are 3 different categories), any way to do it?

Thanks everyone for helping out!

Beleriandcrises (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Beleriandcrises. List articles are in the front part of the encyclopedia, where most of our readers browse, where categories, though displayed in articles, are something of a behind the scenes function, and in almost all cases will be known of and accessed by a tiny minority in comparison. I'm not very familiar with it but it seems you can search for intersecting categories using Petscan. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your answer, the link is really useful!----Beleriandcrises (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beleriandcrises: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are not mutually exclusive. It is often acceptable to have both a category and a list. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for answering, this thing got me a bit confused. I will then go on and study the guidelines on how to create categories, I feel like they are a better tool than lists. Have a good day---Beleriandcrises (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories are normally easier to work with than lists. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Why can't I create pages

Why cant i create pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.218.18 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please always sign Teahouse questions (and talk page posts, but not article edits) using four tildes ~~~~.

At this time, only autoconfirmed editors can create new articles directly. You can read Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial for more information about this. However, you can still use Articles for Creation to begin a draft article that will then be evaluated by experienced editors. I hope this answers your question; feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How to fix citation tag problems in Arakan?

I just added content to this page but one of the main citations is showing error in the reference section.Fez Cap 12 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Fez Cap 12 and welcome to the Teahouse. You are using named references. All of the references you added are called <ref name="TopichLeitich2013">. It only works if the references have exactly the same content. Yours don't, because you cite different pages. You can fix the problem by changing all <ref name="TopichLeitich2013"> to simply <ref> (unnamed references) Or, by giving each of them a different name, ie. <ref name="TopichLeitich2013p17">, <ref name="TopichLeitich2013p18">, and so on. If you are interested in different referencing techniques, check out Help:Referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I can't do it. Can someone do it for me, please?--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not needed anymore, I managed. Thank you for your help.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Great job, Fez Cap 12. You've managed to fix the errors and still retain information about which page is being cited. Keep up your good contributions! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What is this tool?

I recall using a Wikipedia tool made by someone that fixed up link-only references to match the true style of references. It was actually a quite good tool! Does anyone know the name of it and what it is? TapLover (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi TapLover, welcome to the Teahouse. Maybe it was Reflinks. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello TapLover Perhaps you meant ReFill? Mduvekot (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

TapLover Please note that the answer may depend on how many there are. For example, if I see an article with a half dozen or more references needing improvement I use Refill, but fewer than that I find it easier to simply edit (using VE) click on the reference then click on the word "convert", then "insert", and save. I find that often faster than Refill.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A talk page of an article does not allow discussion. Is this normal?

Hello, according to the official guidelines it's best to discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute. And this is what exactly I want to do since recently someone removed my contributions without a valid reason in my opinion.

Therefore, I would like to know how I can begin a discussion in a talk page for a specific article. I am asking because the specific talk page does not give me any option to start a discussion, while other articles include that option.

The talkpage in question is this one below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paid_to_click

Thank you in advance if you can help me. Manifeston (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Manifeston, welcome to the Teahouse. Talk:Paid to click is a completely normal talk page. Click the "New section" tab at top to start a discussion. Some talk pages also add a link in the "body" of the page but that is not normal. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Manifeston. Simply go to Talk:Paid to click, and click the "New section" tab at the top of the page, which will open an edit window. Type what you want to begin the discussion, and click "Save". The only thing unusual about that talk page is that it has no current discussions. Anyone can start one at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both of you PrimeHunter and Cullen³²⁸ for the welcome and the very fast solution. Kudos to you! Manifeston (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Protesting a speedy deletion. What is the timeframe to protest?

Hi,
I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor (long time user) and I recently created a page which was flagged for speedy deletion earlier this week. I received notification about the deletion of the page on Friday (and also received a message from the editor who deleted it) and didn't get a chance to protest the speedy deletion until today (Sunday). The page appears to be gone? I created a speedy deletion protest on the talk page for it but I don't know if it's too late and I couldn't find anywhere on Wikipedia that addresses this issue..?

