Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 300

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 295

←

Archive 298

→

Two accounts and AfD in general

AfD is a hornet's nest, in just a couple of sentences, should I stay away forever? People are majorily invested one way or another, and it is easy to get caught up. I can answer my own question.

A real question, policies on Wikipedia are too hard to understand, and often internally inconsistent, so I gave up reading them. For example, it seems you can only have one account. But, in a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Viscardi (3rd nomination), the nominator tells me that he created a second account just to get the article deleted. Is this okay within Wikiedia policies. It seems then, they could vote to delete the article any number of times at both or many names. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi MicroPaLeo. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows more than one account in certain cirumstances but not to give the impression that two different users support something. It may be a bit odd if an account was created for the purpose of starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Viscardi (3rd nomination), but the user did not say that their other account has been used regarding this article, and I know no evidence of that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. that page says, "This page in a nutshell: The general rule is one editor, one account." And it does not appear that creating a second account for an AfD is among the legitimate uses listed, the article is about a young mathematician with no controversy attached to his name. It also says specifically that you cannot use an undisclosed account to edit "Project Space," which it turns out is defined as discussions on pages that begin "Wikipedia:" as this page does. "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." Reading the link you included appears to specifically address this issue and call it not allowed. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

They said they did not know the rules, which I find more believable than anyone claiming to know them on Wikipedia. I suggested they close the nomination. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@MicroPaLeo:, just some feedback on your comments above: I agree that on the AFD discussions people tend to be a bit more blunt and a lot less "welcoming" then here. That isn't too surprising. The goal here is explicitly to help new editors where as the people doing AFD tend to be more experienced. Also, if you are a new editor I would agree that staying away, or perhaps lurking for a while before contributing, to AFD is probably a good idea. There tends to be a lot more jargon and if you aren't familiar with at least the most important policies it is hard to contribute productively. And I also see your point that the policies here can seem a bit confusing. I was used to some very structured environments where you could pull up documentation with a flow chart that says first do X then do Y, then... The thing is though what I remember most from those environments is that people seldom really followed those flow charts to the letter and some times not at all, instead they used common sense to do what needed to be done. And I think that is what the goal here is, to provide policies that are supplements to common sense and that will help us get things done rather than have a rigid bureacracy. I'm getting a bit philosophic but the main thing (finally) that I wanted to say is I don't agree that the best approach is to just "give up reading them". For what its worth what I think works best is to stick to editing and try and be as productive as possible and as you do that you will find times when you need to understand a certain policy better and that is the best time to try and read it carefully. They may not all be perfectly consistent but they aren't an incoherent mess either and the more you edit and work with the policies the more you get an intuitive feel for them. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think, though, I am not that vested in whether any particular article is kept, while others seem to go to great lengths, usually to delete articles. Most of these articles will not make or break Wikipedia, whether kept or not. The policies I find useless. You should be able to understand them by reading them. I am not doing anything controversial, and I understand how to source an article and am learning how to format them, plus I am editing some technical and some obscure topics no one else seems interested in, so I generally do fine. MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@MicroPaLeo: I'm probably one of the people that you would think are "too invested" in getting rid of some articles. I'm going to get a bit philosophical. IMO if you like something you criticize it because only by criticism do you make something good even better. If you look at the end of this other question: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#is_expertise_without_citations_.22soap.22.3F you will see another tea house host who says that many people think wikipedia is just filled with random garbage. I think that is absolutely wrong but there is SOME random garbage and when I see it hell yes I want to get rid of it. I also think you are wrong to say that the policies here are incomprehensible and not worth understanding. I mean if you just want to do simple edits that is fine, we need all kinds of editors. But if you want to get involved in more policy things, deciding what is a good or bad article or edit controversial articles you need to understand the policies and no I don't think at all that they are "useless". Wikipedia is one of the largest, most visited, and oldest sites on the Internet. I'm not just an editor I also am working on my own research and I've used Wikipedia countless times to get me up to speed on topics from game theory to reciprocal altruism, genetics, etc. You can't manage a site this huge with this many contributors with a few bullet points. I understand you may find it intimidating at first, most people do but the policies are not useless. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not intimidated by the policies, it is more boredom with reading. Every policy is spread out over dozens of pages. For example, the one related to this, I searched for wp: two accounts and it gave me information, but what I really needed was the sock puppet one. It has clearly bolded information that says don't do this, but the first responder here did not understand that, and the add nominator did not know that. And, you seem to be saying I cannot even begin to understand policies as an inexperienced editor. A lot of the policies here are common sense, also, and do not need read. Cite your info, it is an encyclopedia not your essay, do not libel living people, no one cares about your two week old garage band, write in English. MicroPaLeo (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've obviously insulted you so I apologize that wasn't my intention at all and I guess I had better just leave it at that. Besides, it's time for me to go to the garage and practice with the band. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not. What did I say that made you think that? I was enjoying the discussion because you seemed to be discussing your interests and passions even while we disagree about editing rather than trying to get my support. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MicroPaLeo, your instinct was correct: it is an explicit violation of Wikipedia policies to create an account for the purpose of participating in a deletion discussion, regardless of what the person's other accounts have edited. I have blocked User:Markgall12 as a result. I don't see this as being serious enough to warrant chasing down his other account at this time.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Article on different person with same name, different profession

