Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 287

Archive 280

←

Archive 285

Archive 286

Archive 287

Archive 288

Archive 289

Archive 290

I have information about a significant person, but I am that person...

My articles are as popular as a woman who is listed on Wikipedia. I have published 40 books this year, and have received several citations of merit. However, most people seem to think that I am an unknown.

Is the only way to be known for intelligence to earn major prizes, or hold a job?

It seems like I've contributed more than enough material to have a place on Wikipedia. It would be good to know beforehand if there is anything 'in the works'... I don't know if my position has any potential right now. I'm even nervous that my position as an editor will ruin my options for being better known.

What if I become a bestselling author? Do I have to rely on luck to be noticed by the editors?

I worry that I just have the wrong name to 'sound famous' even though by some accounts I already have become well known.

I have a website with 104,000 views. I have contributed to an art movement. I write amazing poetry. And I have a philosophy to change the world, focusing on objective knowledge.

Somehow I found the 'suggestions' page, and I have submitted some materials there. But I am nervous that people just think I 'don't sound famous,' even though I have already influenced many people.

The time to achieve credit for my accomplishments is slipping away. People seem to prefer names like David and John and Stewart and Luis and Frederick and Henry and Kuala Lumpur to the name Nathan Coppedge.

Are there additional ways to acquire attention for my work? Do I just have to rely on luck, or is there something highly objective going on?

Should I 'wait' until after I'm dead to receive attention? Am I being too demanding, or should I continue to persist in my belief that I belong on Wikipedia?

Is my thought process necessarily wrong? Am I just too narrow-minded to realize how insignificant I am?

But is it fair to compare me to the space program, while other people get picked up for less notable accomplishments?

Is the major problem a lack of sources?

Is there a way to submit my name into a more privileged voting structure, or would this not necessarily be helpful?

Once again, I think I'm significant, but maybe I'm being impatient. Maybe people need to know who I am before they visit the Wikipedia. But the point of Wikipedia is to provide information on significant things. So I don't feel like I'm 'out' regardless of how I'm treated.

Should Wikipedia be about popularity, or significance? Some people think it's the same thing, but I disagree.

I think I'm at least as significant as Fern Coppedge or Joseph Newman, and critics seem to agree. NCoppedge (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

NCoppedge (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, NCoppedge, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, Wikipedia is not about popularity or significance: it is about quality (rather than number) of sources. If several reliable published sources, unconnected with you, have written at length about you, then it is possible to write a good article about you, and Wikipedia may have one. If they have not, then it is impossible to write a satisfactory article about you, so no article is permitted. While there are borderline cases about which editors disagree, on the whole this is an objective requirement.

Because Wikipedia articles are required to be written neutrally, and almost entirely based directly on independent reliable sources, it tends to be difficult for people to write satisfactory articles about themselves or topics they are closely involved with; so writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. But it is not actually forbidden. If you have the necessary sources (remembering that, except for non-controversial factual data like places and dates, the source must be independent of you, your publishers, your agents etc) then you may try writing an article. I strongly suggest that you use the Article wizard, and you need to be prepared to be reviewed carefully. You should also remember that you may not put any information in which has not been published, and that you will not own the article or have any control over it once it is accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Colin. Is there a way to get a peer review recommendation for a short stub article relating to my verifiable accomplishments? I realize my own webpages will not serve as references (I have tried that before), but I have been cited in sources such as the following: critical acclaim at: , my website is listed as a reputable source at: influence upon economic policy of India, at The Economist: , "[C]learly a philosopher of this present age" comment at Project-Syndicate.org: . None of these sources involve friendships or close acquaintances. I could write a blurb like: "Nathan Larkin Coppedge has acquired critical attention for his work on perpetual motion machines (citations), and as a philosopher (citation)." I don't know if including a birth date requires a source, but if so, I suppose I couldn't include that. That makes it more difficult. NCoppedge (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll try the sandbox. NCoppedge (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Even though Wikipedia strongly discourage writing autobiographies it doesn't mean you can't auto biographies. If you can adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view and avoid creating conflict of interests then there is nothing wrong with writing an article about you. But you must be connected to numerous reliable source to prove credibility. Otherwise everyone would want to create Wikipedia article about them. It's a good idea to use sandbox before creating an article. That way other editors can check your work and guide you. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

References

I have completed a Google search, and I do not believe that Nathan Coppedge is notable. This is a person promoting his ideas about perpetual motion machines. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Independent evidence is wholly lacking. Coppedge should seek publication of his ideas in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. If such journals critique, accept and publish his work, then so should Wikipedia. Otherwise, Coppedge remains utterly non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Cullen328. Harsh as it may sound, your proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. You may instead wish to create a profile at one of the many social networking sites, which provide a free platform for this type of thing.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bump: "One-sided" edit-warring: why and how?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_and_why_can_we_have_.22single-sided.22_two-person_edit-wars.3F_.28Self-contradictory.2C_isn.27t_it.3F.29

75.162.177.35 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you've already asked this question be patience and wait until someone reply to you. Do not create multiple threads for the same question. I'm sure those editors will reply back to you. As it's holiday season some editors are on Wikibreak, so it might take longer than usual.--Chamith (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

why can't I edit?