FWIW the name of the page was Combs Enterprises and it was a factual page about the company and what it does. It was flagged by editor SamHolt6 for engaging in "advertising" which was not my intention nor do I believe it was engaging in that in the way I wrote it. I have no connection to said company.
Also I believe this editor did not take into account a stipulation on Speedy Deletion criteria G11 whereby it states "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."

I posted on the Talk Page for the now deleted page mentioning this as well as on the editor's Talk Page. But has the page now been permanently deleted and am I too late?

Also I note that this editor engages frequently in the deletion of articles and note a lot of other editors who protest his actions.

I'm fairly new here. Is this how all newcomers are treated? I worked on and created 2 pages this week. The other one appears to not have even been reviewed yet so hopefully that won't be deleted as well. StarBR (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@StarBR: Hello and welcome. I'm sorry you haven't had a good editing experience. A page tagged for speedy deletion, as yours seems to have been, can be deleted without delay or discussion if an administrator feels the criteria the article was tagged with is valid. If you had contested the deletion by posting to the article talk page, the administrator likely reviewed it before deleting the article. If you feel that the speedy deletion was invalid, you can request a Deletion Review- however, I would note that a page that does little more than state that a company exists and what is does is often seen as advertising. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is more selective about its content than a business directory or social media. Wikipedia articles must indicate with independent reliable sources how the subject is notable. In the case of a business, the business must be shown to meet the business notability guidelines. Not every business merits a page here, even within the same field.

Please understand that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things to do here. It takes time, practice, and effort. If you have the appropriate sources that indicate how the business you are writing about is notable, I would suggest that you visit Articles for Creation and use the process there to draft an article for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, this will allow you to get feedback for your work.

If you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, StarBR. The page has been deleted and certainly will not be restored because it was unambiguously promotional. Since I am an administrator, I can view deleted pages. A couple of the references were to PR Newswire, a press release distribution service. That is not a reliable, independent source, and trying to use it as a source raises instant red flags. The article consisted largely of what Sean Combs thinks of his own business ventures. Wikipedia does not care at all what the owner of a company thinks about his own business. We care about what reliable sources that have nothing to do with the business say about that business. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform, and experienced editors will push back hard against any attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. As for protesting the deletion, you can take that up with DGG, a highly experienced and respected administrator who is even more opposed to promotionalism on Wikipedia than I am. As for your concern about how newcomers are treated, please take great care to avoid creating poorly referenced promotional content, and you will be treated well in the future. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @StarBR: Welcome to the Teahouse. Pages are never deleted permanently, as they will always remain on the database. To add to the answer above, the problem with Combs Enterprises is that notability is not inherited, meaning there should be individual reliable sources that verifies the notability of the subject with significant coverage. That is not evident on this page, nor is it evident in a quick Google news search. You can always contact the deleting administrator for further questions, in this case DGG. Two advices though: Other similar articles exist is not a good argument to be used, and it's never a good idea to use a personal tone against any editor. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 01:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Mathematics

What are the fields to mathematics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngobulali (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ngobulali. That sounds like a good question to ask at the reference desk. (The Teahouse is intended for helping out new users with questions about editing Wikipedia.) Before you go to the reference desk, though, be sure to look carefully at the article Mathematics; I think it may answer your question. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ngobulali: the article Field (mathematics) may be what you're looking for. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Hi, I was wondering if there is an official way to "join" a WikiProject. Do you do something like contact the head of the project, or do you just slap the userbox on your profile page and then you're done? VTnav (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@VTnav: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's always nice to see a fellow Wikipedian in Japan. Which WikiProject are you thinking of joining? In almost every page there will be a "participant" page and all you need to do is to add your name to the list. The userbox is actually optional, but it usually puts you in the Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. It's nice to post on the talk page too and get some warm welcome if you want to get the feeling of actually joining a community. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 04:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I would like to join the WikiProject for toys and games. If you could maybe get me a link straight to the project, I'd love that. Thanks so much! VTnav (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@VTnav: I am not sure if there is a combined project, all I am seeing is WikiProject for games and toys (inactive). There are links in the games project for more specific projects. Alex Shih^Talk 05:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Well, specifically, I would like to join the WikiProject Video Games. I saw that it seemed to be sorted as a sub-project of toys and games. Thanks VTnav (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@VTnav: Ah, I see. It seems like there is no real participant page for this project, so all you need to do is contribute directly :) Alex Shih^Talk 06:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject recently decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 132#Delete blocked users to redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members to Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Video games. It is updated automatically based on activity. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Victor Pyanet wikipedia page