Hi I want to write an article on a up-and-coming news reporter, and I notice there's already a wikipedia page about a different person with the same name. What do I do?Eliavres (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Eliavres, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first question you need to address is whether this "up and coming" person has reached the level of notability to have a Wikipedia article at this point in their career. Check the general criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the more specific comments at WP:JOURNALIST to be sure there is enough high-quality, independent material to show their notability. If not, their Wikipedia article will have to wait until they are notable enough, in the special Wikipedia sense of "notable". Once you have established that he/she is sufficiently notable, the normal naming convention is to add a clarifying description (normally one word) in parentheses after the name, such as John Smith (explorer) or John Smith (athlete) or John Smith (actor) - see the explanation at Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Biography

Never mind. Found plenty of tutorials. Thank you.

I am new - absolutely new here. As a published author, I wish to set up a biography. How do I go about this? ChristineElizabethMac (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! Please note that autobiographies are in most cases not allowed, it wasn't clear in your question of whom you were planning of writing about. Arfæst ! 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to be neutral when you are writing about yourself. Please refer to the WP:Contributing to Wikipedia to get yourself off to the right start.

Bfpage |leave a message 03:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanking MadScientistX11

I'm not sure how to reply, but am sending thanks to MadScientistXII for responding so quickly. I appreciate the guidance. The information was provided earlier on, for research I was doing. In any case, I provided links from external public sources. Thank you for the articles. They will be helpful. Pursuinginquiry (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Pursuinginquiry, glad to help. BTW, if you want to reply right in the same section where you asked the question just click on the "Edit" link above the section. Essentially, Wikipedia uses the same wikicode and conventions for editors talking to each other as we do for articles. One essential trick to know (someone had to point this out to me when I first started editing as well) is to get the indentation, to make it look like a discussion thread you start your paragraph with a colon. Every colon means another level of indentation so, this paragraph had a colon at the start and...

This paragraph started with two colons. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Opening multiple pages

Does someone know how I can open multiple pages in one mouse click (all pages from 1 category)? I thought I saw it once, but can't find it anymore... Thank you! Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is (or was) a plugin for Firefox called Linky that could open up to 200 links from a page if my memory serves me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

@Sander.v.Ginkel: I use the Firefox add-on Multi Links. You toggle it on and off at the bottom right corner of your browser window. When on, hold down your mouse and drag the expandable box over whatever territory of the screen you want and any links inside will all open when you release. Couldn't live without it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! It works :). This will speed up my work. Thanks guys, Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 08:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I keep getting my submission denied due to it being too close to an article previously published.

I wrote a submission on behalf of the founder of a martial arts organization.He gave me the information and I rewrote it in my own words. He had previously submitted a similar article in Blackbelt Magazine. I tried several time rewriting it and providing references but keep getting rejected.How do I overcome this and get the article published? The author of the Blackbelt article is also the founder and head of the organization I am writing the submission for. Help!Lograssolaw (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Lograssolaw - hopefully we can give you some encouragement with your editing. Are you certain at this point that the issue is about copyright/plagarism rather than notability? What type of references do you have?

Bfpage |leave a message 02:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lograssolaw. I'm not sure what draft it is you are referring to (the only edits from your account are to your sandbox, which I think you created after this question). But looking at that sandbox, I see that the text there is completely unreferenced and very promotional. But I suggest you have a careful look at wp:your first article, and make sure you understand the principles of notability, neutral point of view, and conflict of interest. Any Wikipedia article should be based entirely on material published in reliable sources, and it should be mostly based on sources unconnected with the subject. If the only substantial source is an article (even a published article) by the founder of the organisation, then there is almost nothing that can validly go into the article, so no article on it will be acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

pov adjectives

Dear Sirs:

Thank you for letting me contribute to wikipedia, and I would like to follow the guidelines properly - Is there a section where may I find adjectives allowed in profiles? I have observed that while my use of the adjective "iconic" aptly Pursuinginquiry (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)used in the sentence has been deleted by another by user who warned me "capitalized" not to include. However, I have observed that negative adjectives, which are considered pov adjectives, had been used in the past.Any guidance you may give will be greatly appreciated. Pursuinginquiry (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Pursuinginquiry Here are some articles that you might find useful: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia:Objective_Sources and wp:Conflict of interest Using language like "iconic" is usually not encyclopedic. It's the kind of language you would expect from a web site or a PR office that promotes a person. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and usually avoids such language. It can be possible to use words like "iconic" if you have a proper source though. So for example, an article about Humphrey Bogart might say something like "Source X called Bogart the iconic tough guy of film noir" and that (with a proper reference) would be allowed. But without a very strong reference and the proper wording just saying "iconic" is typically considered non-neutral and not allowed. Also, I noticed in your edit summaries you say things like "this info has been provided by his (the subject of the article) office" as if that justifies the edit. In fact, just the opposite, that is a good reason to revert an edit. The office of an actor or some other celebrity obviously has what Wikipedia considers a wp:conflict of interest and there are significant restrictions on what can be allowed to be taken from that office or people who work for or are otherwise directly associated with the office or the celebrity. If you are associated with the subject of your editing you should read those guidelines carefully and make sure to disclose your association and follow the guidelines for how people with a COI should edit. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Pursuinginquiry. Besides the resources and advice given by MadScientistX11, I would point you at wp:PEACOCK as a specific answer to your question. I would also suggest you completely forget the word "profile" when editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" of its subjects, it contains articles about them, based almost entirely on what other people, unconnected with the subject, have written about them in and published in places with a reputation for fact-checking. --ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

removing a referenced line.

Hi, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and I've been trying to add something to an article that i felt was miss leading without. At first i simply edited the appropriate section and marked it down as a minor edit but the line was removed the following day. I then searched online through various websites for a suitable reference and after finding the most appropriate source re-edited the piece together with the citation. The trouble is after going through the citation template and it appearing within the text of the main article it came back as 'citation error' and has been removed already. The article is definitely miss leading without my relevant point but I get the feeling this line will still be removed even if it's cited correctly.Anyone able to give any advice on this would be much appreciated.(Richie bedfellows (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Richie bedfellows: I guess we're talking about Liverpool F.C. here and the phrase "...to coincide with their domination of English Football in the same period." I see your point especially as the paragraph continues "Manchester United started to dominate English football during the 1990s". Personally I think the article should contain both or neither or be reworded just to say that the rivalry was at its greatest during the period when the two clubs dominated English football. However what you shouldn't be doing is getting into an edit war over it. Your intial edit having been reverted you should stop and discuss at the article talk page to come to a consensus on the wording. As to the formatting of the citation, you used the right template but the url paramter needs to be the url in full |url=http://www.givemesport.com/374498-liverpool-v-manchester-united-englands-biggest-rivalry not just a shortened version. Nthep (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Can any editor, set up at short phone call with me, about some questions? today or tomorrow???

If possible, could it be GeorgeLouis or Mr. Jim Cullen? Thanks. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC) PhilipofBVM (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi PhilipBVM. You can leave messages to editors on their user talk pages. The user talk page for Cullen is User talk:Cullen328 and the user talk page for GeorgeLouis is User talk:GeorgeLouis. As for phone calls, Wikipedia editors are all volunteers and my experience is that many prefer to keep their online identity and real identity separate and distinct, so you might not have much luck finding someone willing to explain things to you over the phone. Some editors do interact via email, so maybe that is your best bet. You can also try the Wikipedia Internet chat room if you're looking for more specific real-time advice from other editors. Or, you can just ask your question here at the Teahouse and wait for somebody to answer it. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC) PhilipofBVM (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello PhilipofBVM. I am Jim Heaphy, and I use "Cullen328" as my user name. I believe that discussions about article content should take place openly, right here on Wikipedia. I am happy to discuss things with you here, but not by phone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Using other wikipedia links as a reference

I just started editing a page about women's tennis records and I am using another wikipedia page as a reference. I was wondering if it is kosher to reference other wiki pages rather than outside sources? Thank you. Macky991999 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Definitely not, see WP:CIRCULAR. What you might be able to do, however, is to use whatever outside sources have been used as references for the other Wikipedia page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, go to Google and enter "recursion". Collect (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I hate to be pedantic when it comes to computer science issues... who am I kidding I love to be pedantic but no, recursion is not the same thing as a circular reference. A circular reference is essentially useless, X defines Y and Y defines X so nothing is really defined. Recursion is an extremely powerful mechanism for defining mathematical functions using programming languages such as Lisp that support it. The difference is that a recursive definition isn't JUST circular it also includes a termination condition. So the most common example is Factorial(X) = 1 IF X = 0 ELSE Factorial(X-1) * X otherwise. Which I realize has taken us pretty far afield from a reference for women's tennis but I'm like that scorpion on the frog's back, its just my nature not to be able to pass up a chance to comment on something I think is actually pretty cool. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a well-known Google "easter egg" of sorts. I had way too many math courses in college <g> (over a dozen to be sure) Collect (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

sources for music album

Hello, What should I use for a source for John Denver Sings. It was made in 1966 as a private pressing, but it was not released until 2012, and then only as part of a boxed set (and separately on iTunes). As a result, there are no really good sources out there to back it up, but other people have said that it is notable. Is it? Thanks! Brycecordry (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Brycecordry: Hey Brycecordry. Yes, after looking it does not appear there are insufficient reliable sources for this album to sustain an autonomous article. So, don't try to make this into a stand-alone article. Simple as that. But do include it (if it's not already included) in appropriate places for mention such as John Denver discography. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I edit the article nicely, but the admin put it back in the previous edit!! Why?