I am trying to give some information which is said by the one who I like to edit on TV but the information I am trying to edit is always considerd as vandalism and is being reverted.why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trender007001005006 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Trender007001005006. I have taken a look at your recent edits. It seems that you are adding information which is unreferenced, and other editors disagree with your edits. In such a situation, it is your obligation to provide references to reliable sources, which support the material you want to add. Please refer to Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to format your references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 that you added unsourced information. However, I also see that one of your edits was reverted with an edit summary that makes no sense at all. The editor stated that they were reverted a good-faith edit, which they were, but also used the word "Vandalism". They should not have used that word in reverting a good-faith unsourced edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the usual date format for references?

I've been using YYYY-MM-DD since I started editing, but a lot of references use the full date (such as December 7, 2014). Which format should I use? StewdioMACK (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, StewdioMACK. Several date formats are acceptable, but once a format is chosen for a given article, all dates should be presented consistently within that article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do i donate a 1 million dollars to wikipedia?

Aceruler1 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco will be happy to take your donation in any amount. They pay the bills for Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Donates are always appreciated and can be made here; to donate anything over $10,000 USD, however, you'll have to get in touch with the Foundation. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

wmf:Contact us has contact information. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Default category for citing a source?

Lets assume I have found an online article that had previously appeared in a print publication, and I want to use that article as a source. However, since I am not familiar with that particular publication, I wouldn't know if the publication is either a newspaper or a magazine. Which "cite" category should I use for this source? Is there a category that's considered the default category to use when you don't know if you are dealing with a newspaper or a magazine? Would it be acceptable to use "cite journal" in this instance, even if the publication might actually be a newspaper?Lupine453 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lupin453. Why don't you post the link here and see whether anyone else can help identify the publication? Not an expert myself, but there are a lot of knowledgeable people watching the Teahouse, so among us we can probably come up with the answer. LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lupine453. I normally use Template:Cite news for general circulation newspapers and magazines. But you can use any template that contains the necessary fields. Just leave irrelevant fields blank. Please note that you should have enough familiarity with the source publication to feel confident that it is a reliable source. Does it have a Wikipedia article that lacks criticism of its reliability? Google it, visit its website, and evaluate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

ok thanks Lupine453 (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lupine453, you might also find it useful to look at the short description which covers how to handle your situation at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_read_it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to review recent submission: Draft: Cherzong Vang

Would anyone have the time or interest to review a recent submission of ours, given the large backlog entitled (????): Draft: Cherzong Vang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cherzong_Vang

thank you Publico2020 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Especially given we are still learning how to submit, edit and many other things on Wikipedia.

Also, not sure how to fully categorize, or create charts, in various categories (Hmong, Laos, Vietnam War, Important Hmong-American and Lao-American people, War in Laos, military history, Laos Civil War etc)Publico2020 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. I've had a look as a signed-up article reviewer, and the main issues I can see, which probably won't affect the notability or referencing of the subject or the acceptance of the article, are that references are not spaced out (that is, you don't put a space between punctuation and reference or between two references placed together), and it would be good to use Template:Cite web to format the references properly so the urls are tidied away into templated references. Other than that, I'm not seeing an issue, but then again be warned I haven't delved into the details of the article or its sources (and am more of a copy-editor than a content-creator, so may be missing something else).

As for the charts, I have no idea on that, but someone else will no doubt be along shortly. Good luck with getting the article accepted. (On a related note, I have a question of my own: as a relatively new reviewer, is it acceptable to edit drafts at AfC for copy-editing reasons, or should those be left alone for an original contributor to fix?) LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And I do think it'd be better if you trimmed down unnecessary links in See also section.--Chamith (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Publico2020: I note with interest that you have been referring to yourself with "we" and "our", implying that your account may be shared by multiple persons. Please be aware that user accounts are supposed to represent your contributions as an individual, and for this reason, role accounts that are shared by multiple people are against Wikipedia policy. One especially important thing to know is that if you represent an organization or a company, you should avoid or be extremely cautious about editing articles affiliated with your organization. The reason for this is because you may have a conflict of interest for those subjects, meaning that you may find it difficult to write from a neutral point of view. Without intentionally doing so, editors tend to write biased content in the subjects they have a conflict of interest in. With regards to your draft, it looks pretty good. There are a few formatting errors that can be fixed through general editing. The ultimate question that will determine whether or not it will be accepted is whether or not the subject is notable—topics are generally notable when they have received significant coverage from reliable sources. This means that the quality of the sources you provide are essential for the submission's success. Mz7 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mz7: - good point. Having looked at the article, there are a few issues, but nothing really that suggests a COI issue or is overly promotional (or which couldn't be overcome by a bit of judicious editing once it goes live). Most of what is mentioned - absent the OTT See also section that Chamith notes - is noteworthy and is about someone who assisted in law-making to assist the naturalisation of various individuals involved in the Vietnam War, rather than about a company or organisation which is outside the scope of the project. However, Publico2020 does need to note the policy on shared accounts. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Publico2020 and Lstanley1979: Taking note of the above, I have gone ahead and Accepted the submission and moved it to Cherzong Vang. Publico2020, thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia! I would recommend you read the advice above carefully, and if you have any further questions, feel free to come back to the Teahouse! Happy editing, Mz7 (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear LouiseS1979, Chamith , Mz7,