Hello. I am planning to create a page dedicated to Victor Pyanet, the french XIXth-century sculptor that worked on various projects, many of them related to religious art. For instance, he is the creator of the famous chimeras of the Notre Dame de Paris balustrade. There are quite a few reliable sources like Michael Camille, Centre des Monuments Nationaux, etc. I would like to know if you consider this information relevant and worth creating a page for. Thank you 147.96.166.102 (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether Pyanet is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article will depend not on his work and achievements, but on what has been written about him in reliable published sources. The Gargoyles of Notre-Dame: Medievalism and the Monsters of Modernity by Michael Camille is an excellent start. This Guardian article may help a little. English-language sources that refer to him as "obscure" or "almost forgotten" are discouraging, but not really an obstacle. If you can read French you may be able to find some good French sources. I would be optimistic. Maproom (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead, as much as the sources commenting on his obscurity is concerned, I am not bothered, since the comments themselves make him more notable. Notability is not temporary, so the standard for sources from the 15th century is fairly lax (not much was written, therefore any source from the time period has greater weight). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Article

Hello Everyone, I am a new editor to Wikipedia. I have submitted my first article for review several times and have been declined. I have got a message like:

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

I have added several references and citations. But I do not understand the reason why it is being rejected again and again.

Maybe as a new editor I am unable to understand many things.Can anyone please help me regarding what should I change or add in my article so as to avoid further declination. My article link is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Md._Mohibbur_Rahman_(Babu)

Waiting eagerly for your help. Thank you Shawn.hossan (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

An obvious problem is that the draft is written in blatantly promotional language: "Md. Mohibbur Rahman is not only a successful business person but also a passionate social worker." And I see that it has been declined four times, with all four reviewers pointing out that it lacks references to show the subject's notability. If you can't provide such references, it will never accepted as an article. Maproom (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Shawn.hossan - Although the promotional language, memberships of golf clubs, and other trivia, must go, there is little point in you worrying about the exact wording until you have provided detailed references showing the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Although only an essay, Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, may explain this better - Arjayay (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks a lot for your help. Should I therefore change the language of my article and the way of writing?Shawn.hossan (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can't find acceptable references, as Arjayay described above, anything else you do will be a waste of time. Maproom (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

adding of a website

how to add a website 08:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)08:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)08:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.74.111.22 (talk)

Hello, IP user. I'm afraid you'll have to be clearer about what you mean. If you are asking about adding an external link to an existing article, it is easy to do, but you'll need to make sure that it complies with the policies in external links. If you are asking about creating an article about a website, then you may do it, but you need to understand that creating a new article that is accepted is quite difficult. Please start by reading your first article. If your purpose in "adding a website" is to tell the world about a website, then please be aware that that is called promotion, and is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the norms and formal policy about adding a limited by shares company

What is the norms and formal policy about adding a limited by shares company?103.74.111.22 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. My answer is very similar to the one I gave just above, to the person asking about adding a website. Wikipedia does not care what the subject of an article is: company, person, or other organisation; commercial or not; good or bad. It only cares whether the subject has been written about by independent reliable sources, because otherwise there is nothing which can go into the article. Please start by reading my first article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

When does citing OED Online become a copyright violation?