Im new to wikipedia but i use it many years before, and when my friend ask me to translate an article to her i didnt refuse it. The article is about Mona Lisa, she copy the english article of it and gave to me. I translate it to her clear and nice filipino language or tagalog as other may say, she got a nice grade at her college school because of it, now it gives me an idea to put it in the tagalog wikipedia so that it may help. But when i research the article on tagalog it has already exist so i just edit it. I edit it repeatedly to furnish it and at last i finished it. The sad part is an admin of wikipedia in the philippines name "WayKurat" put it back to the previous edit, which is you cannot understand it easily because the transilation is so poor and word by word not by the truthful meaning of the article. Now what should i do? That edit ive done on that article cause me time and i think hard for it but that admin simply delete it.

What should i do how can i edit something and be sure that it will not end up in trash??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgazar Abanto Galvan (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Melgazar Abanto Galvan. The purpose of the Teahouse is to answer questions about editing the English Wikipedia. Your question really pertains to the Tagalog Wikipedia, which is operated and administered separately. I suggest you try to discuss the matter with the administrator on Tagalog Wikipedia who reverted, as well as on the talk page of the Tagalog Mona Lisa article. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Melgazar Abanto Galvan: I don't know Tagalog or the policies of the Tagalog Wikipedia and as Cullen said, this page is for the English Wikipedia. Without knowing the language I cannot comment on the quality of the text but I did look at your edits. The page history [1] shows you changed this to this. You removed all links, references, categories and section headings. See Help:Wiki markup for how to make such things. I guess that was the main reason for reverting your edits but you would have to ask the editor to be sure. See Help:Using talk pages for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Go to the Talk Page at [2] and ask over there. Good luck! GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical People

If I correct the name of a historical person, do I have to include the source? (And if so) Where and how do I share my source for verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JericVgilbert (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Don't forget to sign your remarks by striking the tilde key ~~ four times. You can make the correction right on the page and add your source right after the correction on the same line: Don't worry, somebody will come along and put it in the right format for you. We had rather the text be correct than have it be wrong! But it would be better if you learned some of the peculiarities of Wikipedia markup. I've put a list of them on your User Talk Page that will help you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will leave you some instructions on how to add references on your talk page. In the meantime, please realize we do not always refer to things by their legal or "proper" names. Instead we always use the name the subject is best known as, and to determine this we look at multiple references if there is a dispute. Your best course of action would probably bring the subject of the person's name up on the article in question's talk page. It would be helpful if you would share with us what (and who) that was. John from Idegon (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusion over usernames, userpages,etc

Just signed on. I'm planning to write an article about a painter who lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay area from 1939 till his passing in 1989. Is the user name I chose going to be the name I would have to use for the article? I am looking for a simple, straight forward, step by step through the process, no tour around the galaxy. I am registered, with a username and I understand the it would be good to go to the "Sandbox" to prepare and self-edit the article. It's a bit bewildering where to go next. Thank you, Ray Day Irvingnorman2015 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Irvingnorman2015: Hey Ray Day. You can use the sandbox Wikipedia provides as part of the interface to write your draft or you can create a dedicated page in your userspace or user talk space, such as User:Irvingnorman2015/insert name of the artist. Don't worry, whatever name you use, once its ready for the article mainspace it can be moved to the proper name. In short, no, one's user name has no bearing on the names of articles; it pigeonholes you not at all. To use your sandbox, just click on the sandbox link at the top of the page. To use a sandbox in your userspace at a dedicated name, like the one I provided in the last sentence, just type it between doubled brackets [[like this]] and click show preview, then click on the red link to create it. You might instead save such a link on your user page or user talk page, rather than previewing it, so that you can find it easily. I think you would get much out of taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial first though. Regarding the artist you plan on writing about, please be aware of our requirements in articled for citations to reliable sources that show both the notability of the topic, and which verify the information content. The best way to write an article is not to write what you know and then try to find sources for it, but to gather sources, and let what they verify guide your writing hand. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Irvingnorman2015. As Fuhghettaboutit told you, you are more than welcome to use your sandbox to create an article. However, you may also what to avail yourself of some of the help we have for article creation, namely the articles for creation process. In either case, if I am understanding what you said, the guy you are planning on writing on is Irving Norman, right? There looks to be quite a bit out there; but I know nothing of art and writing Wikipedia articles about artists, so I am not going to express an opinion on whether he would be considered notable (that's the name for the standard of inclusion here on Wikipedia). One thing I will tell you though is that although there is no relationship between your username and any article you might create's name, if they are similar, you may face unneeded hassles from people thinking you have a confict of interest. You can change your username at WP:CHU. John from Idegon (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Article maintenance tagging

In the article 20:20 (Ryan Adams album), the section 'The albums' is basically an interview from a single source without paraphrasing. Should I tag the article for being completely rewritten because it doesn't meet the quality standards, copypaste because the entire section is copy and pasted, or something else because it is not informative and the tone is not optimal (note that the interview includes swearing and is not conclusive). The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If an entire section has been copied directly from an external source you should delete that section as a copyright violation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The section contained quotes only. I don't think it is copyright infringement but has other issues. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For now I shall tag it for over-quotation with the {{Over-quotation}} tag.