Thank you for the comments, suggestions, feedback and help.

I appreciate it.

I am a new user and still learning. With regard to "we" and "our", I am the only one using the account. I am married, so sometimes forget to write things in the singular, especially around Christmas when signing Christmas cards, etc.

Thank you again. I am still learning about Wikipedia and how to do things, seems like there is a lot to know.

Merry Christmas , Happy Holidays, Happy New Year.

Very grateful for your help in trying to understanding these matters regarding my request & questions.

Publico2020 (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for deleted page cont.

Hi. I asked a question about a deleted page (BN 1470), and I am really disappointed with the results. I wanted you administrators to copy the source code and paste it at the bottom of the question, but you didn't. You just said it was patent nonsense. I know that it was patent nonsense, but I cannot remember at the top of my head what was in the page. So, can you please paste the source code of the page at the bottom? Thanks. ApparatumLover (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@ApparatumLover: The entire page made by User:Galaxy-15 was: BN 1470 is called Scooby-doo. It is part of TV fiction (pertend friends on TV) It is 87 million inches away, 17 inches across, and at magnitude 11.7.[[File:Scooby-doo.jpg]]

The only other edit by the account was the creation of BN 1372 with this: BN 1372 is also called Tuck.It also is a friend. It is part of TV fiction (pertend friends on TV) It is also on the channel Nick.jr. And it is 69-72 million inches away, and at magnitude 14.7.[[File:Example.jpg]]

PrimeHunter (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. ApparatumLover (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Contribution to Wikipedia

Is the pop-up message about a contribution after accessing Wikipedia legit? 2602:306:2512:B4D9:C59B:B7D6:D1D1:1A29 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse. Can you give a little more detail on what it looks like? Sometimes there are little tiny pop ups that say your edits have been saved, etc. If you can explain what it looks like in more detail - we can tell you if it's legit or not. :) Missvain (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My guess, Missvain, is that the IP editor is referring to the current fundraising banner for the Wikimedia Foundation, which is displayed to users who don't log in. Yes, that is a legitimate appeal for funds. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

how do I make a bot

Wannna make a bot that collects data in my planned fashion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdhalsystems (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Amdhalsystems. I have never worked with bots, so I can't give you any direct advice; but I suggest you start by reading Help:Bots, and the articles linked from there.

By the way, your user name is probably not acceptable under Wikipedia's User name policy, as it suggests that you are editing on behalf of a company. Please consider changing it to something that does not suggest a company. --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I access the article I submitted before I even knew what I was doing?

I am in the learning stages (i.e. I just turned on edit for the first time). I submitted an article that had no formatting, before I got a username. Is it possible to access my article to start editing it? Is it possible to get it placed under my username? Or should I just start over? The article is Florence Connolly Shipek.Geolog10 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Geolog10, welcome to the Teahouse. Your submission is at Draft:Florence Connolly Shipek. It is still waiting to be reviewed. You are welcome to edit it before the review. If it's declined then you will probably also get a chance to improve it and resubmit. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Geolog10; welcome to Wikipedia. Your article is well-written but there are some issues I can see with it:

• 'Personal communication' isn't a reliable source. Sources need to be publicly accessible in line with the requirement that everything is verifiable by future readers without access to your private correspondence. If you have a close relationship to the subject of your article, consider whether you can write neutrally about them - although you are doing the right thing, submitting an article with that sort of language in it is going to get it pruned back - resist the temptation to lionise your subject, however great her achievements were (and, without question, what she's done has been very laudable indeed). Make sure publicly available sources state everything you add to the article, and leave out anything you can't substantiate without reference to private, unpublished communication.
• Please read about peacock words. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, so you need to remove where possible positive evaluative language such as 'venerated elder' or that she wrote the 'definitive textbook' or 'never lost a case', unless the sources use that sort of language about her; even then, we do prefer it if these facts are stated as neutrally as possible. Also, I'd personally avoid too much discussion of things not immediately relevant to her scholarship and/or activism, such as details of the subject's personal life or her husband's life and career. This isn't a biography; it's a summary of what makes a person notable: as someone once said: Just the facts.
• You don't need to add a table of contents manually. Articles with more than a certain number of headings generate that automatically. There is no need for 'Background' - this isn't a biography or essay. Rather, maybe start with an 'Education' or 'Early Career' section and document the basic facts about her starting from a convenient point in her timeline, omitting anything that is too personal for a dry encyclopaedia.
• Look up the various Cite... (Cite web, Cite book etc) templates. They help get produce clear and standardised citations for Wikipedia purposes.
• Otherwise, it's quite obvious that this subject is notable and once you get the formatting and copy-writing right, things will fall into place. I wish you every success with getting your article approved - and a productive and peaceful holiday season! LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I did some formatting and hope that has been helpful.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Geolog10, I have to agree with everybody above - you're off to a great start, and with just a bit of cleaning up it will be a fine article. I had a go at cleaning up the citations up as far as number 9; after that it got into the less verifiable written and oral correspondence, so I left those because, as Lstanley1979 described above, they are not really suitable in their present form. For now I have left the old manual list in place too, so you can see how it relates to the automatically generated reference list. I hope what I have done is sufficient that you can see how it all works; if not, then please ask again at the Teahouse! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1) After I log in, how do I easily go to the document I am working on (which button on which page?) 2) How do I ask a question of a person who answered my inquiry (which button on which page?)Geolog10 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Geolog10: 1) You have a link to your contributions in the upper right corner of the page. So when you click on that, wherever you see Draft:Florence Connolly Shipek, click on that. 2) Everyone who contributed to this section has the word "talk" in blue (or in my case orange) after their name. Click on the word "talk" and then on "New section" at the top of the page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What links here and navbox

As neither categories nor navboxes appear on mobile view, I'd like to check individual pages with what-links-here, to see it needs something like see-also or whatever from a related page. But I haven't found an option to suppress links from the transcluded navbox. Any suggestions? Besides, what is the rationale of not showing a link to the category pages? After all there are links to other languages in mobile view. Jo Pol (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Poljo: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. If anyone knows the answer to this, it would be the people at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

how can I add some Categories to an article I just created?

how can I add some Categories to an article I just created? Namely to the article "Ross Township Municipal Building shooting" Publius3 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You simply add [[Category:Nameofcategory]] to the bottom of the page. Ideally, make sure these categories exist before adding them. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 21:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Publius3: you can also add categories using HotCat, which can be enabled in the "Editing" section of your gadgets preferences. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Publius3: Welcome to Wikipedia, Publius3! I hope you have an enjoyable time here, and I'd be glad to assist you with any questions. :) As George.Edward.C stated above, add [[Category:(The name of the category you'd like to add)]] at the bottom of the article. Alternatively, if you want a more easy way to add and remove categories without editing the source, then you can add the HotCat feature to your account; HotCat is a feature that lets you add and remove categories in a more easy way. To add HotCat to your account, simply go to the gadgets section of your preferences, scroll down to the section named Editing, and select HotCat, the 4th item from the top of the Editing section. Then, go to the bottom of the page, and press save to save your preferences. Now, on the bottom of all articles, there will be a categories section. If there are no current categories, then there will just be a button that looks like "(+⁺)" which will allow you to modify multiple categories (that option will only work if there are 2+ categories on the page), and there will be a button that simply is "(+)". To simply add a category, click the button with the single plus sign, and there will be a text-field – type the name of the category you want into the text field, and then click save. If you need any further help with adding categories or using HotCat, then let me know, and I'll answer your questions. Hope this helped! -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does all my teachers dislike wikipedia?

Aceruler1 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aceruler1. The Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. I suggest that you ask your teachers why they feel that way. Our article Criticism of Wikipedia may describe some of their reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Aceruler1: Welcome to the Teahouse, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any other questions, I'd be glad to answer them. I can't speak for your teachers, but although I'm not entirely sure if this is the reason, I remember many teachers disliking Wikipedia because they said that anybody can edit it (which is true), and that it can't be trusted for assignments/projects/etc. due to it being editable by anybody who doesn't have knowledge on the subject. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OK to use this logo / best way to add fair use info

I added the image File:Perse_school_crest.svg but am unsure what to put for the licensing/ media information / fair use rational. (Currently I've just copy/pasted from the previous version of the image). I obtained the image by extracting the svg from the first page of http://www.perse.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/OP-News-Web-Version.pdf using inkscape

Advancedk (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Advancedk: Welcome to the Teahouse. Looks good to me! The summary adequately describes how the image is used and why it falls under fair use, and you've chosen the correct licensing. I did add {{SVG-Logo}}, which describes how the SVG should not be rendered larger than it needs to be for fair use. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I use LinkedIn as a source of company information?