This question arose for me editing a citation for Mega-. The original citation was to the subscription website www.oed.com, the Oxford English English dictionary, referred to as "OED Online" by the company. (I have a subscription to OED Online.)

My edit involved updating the URL, which had changed since the original citation; the etymology information, which had been in the original citation; and I added a quote--the definition for the prefix mega- provided by OED Online. This is the current reference:

"Oxford English Dictionary (OED Online)". www.oed.com (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. June 2001. Retrieved 2017-09-18. (Subscription required (help)). Origin: A borrowing from Greek. Etymon: Greek μεγα-. ... Forming scientific and technical terms with the sense ‘very large’, ‘comparatively large’, or (esp. in Pathol.) ‘abnormally large’, often having correlatives beginning micro-, and sometimes also synonyms beginning macro-.

Then I wondered, "Was adding the quote too much?", followed by, "Should we cite anything from OED Online?"

I can think of three possibilities:

a) Any citation to OED Online is a copyright violation.

b) Citations to OED Online that reproduce only a small amount of information, e.g., etymology, is not a copyright violation.

c) Long citations to OED Online that copy-and-paste a good portion of the information on a web page, e.g., etymology and definitions for a word (but not quotations) are acceptable because OED Online loves the links.

Thank you!

Mark

P.S. I did search Help for previous questions on this topic but did not find anything. Of course, I could have missed it...

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A short quote like this is not a WP:COPYVIO issue. You could quote about 10% of the page before it becomes an issue. Make sure you are putting it in <ref> tags. the rules for quoting in text are slightly stricter.

Citations to the OED are encouraged, as it is a reliable sources, a fair number of editors (like me) will be able to access it, however the source being paywalled is not an issue and you should never not use a source just because it is paywalled.

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Markworthen, and welcome to the Teahouse. C) is certainly an invalid option; a copyright violation is a copyright violation whether or not the copyright holder cares about it or not. We care about it. We can't assume what the copyright holder wants to do with the content they own, unless they explicitly state it. In other words, the conclusion that they want their original content disseminated would be valid only if they had released in under a free license. Between A) and B), the question boils down to what exactly is the work (in the copyright sense here): is the dictionary as a whole a work, or are individual entries of it separate works. In the latter case, quoting a single entry in full or to a significant degree would be a copyright violation. I'm going to leave the question open since I'm not that well-versed in this particular copyright issue.

As a general note, there is no need to provide a quote, unless you are quoting something in the prose of the article. Quotes in citations are convenience feature, but personally I think they are bad for style. If someone doubts what the source say, it's on them to acquire the source and verify. Failing that, they can raise the issue on the talk page, where quotations can be provide on demand. Providing quotations in advance is, in my opinion, spurious, so, I disagree with Aguyintobooks on this one. Note that the WP:verifiability policy does not require quotations to verify content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A better idea may be to link to wikitionary ? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Linking to Wiktionary isn't an issue in and of itself. If there is a word or phrase in an article that the editor believes that readers might want more information about but an appropriate Wikipedia article doesn't exist, providing a link to Wiktionary is absolutely acceptable. However, citing Wiktionary as a source for a definition or etymology of word or phrase is not appropriate, as Wiktionary is not a RS (as Finnusertop points out). CThomas³ (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is a template somewhere for cross wiki linking directly to the wiktionary page. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Y'all are awesome! Thank you so much for the detailed info. I understand copyright policy much better than before, after reading your responses. // I apologize for my cheeky option 'C', although perhaps it is good to have emphasized that we care about respecting copyright, regardless of what someone thinks the copyright holder might prefer. I pretty much knew that, but I definitely know it now, which helps.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIsmael (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

How to upload two book covers from 1964 and 1966

I wanted to ask if someone could help me to upload two old book covers. I would like to add them on a German Wikipedia page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni and on a English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni For the German cover I had contacted Blanvalet who had already given his consens for another Blanvalet bookcover - but they did not answer to my request - this is the link to that article where I had seen the cover. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang%C3%A9lique_(Romanreihe)