Notable Awards in box

I notice that some people have a "Notable Awards" section in their bio box. I have artlessly tried to add "notable_award=" in the edit section relevant to the box of the person I am writing about, but it didn't work. Is there a way to do that? Many thanks 143.233.243.125 (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Biographies for different kinds of people use different infoboxes with different parameters. Which article is it? Edits by your current IP address don't reveal it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How many edits is a reasonable number each week?

Can someone tell me the number of edits that should be targetted each week? Woodstockboy22 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodstockboy22, welcome to the Teahouse. We are all volunteers and choose how much to do. There is no target and accounts never expire. Some editors take breaks for years and come back. Others suffer from editcountitis. Anyway, quality is often more important than quantity. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Will My Image be deleted?

Hi

I received a message saying an image I had uploaded had been marked for speedy deletion, because of copyright issues. However, I can catagorically state I am the copyright owner of this image.

The message I received said I should click on a link called "contest speedy deletion", but there is no link there. Does this mean my image has been okayed?

My image is called: File:UpATreeLooper.jpg

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Johnjackdaw (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:UpATreeLooper.jpg&diff=643902680&oldid=643899128

A user has removed the speedy deletion tag. In the future, you must use the File Upload Wizard (use the upload file link on the left panel) and use the Fair Use rationale, because this isn't free media. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Johnjackdaw (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Johnjackdaw. When you scan or take a photo of a two-dimensional item which is itself copyrighted, you do not own the copyright of the resulting image. This applies to things like book and album covers, movie posters, team and company logos, and the like. The copyright is retained by others, usually by the business that created the original item. You do own the copyright to photos you take of landscapes, plants,and animals or common, everyday items. These matters are complicated, so please do not say that you hold a copyright unless you are 100% sure that you do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. I am 100% sure that I own the copyright in this particular instance. My point was that I own the copyright to the original artwork, not that I took the photograph of the artwork. Johnjackdaw (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you are the author, you need to give it a free license, and upload it to the Wikimedia Commons website. I recommend you use the Upload Wizard. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC) This problem seems to have been fixed (at least for the online version of English Wikipedia), as an editor marked it as non-free fair use. If you do wish to donate it for wider use, you will probably need to send some evidence that you own the copyright (for example that you can speak for Jeepster Records) to the "OTRS" following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Request participation for discussion about source for birth dates

Hello, someone has opened a discussion here about using Entertainment Agency website as sources for birth dates. There are only 2 responses so far that contradicted each other. So if possible, I would like to kindly ask participation from senior editor here. Who can participate in that discussion, can I join when i'm not the admin/host/regular there? There has been many objections on using the agency info on DOB because they have opinion that Agency "have significant incentives to lie". However According to WP:DOB:

Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.

Aren't ent agencies a "source linked to the subject"? if the wiki policy allowed editors to used agency infos, Isn't those opinion will better use to changed the policy about WP:DOB? Thank you so much for the help. Please let me know if this is not the right place to ask. Sonflower0210 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask for advice, not for content disputes. You may want to start a RfC. Arfæst ! 10:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Arfæst Ealdwrítere:. Can you help on how to make rfc request? do i just need to input the request (rfc|policy) on that discussion?Sonflower0210 (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There are step-by-step instructions how to set up an RfC in the "Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues" section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Arfæst ! 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sonflower0210. The WP:DOB policy is for private individuals and protecting their privacy. But it also says that it's OK to use widely published information, which artist birth dates are. About the RfC, you can do that, but I would wait to see how the discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard comes out. If you like, feel free to join the discussion. Anyone can join, no need to be an admin or regular. The advantage of that is that the talk pages of Wikipedia guidelines are often the best place to get advice from editors who know the guidelines well. Note that it's not unusual to see disagreements on the talk pages! This happens all the time. But if there is a broad agreement, then that's a good guide to how the guideline should be applied, and it can be cited if the question comes up again. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Should an author bio list "Selected works" or a "Bibliography"?

I hope that the Teahouse is a good place to ask a question that might interest beginners, even though I have been around Wikipedia for a while.

Some biographies have a list of "Selected works" (for example Aldous Huxley) whereas others attempt a complete bibliography. In some cases, this is a separate article, like Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography. Isaac Asimov has both a 'Selected bibliography' section, and separate comprehensive bibliography articles. Which is the most useful to Wikipedia readers, and is one or other preferred by editor consensus? I looked in WP:MOSBIO but didn't find guidance.

Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Hroðulf. I think that depends on the author. Selected works is more common. For example, we almost never list all of the publications of an academic, only the most important ones. Doyle and Asimov get the full treatment because here at Wikipedia we're all geeks at heart (just kidding, only most of us:) Seriously, I do think that selected works would be more common. Especially if the author has a large number of works and is not an undeniably major author. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Declining from the article

Hello!I was trying to correct an article about the company .A.S.A. Abfall Service AG, because there are mentioned information which are not relevant /valid any more. The editor JoMa declines the article every time I make the canges. I would understand if he does not like the style of writing but he/she has to accept the facts and mistakes he is publishing and brining the audience into the error. I am not sure what to do now, because I fail every time with some unclear arguments. What do you advice to me to do? Cheetah73 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cheetah73, welcome to the Teahouse. Please link the article you refer to. I don't see the mentioned edits at any of Special:Contributions/Cheetah73, Draft:.A.S.A. Abfall Service AG (page history) or Abfall Service AG (history), and there is no User:JoMa. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Can others view my sandbox?

I am in the process of writing my first Wikipedia article. I have had to start over because the first time I published it, it was vandalized and trolled/spammed. It is currently being built in my sandbox and I'm wondering if others can see that? If not, how do I grant access to specific users? Is that possible? I'm looking for someone who would be willing to help in the creation of this article. Not from the content standpoint, but more from the Wikipedia guidelines and rules standpoint. What's allowed and what's not allowed? What I don't want is someone to go in and delete everything. I want someone to look at it and then post suggestions and comments in the Talk section and not make any actual changes at this point. However changes will likely be made, I just want to be aware of them first and discuss them so I understand why.

Any feedback on this idea? Is this possible to do?

Thanks! Ket555 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ket555, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Yes, everyone can see your sandbox, as every page here is visible to everyone. If you were autoconfirmed, you could have it semi-protected, but since you're not autoconfirmed (which requires 10 edits and four days since registration), semi-protecting the page would also keep you from editing it. However, you do not have to start over each time a page is vandalized. Simply undo the edit, and the page will be restored to the previous version. (Wikipedia saves every revision of every page.) Happy editing! --Biblioworm 16:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. How does one access someone's sandbox? For example, I went to your page, but I don't see a link to your sandbox anywhere. How does someone find it?

Ket555 (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your sandbox User:Ket555/sandbox appears to be an exact copy of this page User:Ktanner5/sandbox are you using multiple accounts? Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I fear that when you referred to the article being "vandalized and trolled/spammed" you may actually have meant that the changes didn't suit your company's interests. Remember that it is not your article, it is Wikipedia's. Two items of guidance which you need to read are about conflict of interest and about ownership of pages. If this message was yours, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia works. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a very long story and a separate issue that I'm working with an Admin on fixing. It was suggested that I create a new account as to get away from a certain user. That statement was made and then later deleted as it was made in mistake. Again, this is a separate issue that is being handled by admins.

But that's why I'm asking about the sandbox. Before posting the article as a draft I would like input from others.Ket555 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You are currently editing using both of your accounts, you need to abandon one now or you are likely to fall foul of Wikipedia's rules on sockpuppetry. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I did. I added the tag to delete the profile as well, per instructions given to me. Either way I will not be using it anymore.

Ket555 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ket555 first, keep in mind in general it is not usually a good idea to edit someone else's sandbox unless that person already agrees to it. To see another user's sandbox you just need to add "/sandbox" to the path for the user. So for example my user name is: "User:MadScientistX11" so my sandbox is: User:MadScientistX11/sandbox If I want to see your sandbox I just go to User:Ket555/sandbox Also, note that if someone does make a change to your sandbox it is easy to revert it by looking at the history for the sandbox (as with any page click on "View History") and restoring the previous version that you want. Note, this is all just general info, I'm assuming good faith that you are sincere about not continuing to use multiple accounts and also there are some additional issues that can enter into it when you try to publish an article or if you have copyrighted text or images in your sandbox or put something in there (e.g. libelous or obscene material) that violates Wikipedia:policies Also, if you work for The Energy Conservatory or otherwise are associated with them you should review the rules for wikipedia:conflict of interest There are significant restrictions on how you should edit a page that you have a COI with. One last thing, if you want people to review your work, rather than just say "look at my sandbox" it is better to leave a specific link to it as I did above. Most editors know how to find your sandbox but some may not and in any case its easier for us if you leave a link and also reduces the chances for confusion. To create a link type the path and then use the link tool (looks like the links of a chain) in the editor. Hope that was useful. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! My other profile has been deleted to the best of my knowledge. At least it says it's gone! So yes, I was sincere when I said that. I also deleted the original company article I created, for now at least. As I stated before we need to have an in-house discussion about it. I do understand the COI issue. I used to be a journalist and had to write articles all the time about things in which I had a personal, sometimes very strong, interest and connection. Due to my educational and professional background I'm very good at writing things in a non-bias, just-the-facts, fashion. Something most journalist lack! Haha! So I do fully understand that IF we publish an article on here it must be non-bias, non-promotional, non-advertorial, and as "third party" as possible. As I've said I've been looking at other company articles, including other manufacturing companies, just to see how they did it. Some of them were clearly written by someone at the company, while others might have been written by a third party. Either way I'm using those as examples and what to base mine on. Whether or not what's on those pages is actually ok is a different story and I realize that. Thank you again for your input! Once I'm ready for the article to be reviewed I'll post a link to my sandbox. And that's IF we decide to try to publish it. Ket555 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Suitable Reference

Hello, I've had an article rejected several times due to lack of proper references ... I was wondering if the following qualifies as an acceptable reference?