I have been editing the MindGeek article and the LinkedIn page of MindGeek (which is linked from their website) says it was founded in 2004, would that be considered a reliable source of information? I know LinkedIn isn't a reliable source in general, but for something like a statistic published by a company is it OK?Humanlike174 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Humanlike174! For this specific claim, a LinkedIn source is acceptable, as the statement about the year of founding meets a specific set of criteria. Our policy on self-published sources indicate that such a source (including a social networking site) is acceptable as long as the claim is not exceptional, the claim is not unduly self-serving, and that the subject itself is making the claim. A simple statement about the year of founding meets these criteria. Naturally, a secondary source is preferable, but in this case, it is not strictly required. To give a counter-example, there are other claims made on the LinkedIn page ("MindGeek continues to drive the state of technology forward") that would not be acceptably sourced to the LinkedIn page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Orange Suede Sofa! Humanlike174 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I commend Orange Suede Sofa for doing an excellent job of explaining the circumstances where self-published sources are acceptable, and where they are inappropriate. I would like to add that self-published sources are never appropriate for establishing the notability of a topic, but are acceptable only after notability has been established. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Added links. How do I know if it is sufficient for the page to be published ?

Hey all, I am new here. I went through the adventure game and got the basics. I also edited on a page, that mentioned it needed some external links. How do I know if the links I added are sufficient for the page to get published? Thanks Sigma.4292 (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse! :) What article(s) did you add external links? We can then take a look. Generally, you want to be sparing about external links - it can often come off like spam if you add too many. A good start is reviewing WP:EXTERNAL. But, if you want to send a long what article you are thinking about, we can take a look (I looked at your contributions and noticed you are adding content to a variety of pages). Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Sigma.4292 is referring to Zubair Ahmad Khan. Wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles are fine to add. The article is already "published" in the sense of being a main space encyclopedia article. "External links" are links to off-Wikipedia websites. They should be used sparingly, per the guideline above, and never in the body of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks Missvain for the welcome. I am looking forward to contributing more here. I was referring to this article on Zubair Ahmad Khan. But I think User:Cullen has already replied on this. The article is on the main page with my edits. Yay! It feels great! Thanks for the support. Also where I can find easy articles to edit, since I am just a beginner?Sigma.4292 (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You can always find articles to edit at Wikipedia:Community portal, and there is always a link to that page on Wikipedia's home page, Sigma.4292. If you need specific article ideas, I list a few on my user page, and would be happy to assist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Cullen. I will have a look at the Community portal. I would also have a look at your user page for more ideas.Sigma.4292 (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I copy a page I created from English Wiikipedia to Italian Wikipedia?

I created a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciek_Pysz and now I'd like to translate it and add it to Italian Wikipedia. I translated it (via Google) and created the page but when I saved it, I think I got a message saying it was copied and I could not save it. I was able to copy and save in French Wikipedia using this method. I added all references and that French page seems to be OK. So please do you have any ideas how to get round this for Italian Wikipedia?Thanks. Marycjames (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Marycjames. Each language Wikipedia is independent, with its own governance, and even its own policies (which may not match those of other Wikipedias). So there is probably nobody here who can help you (unless somebody just happens to be active on both .en and .it). You may find some useful information on WP:translate us, but failing that I fear you'll have to ask at the Italian Wikipedia: it:Aiuto:Sportello informazioni may be the right place. I will note though that for translating into English, Google translations are not usually considered adequate, and I would guess the same was true for .it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Marycjames (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)ColinFine. I will try the Italian Wikipedia page you suggested. Marycjames (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You can also read some more about this in a previous answer. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Need advice on protecting my wiki page from piracy

Hi Earlier in the year I uploaded a wiki page on the chronicles of Eri. It is by no means a work of great literature, but very important in summarizing research conducted into them which suggests they are of much more importance than currently considered. This is my first wiki contribution, and although doubtless could be improved, it contains evidence for believing that they need to be reevaluated.

I found this week that someone had simply deleted the whole and replaced it with a short note which was written by an alleged critic of my source. The original page considered the critic in question at length and showed why he was wholly unqualified to comment as he makes basic blunders which betray his unfamiliarity with the source.

I believe this page to be in the public interest and ask if there may be any means to protect public access to it. Of course any aspects which may appear unwarranted or inappropriate to more experienced editors could be revised. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't actually create the page, although you did "upload" a lot of material. I am the one who removed it, with an edit summary saying "removing a load of pov text, unsourced, original research, etc - looks like someone may have added their essay to it. I'll put some links on your page. I'm also concerned about the possibility it was copied from somewhere. We consider R. A. Stewart Macalister a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And also you can't say my wiki page for any article on Wikipedia, even if you created it or significantly contributed to that specific article. Nobody can claim ownership for Wikipedia articles even if him/her created that article. Work you submit to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone.--Chamith (talk)

Thank you for your replies, if its all right I'll get back to Dougweller on my user page where he posted his last (i'm assuming Douglas, sorry if not). I take your point Chamith, I hope it's allright to allude to my user page? Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia want to know how create my page.