The other book cover I like to upload is from Editions Trévise, a publishing house which does not exist anymore nowadays. It would be great if these images could be added on the pages I am working at. Thanks already for looking into this matter. With best Regards Laramie1960 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Laramie1960. Unfortunately, while the English Wikipedia accepts the use of some media as non-free content under a fair use rationale, the German Wikipedia does not, and will only accept media that is licensed for unrestricted public use, is in the public domain, or is otherwise ineligible for copyright. TJW^talk 19:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Timothy, thanks for your quick reply. So I will have to try another way to contact them. It is utterly unfair that they should upload a cover from 1956 and just ignoring my message to them for doing me the same favour, as has been done for those Angélique books. They sold millions of the Catherine books in Germany and still do. I have even seen a telegram from Blanvalet back in 1965.

For the other book cover from France, I hope all is well, here is the link where the picture would be https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/images/Books/catherine/Belle-Catherine-1966.jpg the idea was to upload it on the Benzoni article and later on the article I am still working at. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Kindly Laramie1960 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm... Laramie1960, the German Wikipedia thing just has more to do with their rules over there. Each language project to a large extent sets its own policies within certain boundaries. The English Wikipedia is actually the exception here, and is one of the few projects that actually does allow non-free works.

As to the Benzoni article, (although there are exceptions to this) our principles of contextual significance mean that non-free content is normally only used on the main article for that subject in order to serve as a primary means of identification. So for example, on the article on the person, an image of the book wouldn't necessary be essential to the reader, although it may be beneficial.

As to your draft, as I said before, non-free content can't be used until drafts are published. TJW^talk 19:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand of course, sorry if I sound like a stubborn little kid ;-) it is just that I have watched now so many article's in the last couple of weeks, and that is what got me to all of those ideas with the images. I have to fight for everything and writing endless emails to get permissions. I am happy to know that the Teahouse is here with supporting greenhorns like me. Until soon again, best to you and the other helpers here Laramie1960 (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Template for new users seeking personal assistance

Among other things, I edit and watch articles on addiction. Sometimes there are new editors who are seeking personal assistance unrelated to Wikipedia on either articles or talk pages, like this. Is there an appropriate user talk page template for this kind of situation? I'd also appreciate a link to relevant policies or Wikipedia-namespace essays I could point people to. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You could always just tell them where to go? like to a doctor, I am not sure a template would help here. The policy is WP:NOT & WP:OUT. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  22:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sondra.kinsey, you cannot give them any advise at all. You are not a doctor (or even if you are, you cannot practice here). By offering advise you open a whole big can of worms for Wikipedia. Please remember this isn't social media. That being said, if you ever feel an editor is in imminent danger, report them to the emergency team. Details are at WP:911. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

list of articles for editing

When I first created my account (which was earlier today), I was immediately prompted to take a look at an article that had been flagged as 'needing editing' of some sort.

Is there a way to access articles that need editing on an on-going basis?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrowningEnglish (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello DrowningEnglish and welcome to the Teahouse.

You should be able to find plenty of things to work on at community portal. There's a link to it (at least on the desktop interface) under the "Interaction" item in the toolbar on the left. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why am I being told to change my username?

I was attempting to get an article undeleted and I received this message:

Anachronist‬ mentioned you on ‪Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion‬ in "‪George Donohue‬". Not done. @Rattazzimedia: Change your username first - Wikipedia prohibits companies to have accounts here. Your username must represent only you a...

Pleas explain.Rattazzimedia (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rattazzimedia.