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6687001

Mttocs (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mttocs. While Bloomberg in general is a reliable source, I see this particular page as a directory listing, followed by reprints of some press releases. I think all of this information was furnished by the company. I see no signs of independent reporting that rises to the level of significant coverage needed to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

translating an article to gujrati

Is a system in place to translate articles to Gujarati ? I. Would like to supervise some articles Summichum (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Summichum
You would need to ask that question at the Gujerati Wikipedia - each language's Wikipedia is run differently. I don't think they have a "tea-house" but you could ask at their Help desk - Arjayay (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't know much written Gujarati is here a guild of translatorsSummichum (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Summichum see Wikipedia:Translation and Category:Available translators in Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Can wikilinks be created to sub-sections of sub-sections of Wikipedia articles?

Hi. If you want to create a wikilink to a sub-section of an article, you can do so by adding a hashtag after the title of the article, followed by the title of the sub-section eg. Chemotherapy#Types. Is there any way of creating a wikilink to a sub-section of a sub-section eg. the "Cytotoxic antibiotics" sub-section of the "Types" sub-section of the "Chemotherapy" article? Or are sub-sections of sub-sections considered insufficiently permanent (ie. deleted or moved too frequently) for this to be possible? Your advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. tH0r (talk contribs) 14:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. A section is a section, regardless of what level of section. Hence Chemotherapy#Cytotoxic antibiotics works just as well as Chemotherapy#Types. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Awesome!!! Thanks for replying so quickly, David Biddulph. Much appreciated. tH0r (talk contribs) 15:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

L0st_H0r!z0ns There is a way of overcoming the problem of section headings not being "permanent": WP:ANCHOR.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Article has multiple issues I can't fix

Hi. I created this article and it seems to have problems. I don't understand the contributor error and it is not an orphan, yet it says that it does at the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosef_Yusupov

Thanks in advance.

Borister (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Borister: Hello and welcome! I removed the incorrect orphan tag, as for the other tag, read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user?

I am wanting to upload a picture for an article needing a picture uploaded to help improve it and I asked at the wikimedia site for help in doing so. i got a reply of I'm not auto-confirmed but upon checking my information in my preferences I'd believe I am. Could someone please clarify this bit of trouble for me? It would help to let you know that it says under groups in preferences tab I think it said something about found under auto-confirmed users?Needs2learnmore^(talk) 03:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I see where you where told this. That person was simply incorrect. You exceed the normal thresholds for autoconfirmation by some measure, and you are listed as an implicit member of the group. Were you blocked in some way when you tried to do an upload? What happened? What did the message(s) say, if any? Turning back to the picture issue and some question you did not ask, are you sure of the picture's copyright status? Did you take the photograph yourself? If not, where did it come from? How old is it. Who is the author? There are a bunch of issues regarding uploading content that the answers to these questions would help with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I found it in the wikimedia commons as i tried searching on flickr and found one that wasn't as well in quality. i haven't tried uploading it as of yet because of the fact that i'm confused as to how to do it as the links i was told to look at and have read three different times over again have left me in a state of confusion.In regards to the age of the image it's about 7 years old from the date given in the information of the picture. Without trying to take up a boatload of time with discussing this in terrible detail, if you look up Wandesford House on the wikimedia site it should give you more information than I can type here for it Needs2learnmore^(talk) 05:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Needs2learnmore:, if the image is on Commons then you don't need to upload it again to Wikipedia as Commons images can be used across all Wiki-projects simply by linking to the image in the same way you create any internal link such as [[File.example.jpg]] Nthep (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Needs2learnmore. It's true that working with images and copyright can be quite complicated. As I think you've found, there are two pictures of Wandesford House on commons already, and you can use one of those in the article, but you don't think they're very good pictures and you want to use better ones. When I search flickr for Wandesford House, there are several, but if I specify the 'license' in the search to "Creative Commons" it reduces to three; and if I further tick "Commercial use allowed" and "Modifications allowed", it reduces to one - and that is not a picture of the house as such, but just of the bust of Mary Wandesford. I'm afraid that this is the only license that is acceptable for use on Wikipedia (this is not quite true, but I don't believe that any of the alternatives is relevant here) so I'm afraid that none of these pictures, apart from Tim Green's picture of the bust, may be uploaded and used in Wikipedia. If you are able to take your own photos of it and release them, or if you were to contact the copyright holder of one of the other pictures on flickr and persuade them to donate the picture to Wikimedia commons, then you can use it; otherwise, no.