Actually I am Wikipedia newbie I don't know how to make my page I created one but may be it's in process of deletion or something actually I am an artist and I want to cretate my Wikipedia page where I can give my information and my social links.. Thanks (In Advance) Harrythetech (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Harrythetech. I think that the other editors do not know you are the real musical artist, and you are not really notable (I've never heard of you in the music industry). They requested for deletion as Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to follow to. If you are the real Harry Bawa, they will not know or even think you are hoax. As a result, refrain from creating an article about yourself. Just describe yourself on your user page. You do not meet the notability guidelines, so that is why they deleted the article. For any other articles you are planning to create, use the Article Wizard to help you through. You can play the The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit in about an hour. Please remember thatt Wikipedia has guidelines and policies to follow, and happy editing! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 08:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Harrythetech. While Adrenaline was right in what they said, I don't think they expressed themselves in a very friendly way. Wikipedia has strong conditions on whether there may be an article on someone or something, which mostly comes down to whether or not other reliable sources (such as newspapers or book publishers) have written about the subject: we refer to these criteria as "notability". So when Adrenaline says you are not really notable, they are not being rude, just saying that there has not been much written about you in reliable sources such as the press. (I have not checked whether or not that is the case, but that's what it means). The other point that Adrenaline referred to without explaining, is that Wikipedia articles are required to be written in a neutral way, entirely based upon published sources. It is difficult for most people to write in a neutral way about themselves, their relatives, their band, their company etc; so we strongly discourage people from writing or editing articles about any of these. As Adrenaline says, you may write something about yourself on your user page, but this is not a Wikipedia article, and should be mostly about yourself as a Wikipedia editor.

If you want to go ahead and try and make an article about yourself, then follow Adrenaline's suggestions; but you may find it a tough battle: you will not own or have control over the article once it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not called Adrenaline btw, ColinFine. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 03:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Changed signature to prevent confusion here. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Harry, I can see in the page history that your bio article was deleted for lack of credible indication of the importance or significance of the subject (=lack of independent third-party sources). Then you recreated it a couple of days later (after the posts above), and it was still only sourced to yourself: your own website, your own facebook page, your own youtube channel, and your own song video. You need reliable third-party sources, so I've deleted the article again. Please read the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what kind of sources are required for biography articles. If you recreate the article again without at least one such source it will be deleted again and "protected" against recreation, which would mean it can't be recreated again except by administrators. I'm afraid this often happens when people create articles about themselves; it's not meant as a reflexion on you, but we have strict rules about the sourcing of these articles. You can see the log of deletions, and the reason for them, in the pink box on this page. I'll put this response on your own talkpage as well. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

Copyright violation

I reverted an edit because it was copied word for word from the source, but the other editor reinstated the text, calling my edit "vandalism". If I revert again, the other editor will do likewise. Is it really OK to copy material from online news reports? Is is really OK to call a good faith edit "vandalism"? What can be done? 32.218.38.205 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. You're right, it was a copy-paste act. Don't worry nobody will block you for doing the right thing. Administrators always review user contributions before blocking someone. Your edit was incorrectly marked as vandalism by the same editor. For that his edits were reverted and he has been warned. Afterwards he decided to rewrite content in his own words. Thank you for your contributions.--Chamith (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To add to CamithN's answer, it is typically not okay to copy material verbatim from online news reports, and in many jurisdictions, it can be unlawful—see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It was also probably not appropriate for the user to call your edit "vandalism"; in the context of Wikipedia, we have a very specific definition of what is and what isn't considered vandalism, and mislabelling edits as vandalism can discourage new users, as it might have for you. My advice in this case is to forgive and forget. Unfortunately, the community will sometimes makes mistakes; such is the nature of a project like Wikipedia.

Next time, if your revert is reverted, try going to the user's talk page and explain why you reverted their edit. This extends to reverting content beyond copyright violations—if you disagree with an edit, the best thing to do is discuss it civilly. Continuing to revert someone can devolve into an edit war, which is something that can get you blocked, even if your position on the matter is correct. I will say that in the case of reverting clear-cut copyright violations, continuing to revert would probably not be considered edit warring behavior, as you are enforcing a well-founded Wikipedia policy. Make sure the user knows why you are reverting, however. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To answer an original question, it is very much not acceptable to call the removal of unsourced content "vandalism". It is far too common for editors to use the term "vandalism" with regard to a content dispute, but that is a matter of the conduct of the editor making the allegation. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is considered vandalism, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. The labeling of a good-faith edit (including a good-faith removal of questionable content) is a personal attack. Not only can vandals be blocked, but editors claiming vandalism in a content dispute can also be blocked. (In my opinion, more editors should be given 48-hour blocks for claiming "vandalism", but that is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How to insert Photos in a article ?