How much more explicit does the policy have to be? Your username appears to be the name of a company or organization rather than the name of an individual. The appearance of being an account that could conceivably be a shared account is forbidden by the WP:User name policy. Until you change your name to comply with the policy, as a sign that you understand how Wikipedia works and that you are willing to abide by its rules, you will not see much action on your requests. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Still not sure I understand. This is a username that I have been using for decades and only stands for me. So it is not misleading. I am the only one using the name. It indicates what I am a guy who creates media. Are you certain that the average wikipedia user would have a bad reaction to this name? I need further clarification.Rattazzimedia (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Rattazzimedia. It may not be misleading to you, as you are the one who created it. It may also not be misleading to your friends and family, because they know you online as that user (presumably). But "Rattazzimedia" looks like a media company name to anyone who doesn't know you. Even if that company is just one person, companies aren't allowed to have accounts of their own on Wikipedia. And even if it isn't a company, it definitely appears to be one. CThomas³ (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. How do I change my username? It is not clear from the site.Rattazzimedia (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rattazzimedia. A Google search shows a website Rattazzi Media that contains a link saying "Contact us" (plural) rather than "Contact me" (singular). You are presenting your company online as a group of more than one person. Please read Wikipedia:Changing username for information about the procedure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rattazzimedia. You can change your username with links from here: Wikipedia:Changing username#Venues:. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

adding hardcopy proof as citation

Hi,

May I know how to add citation for a "hardcopy proof" ? do I need to upload it to a webpage?

Thanks in advance.Luvmeci (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just adding to this as I asked the user to ask the question here as I wasn't sure. They added to the list List of oldest dogs but the reference they provided Certificate just likes to a generic page. Turns out they have a hard copy proof that this dog is old and should be on the list but wasn't sure if that is valid and/or how to show it properly. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Luvmeci and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, a certificate is not a published source that anyone could verify. Therefore, it - or an image of it - would not be something that could be cited here on Wikipedia. An entry in a published registry, on the other hand, might possibly be an acceptable primary source for certain facts.

That whole page List of oldest dogs has severe problems, since WP should neither be an ultimate arbiter of what dogs belong on the list, nor should it merely be a mirror of another source, such as Guinness. In neither case, would it be correct to include a dog on the list that is not reported in some reliable source as being amongst the oldest dogs. Some of these problems are already discussed on Talk:List of oldest dogs. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Luvmeci. I'm afraid it is a core policy of Wikipedia that information must be verifiable, i.e. must come from a published source, that any reader can in principle get hold of. Unpublished information - whether it is personal knowledge, letters, or quasi-official things like certificates - may not be used. And it is almost never appropriate to upload information in order to reference it, because it will then be user-generated information, which is not regarded as reliable (and that is leaving aside potential problems with copyright). Only if it is is hosted by a reliable source (one with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control) would it be acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Should editors with privileges substantiate accusations against new users?

Made an edit to an article. Edit was reverted, without sufficient explanation, and accused of violation of Wikipedia policies, with a threat of blocking.

Is there a mechanism to address these concerns?

The scar face (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As the comment in the first line of Intelligent design says, The following wording is the result of extensive discussion on the talk page, and is supported by reliable sources. If you disagree with it, please take your point to the talk page.

When an IP ignores that and twice tries to remove "religious" from "Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument..." [1] [2] and then four minutes later a new account is created and immediately tries three times to make the identical edit [3] [4] [5], yes it's disruptive. It's also edit warring. Meters (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The scar face. As your very first edits, you started an Edit war at Intelligent design, a highly controversial article. Any experienced editor can see your misconduct in your edit history, although possibly it was inadvertent and based on ignorance. You know now. Stop edit warring, accept the longstanding consensus, and move on to more productive editing elsewhere.

Any "mechanism to address these concerns" may well result in your account being blocked from editing. If you want to argue in favor of removing the word "religious", then make a rational, policy based argument at Talk: Intelligent design, with the sincere intention of creating a new consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not to pile on, The scar face, but there's a distinction to be made between violating a behavioral standard and engaging in a content dispute. I see that you have opened a discussion on Talk:Intelligent design#Source's Jurisdiction which is something you should have done earlier. Your content argument would have more force if it were not attempting to change a statement arrived at by consensus. Overturning consensus requires more than an edit summary disputing the validity or applicability of a particular source.