I know you didn't ask this, but far more valuable than the trivial improvement of adding a picture to Wandesford House would be to find and add some reliable references to it. As it stands, the article has no references at all, so it could in principle be deleted at any time, and it is in a sense completely worthless, (because the reader has no way of checking that anything at all in it is correct). --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion due to the promotion problem

How come my new-created wikipedia page is viewed as promotion piece and tagged with speedy deletion? Any tips for me to amend or adjust my writing?Carrielam1018 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Save a copy of your work on your computer in case the article is deleted. (If it is deleted, don't try to recreate it until you have discussed it with experienced Wikipedians, or read the rules about recreating deleted articles.)

There are several reasons why one of your fellow editors may have regarded this as promotion.

One is the 'peacock words' like 'wisely', 'innovative', 'great anticipation', 'leadership ability', 'great recognition' and several more.

Another is the article seems to be heavily weighted towards awards, speaking invitations and personal life, with very little about the subject's professional career.

Do you work for the subject or for RADICA? If so, writing an article here may cause problems for Wikipedia and for your employer. Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

The most difficult area is notability. The article is expected to explain why the person is notable. Editors may challenge you to provide at least 2 reliable sources for notability. Also, most editors don't read Mandarin or Cantonese, so you may have to translate important sentences in the footnotes or talk page. Read more at Wikipedia:Notability.

Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As an additional pair of points, you can avoid copying and pasting material from copyrighted websites, and you can avoid creating multiple accounts to recreate your article; both of these tactics will get you banned from Wikipedia Carrielam1018 - or is it Ph kck? I would like to know... TomStar81 (Talk) 11:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

how to ad pictures to an article

How to ad pictures in an article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadechaudhary (talk • contribs) 01:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Triadechaudhary.

If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Triadechaudhary, I also want to add on to what Fuhghettaboutit said: If you're interested in the first option, you can go to the introduction to uploading images to get a basic introduction to our image copyright policies. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 16:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft to published

hello,

Does anyone know how to turn a draft article into a published one for reviewing?

Thank you AntoniaChrisodoulou (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @AntoniaChrisodoulou: Welcome to the Teahouse! To submit your draft for review, just place {{subst:submit}} at the very top of the draft. An experienced editor will come by and review your article, either approving it and publishing it, or declining it with reasons why. Note that there is unfortunately a backlog of roughly ~2,000 drafts waiting for a review, so it might take anywhere between a day and several weeks for an editor to come by. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ooops! I have just started on WikiPedia with a couple of pages (Gandelow and Ilen School) and had missed the advice about submitting drafts. My excuse is that I have used Wikis extensively in the past (in the setting of a community of workers where reviewing was done but was more 'organic') and have not yet fully got to grips with all the Wikipedia procedures! However, the pages were picked up automatically and have passed (which is good). I suppose for many people, as the TH questions show, the whole editor experience is quite geeky and time consuming - but worth it in the end. Great biscuits with the tea! Thanks. MrComplexity (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What next steps do I take in dealing with possible harassment?

On 17 January 2015 I came to here to get advice on how to deal with what I feel could be considered "harassment", and may be against WP:FORUM guidelines, on the talk page of an article I have been working on. Talk:Gun show loophole#Simple question for Darknipples since it insists on the existence of the Gunshow Loophole. I reached out to the IP editor 63.152.117.19 that posted this section and asked for them to respond, which they have not done. When I posted a request on the article's talk page for deletion of the section, since it made me uncomfortable, other editors objected. I'm not sure what to do next. Should I contact WP:ARBCOM? Thanks for the tea! Darknipples (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The hosts and hostesses in the Teahouse enjoy encouraging other wikipedians/editors as they create and edit articles and generally don't get involved or comment on some of the steamier issues of talk page discussions. As for being uncomfortable, that is unfortunate and ironic - I am a 56-year-old grandmother and I am too uncomfortable to even type your username! Lol!

Bfpage |leave a message 03:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, it is much appreciated, but it does not seem to address any of my questions or issues. Where should I discuss this, if not here? Darknipples (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A header like this is usually seen at WP:AN/I, but I don't encourage you to go to that dark, dark place. Also, have you considered changing your username? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, don't take it to ArbCom. That place is the last resort. There are other places you can take it to, and ArbCom should only be considered if absolutely nothing else works. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 06:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice! If no one has any other suggestions, I'll be taking this to WP:AN/I. Darknipples (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As a new editor I did expect that, generally, discourse would be appreciative and rarely vitriolic. Sadly, it seems that that's not so. But maybe that's a good sign that WP is not some sort of cottonwooly space of people saying 'lovely' to each other, but is where people wrestle with truth (and versions of it). MrComplexity (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

accidently edited someones user page

I meant to create the talk page of User:Passiondentelles, but accidentally created the user page. I blanked the user page because I have no clue to undo. Jo Pol (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You did what you could. Your comment in the edit summary explains it. Don't worry about it. Onel5969 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)