Please tell me how to inset a photo ?

PK31 16:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikshakankriya31 (talk • contribs)

Answered on Pratikshakankriya31's talk page . KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please help me with the new page

Dear friends. I created a new page Hans Heinrich Schmid, biblical scholar, but messed up the move. Now the page is moved to its correct place, but I accidentally created some other user page that should probably be deleted. Maybe someone can fix this? Thanks in advance. -- Eio-cos (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Eio-cos, don't worry about it, we've all made mistakes like that. I've deleted the page you created in error. If you do the same at some other time just add {{db-g7}} to the top of the page. This will make it appear in an admin queue for deletion. Nthep (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep! I'll keep this piece of code for further reference. Now I can do some more work on the page... Best wishes, Eio-cos (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

how to create a red link - Is there a standard way?

I was looking at List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll and noticed the entry for Pomona, a shipwreck: 400 died on 30 April 1859. But clicking on Pomona gives the goddess not the shipwreck.

Google gives a newspaper account of the wreck. http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SDU18590615.2.11&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-------

and the story here: http://www.sligoheritage.com/archpomano.htm

Since there is no article, (or is there?) it should be a red link. How do you achieve that? I suppose change it to Pomona (coffin ship) ? I’m not sure.

Is there a standard way to create red link? - thanks - ClemMacGána (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. :) Technically, to create a red link, you just need to link to an article that does not exist. For example: This is a link to an article that does not exist. However, to create an article, follow the instructions at this page. Regards, --Biblioworm 02:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wondered if there was a standard convention, for now I'll change it to Pomona (coffin ship) - regards ClemMacGána (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@ClemMacGána: Red links with a disambiguation in the name should be piped, for example [[Pomona (coffin ship)|Pomona]] to produce Pomona. However, the launch year and not the ship type is usually used per WP:SHIPDAB. It it was launched in 1859 then it would be [[Pomona (1859)|Pomona]]. "Pomona (ship)" alone would be insufficient due to HMS Pomona. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, changed it to [[Pomona (1856)|Pomona]] An article would be preferable. I might put up a stub. Thanks, again ClemMacGána (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

When you put up a stub, you might add it to the Pomona_(disambiguation) page

Hopscotch23 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

what happened to my submission?

I submitted an article on the literary critic and historian Victor Brombert. I assume it was reviewed by a committee before being uploaded into Wikipedia, but I have not heard back. How can I find out what happened to it?173.61.75.143 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't log in before posting and there is currently no page about Victor Brombert so this was a little tricky but I discovered that a page at Draft:Victor Brombert has been deleted as a copyright infringement of http://www.princeton.edu/fit/people/display_person.xml?netid=brombert. The page was created by User:Lgossman who was notified at User talk:Lgossman#Draft:Victor Brombert. If you are Lgossman and have logged in during the last two days then you should have received a notification about the message. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi person editing from 173.61.75.143. May I assume you are the same person who has the account under the name Lgossman and that the page in question is Draft:Victor Brombert? If so by clicking on that red link you will see that the draft was deleted yesterday for unambiguously infringing on the copyright of the owner of the content at the URL shown in the deletion summary. Having just checked the deleted content, it was indeed in large part identical to the external content, and the external site does not show that the material bears a free copyright license that would allow you to copy and paste it (even if it did, you could not use it except with attribution to that source, as doing so would be plagiarism). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

On the question of the notability of Victor Brombert, I believe that he is notable as an eminent academic and the holder of named chairs at both Princeton and Yale, and an academic author whose prolific work goes back over 60 years. Any editor with some spare time can produce a useful addition to this encyclopedia by writing a well-referenced article about Brombert built by summarizing, paraphrasing and referencing reliable sources, not copying and pasting them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks to those who responded to my inquiry. The entry clearly needs to be reworded or permission has to be obtained from the copyright holder, which should not be difficult, since the information is available to the general public online. The source was in fact cited in the entry.173.61.75.143 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Article creation

Can I write an article about someone who is a celebrities parents, wife, husband, child or sibling, or any other relative? I assure that it will have a lot of source of information and referances. The only thing I am asking that will it be variable. Ikhtiar H (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A person must be independently notable in order to be the subject of a Wikipedia biography. A common phrase among experienced editors is that notability is not inherited. If coverage in reliable sources about a person describes them pretty much only as the parent, sibling or child of a more famous person, then there is no need for a separate article. But many such relatives may be independently notable. Robert Todd Lincoln, for example, is nowhere near as famous as his father, but is independently notable as a prominent government official for many years after his father's death. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If the person you are referring to isn't notable then you shouldn't write an article about him/her. There's a case where a user created an article for Mark Zuckerberg's wife Priscilla Chan (Zuckerberg), it's now being considered for deletion. Perhaps it will be deleted by the end of the week. Like Cullen328 said notability is not inherited.--Chamith (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I create new Article in Wikipedia

How can I create new Article in WikipediaAbhayWriter (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AbhayWriter, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest that before you try and create a new article (which is not easy to do) you get familiar with how Wikipedia works by editing existing articles. (If you are not familiar with editing it at all, The Wikipedia Adventure is a way to learn about it). When you do decide to try your hand at making a new article, please read Your first article carefully: this will take you through the process, including the absolutely most important step of making sure that there are enough reliable independent published sources about the subject of the article (if you cannot find these, do not waste your time trying to create an article, as it won't be accepted). Then use the article wizard to get started,. --ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If you know what title your article should have, type it exactly as you want it to appear (with correct capitalization, though if there is more than one word the first word will always be capitalized regardless), and if there is no article by that name, with the message that there is no such article, you will get a red link. Click on that. Then click on "Special:Mypage/What you want to call your article". For me that appears on the fifth line at the top of the page. You will get the formatting you need.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Need work

I am not finding any work to do here on wikipedia. Can I get some suggestions about how to enjoy? Ikhtiar H (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Ikhtiar H: a few questions have gone unanswered here so I'll try this one. It's nice to find someone with too little to do in Wikipedia, as I always have too much. Wikipedia has grown greatly in the past few years and has filled many of the gaps. However, the page Wikipedia:Backlog shows that much remains to be done. One of the small things I do is WP:SPLIT or WP:MERGE for articles that are too big or too small, or too many covering the same topic. You can look at articles on those backlog lists and decide whether to carry out the suggested actions, or cancel them. Either way, you should mention it first in the talk page of the articles. If you are interested in a particular subject area, there are over a thousand Wikipedia:WikiProjects and one of them might have good things for you to do. I participate on the WikiProjects for my home town and for astronomy, bicycling and telecommunications. Always there is much to do. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @Ikhtiar H: Well Jim.henderson already gave you a ton of great ideas but here are a couple more. Look here: Wikipedia:Community_portal and scroll down to where it says "help out". You will see several categories of kinds of improvements that need to be made and specific articles that need them. So for example the first one is "Fix spelling and grammar". Also, for people who haven't done a lot of editing there is a link next to each category that says "Learn how" and will give you suggestions as to how to make those kinds of edits. Also, one of my favorite little known gems on Wikipedia is User:SuggestBot SuggestBot is an automated program that can give you suggestions tailored to your specific editing history. The more you edit the more SuggestBot has to work with and can tailor suggestions specifically for you. That article has info about how to request that SuggestBot send you ideas. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

IT Recruitment - details

Hi, Hope you doing well, i would like to publish my article in wikipedia, about IT Recruitment , expecting feedback from your side, thanks

223.190.201.112 (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor 223. I highly recommend that you open a Wikipedia account, which offers many benefits and (in my opinion) no negatives. Then, begin by familiarizing yourself with all of our existing articles about information technology as a career, and corporate recruiting. It may well be that this topic is already covered in existing articles. If so, your efforts might be better devoted to improving those existing articles as opposed to writing a new one. That being said, I will recommend two good resources for new editors trying to write new articles. Please study Your first article and A primer for newcomers. Feel free to return to the Teahouse at any time with more specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello IP user 223.190.201.112, reading your question it sounds like you have written an article somewhere else, perhaps in a paper or on a website, and would now like to publish it in the Wikipedia. Is that so? If it is please read Wikipedia:No original research. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Small graphics or icons

I'm looking for a bunch of small graphics or icons, such as this one

They don't have to be just military aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketmaniac2 (talk • contribs)

{{click}} converted to a straight image: as it was, it linked to Main Page, which wasn't helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look through Wikimedia commons, which has thousands of free images. --ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Millions actually (see commons:Special:MediaStatistics), but I don't know how many would be considered small graphics or icons. The example is in commons:Category:Aircraft profile drawings. The original file is 1,300 × 600 pixels but images can be scaled to other sizes. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

How to make a category

How do I create the category for Soviet paleontologists? Paleontologists are not usually in the main category, but are sub-categorized by nationality. However, unlike biologists and geologists, there is only a category for Russian paleontologists, so people have been putting Soviet paleontologists (Alexey Bystrow, and Georgii Frederiks, Afrikan Nikolaevich Krishtofovich) into the category "Russian paleontologists." I would like to create "Soviet paleontologists" and move the Soviet-era scientists into this category. How do I do this? Thank you. (MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi MicroPaLeo, welcome to the Teahouse. I have created Category:Soviet paleontologists. You create a category by simply creating the category page with any content. You can get inspiration by clicking edit on similar categories to see their source. I adapted the source of Category:Russian paleontologists and Category:American paleontologists. See more at Help:Category#Category pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand how to do it, but I appreciate that you went ahead and created the category. Thank you! MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)