But by repeatedly reverting others' edits you violated a behavioral standard and it was that violation that yielded warnings about disruptive editing and raised the possibility you might be blocked. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised at the answers here. So let me explain. The article does not mandate going to Talk Page. It only advises it. I checked the Talk Page and saw that the edit I was going to make did not violate the guidelines there, and then proceeded with it. I am not sure why people here are taking offense at me forming an account, which was done because multiple people use this IP. But I find it interesting that you completely overlook the fact that not only the first reversion does not cite any reason, as mandated by BRD Policy, the second reversion, is also by the same user, and this also goes against BRD.

With each reversion of reversions, I give reason as to why the reversion, as it does not provide explanation, is flawed. In any case, I did not dispute any explanation, which would be then a good reason to take it to Talk Page, but merely cited any lack of it.

I find it extremely unconducive to guidelines that I am being advised to move elsewhere or that the cherrypicked rules are being applied selectively to me. In any case, I expect leave to raise these issue at both the forums inside Wikipedia and outside it.

Thanks! Appreciate the response!

09:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@The scar face: I would also add that BRD is not a policy, but a suggested optional guidelines. It's usually a good idea, but it's not a policy. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, I question the idea of it being used to intimidate me. Also, it was never pointed to me before I made my edits (re-reverts) that editing, in line with BRD policy can get me sanctioned. The moment I realised that I was being charged falsely with Warring, I took the discussion to talk page. I also would note that I received two threats of sanction, and not just one.

You had made three reversions within 24 hours, plus one under your IP(not counting your original edit) Taken together that would be seen as a breach of the three revert rule and edit warring. If you are now using the talk page, that is a good thing, and I would encourage you to continue to do so to discuss the matter at hand. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The article in question has been placed under discretionary sanctions by Wikipedia's Arbitration committee, as has been explained on your talkpage. You may not be aware of what that means: in essence, any administrator can block you or topic ban you for making changes to the page which are perceived to be disruptive. These sanctions are generally "broadly construed", which means that continuing to dispute the point elsewhere on Wikipedia, even if you stop actively editing the article, could still be grounds for a block or other sanction. I mention this not to threaten you, but to advise you that you have dived face-first into one of Wikipedia's most controversial areas and need to tread extraordinarily carefully from hereon in. The advice given above by jmcgnh - that you drop the stick and move on to other areas of the site - is the best advice you are going to get regarding this issue. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule has exceptions. One of which is "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies". Now, I guess BRD is not a policy. However, I would also like to point out that Edit Warring includes this - "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit without accommodating some aspect of the other editor's remarks is a hostile act of edit warring.". I do not see how I violated it, since I was not provided any explanation. I am fine with me being held liable for breaking the rule, though I was ignorant of it. Again, I would point out that the discussion is about ANOTHER USER not following this clear statement - "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit without accommodating some aspect of the other editor's remarks is a hostile act of edit warring." The revision history clearly shows that. If every user is being treated fairly and equally, I have no problem. But the people here, are deliberately overlooking misconduct of others. I understand and appreciate your cautionary advice. However, because I still see it as a breach of principles and fairness, I would like the issue be addressed. Hence, I raised the question in the forum and will also look to get advice outside. Thanks! The scar face (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "get advice outside"? Do you mean at other forums in Wikipedia, or do you mean off-wiki? Neither seems very collaborative. You have the right to ask advice at another Wikipedia forum, such as the Help Desk; however, forum shopping is deprecated, and tends to be a strategy used by combative editors rather than those who want to support neutral point of view. You also have the legal right to look for other editors off-wiki. However, that is not a way to make any friends in Wikipedia, and is noticed in Arbitration Enforcement. Please pause and reconsider before pursuing a campaign. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@The scar face: There is no exception to the 3RR that includes "I disagree with the consensus". Please read Wikipedia:Consensus; basically, consensus is the end-all of WP policy. If an edit goes against consensus, that edit is a policy violation. All of our enumerated policies were arrived at via consensus, and can be changed at any time by consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

can anybody help me to make this article error free

can any buddy help me to make this article error free :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahendra_Mewati i am very new to Wikipedia :) Sumitmpsd (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

hello @Sumitmpsd, you mean grammar-wise or content wise? Grammar wise seems ok to me, it's very short anyway. Content wise is very little content, and the sources are not in a language I understand so I can't help with that. The problem with that banner is that there are not sufficient sources that prove that this guys is notable enough. Check it out here. It would help to have couple of sources in English. If you think that is not the case anymore since you published enough sources you can delete the banner, I guess. ----Beleriandcrises (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"‪Speedy deletion nomination of Joe Caspolich‬"

How do I notify Wikipedia that corrections to a Deleted Page has been addresses ? I copied information from "My" web page and posted it on Wikipedia. The page was deleted because it "appears to be a direct copy from http://misschicken.com/00--News/Joe%20Caspolich-MRL.htm" . I added the following note to the bottom of webpage http://misschicken.com/00--News/Joe%20Caspolich-MRL.htm

NOTE: The text of this page, is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License(unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Joe Caspolich was an outstanding ambassador to the sport of racing. I'd like to have his story told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobbyt (talk • contribs) 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tobbyt. The website you link to does appear to be licensed under a CC BY SA, and it's possible that Diannaa may not have seen this when she deleted it. However, regardless of how the site is licensed, it appears to be very much like a personal memoir or a blog, and would probably not be useful on Wikipedia as a source, and definitely not as an entire copy/pased article. You should probably consider reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TJW^talk 14:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Timothy for the fast response and the good information. Looks like I have some work to do.

@Tobbyt: The Wayback Machine shows that these licenses were not on the source web page at the time I nominated the article for deletion on September 14th. javascript:alert(document.lastModified) shows that the page was modified on September 16th, presumably to add these licenses. The licenses are fine, but it's not appropriate to use your own blog as a source document for articles on this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User Page

please how can I write about my information so that it can appear on Google.Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspark9ja (talk • contribs)

@Dspark9ja: Hello and welcome. Wikipedia is not social media for people to simply write about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, with articles about people shown to be notable with independent reliable sources. Limited information about yourself, in the context of your Wikipedia editing, is permitted on your userpage; please click on WP:USERPAGE to learn what is permitted. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media, which usually shows up in Google. If you are a notable person, and have independent sources that indicate how you are notable, it may be possible for their to be an article about you, but you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself, instead you can use Articles for Creation- but if you are not notable, please don't do so. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Badly written article

Not sure where to report a badly written article needing help. ʻIolani_Palace especially Pohukaina section. The writting makes no sense. Sentence fragments, sentences that are confusing, random pieces of info that are of little importance, sections that just are not understandable, etc...

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.28.82 (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of worse articles than ʻIolani Palace. But if you are aware of errors in it, you could correct them yourself. I've just corrected one. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

trying to write an article about a national level scholarship exam.

but i doubt that whether i should mention the name of the company organising the exam? will it be considered as a promotion of the company? Can you please help me with what i can write in the article and what not for it to get approved?

Samani.khushbu (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samani.khushbu: Hello and welcome. I assume this refers to Draft:KCNS Exam. The primary issue is that the text in the draft seems to be a copyright violation, which is not permitted on Wikipedia; as such your draft will likely be deleted. Leaving that issue aside, you first must have independent reliable sources (click WP:RS to review what those are) describing the subject in depth that support the content of the article, that is, sources not written by or having anything to do with the subject. If you have that, it would be appropriate to mention the name of the company that puts on the exam in its article. However, promotional language like "meritorious", "to inspire the next generation", "huge opportunity for young geniuses", etcetera, must be avoided. Wikipedia articles are written in a neutral point of view(WP:NPOV). The article must also do more than state the technical information about the exam, and state why it is notable(WP:N).

If you are associated with the company putting on this exam, you may need to read the conflict of interest policy(WP:COI) and the paid editing policy(WP:PAID). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing!