Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 373

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 370Archive 371Archive 372Archive 373Archive 374Archive 375→Archive 380

I was searching for "Television City, Hollywood, CA" where many pre 1980 Game Shows were filmed.

I did not find an entry, but "CBS Television City, Hollywood, CA," is mentioned in the lengthy Glen Campbell article. The mention of CBS Television City, Hollywood, CA is not a link.

This is my first time posting -- do not want to screw anything up by trying to create a link for "Television City, Hollywood, CA"

Any suggestions?

Michelle Michelleintx (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Michelleintx, and welcome to the Teahouse. When a subject is legitimately mentioned in a Wikipedia article but there is no Wikipedia page for that subject, but there should or might be such a page, one can insert a wiki-link just as if the target article existed. This will make a "redlink" which will link to the article when adn if it is created, and which may help motivate some editor to create the target article. Redlinks are generally considered a good idea, provided that they are to targets that might plausibly have a legitimate Wikipedia article. Or of course you could yourself try to create such an article. If you do, i advise reading Your First article, the Golden Rule of Wikipedia, and Referencing for Beginners. Then I advise using the article wizard. DES (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreeing with DES as to the advice for the general case, here we do have an article, at CBS Television City. I've created a redirect to it from this longer, plausible search title. Because of that, it can be linked directly now, but even where no such redirect existed it could be linked by piping the link in this manner: [[CBS Television City|CBS Television City, Hollywood, CA]]. The text to the left of the pipe ("|") tells the software what to link to, and to the right, what to display. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What is Wikidata item?

What is Wikidata? In my watchlist sometime I see updates like "Wikidata item changed", what exactly happens if Wikidata item is changed? Some of my newly created pages has "none" Wikidata item, while my old pages have "Wikidata item", if Wikidata item doesn't get attached to any new article then what happens with that article? --Human3015Send WikiLove  08:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Human3015. See wikidata:Wikidata:Introduction. Wikidata is a separate wiki which can be used to store data about a subject and links to pages about the subject in different Wikipedia languages and Wikimedia wikis. Many pages at the English Wikipedia have a corresponding page at Wikidata, called the Wikidata item for the page. Click "Wikidata item" in the left pane of an article to see its Wikidata item. An article doesn't need a Wikidata item but if it has one then it can sometimes display some data from it without having the data in the source of the English Wikipedia page, and links to other Wikipedia languages are usually coming from the Wikidata item. "Wikidata item changed" in your watchlist just means something was changed in the Wikidata item for the page. Wikidata and the English Wikipedia have separate watchlists but Wikidata edits can affect the English Wikipedia. To see what was changed, click "Wikidata item" on the page or the Q number in the watchlist, and then click the "View history" tab on the Wikidata page. Apart from changing the list under "Languages", the change rarely influences the English Wikipedia. I have a large watchlist and have disabled "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. Don't worry about creating or attaching a Wikidata item for a new page. If your old pages have it then it's because somebody else did it. If you click "Add links" under Languages and enter a corresponding page in another Wikipedia language then it automatically creates a Wikidata item. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Re.: reliable sources

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing an article abour a living person and I need your help. The situation is, that there is certain number of articles about the person, which are available on line. There are also some other sources. The person has peers letters, which are, of course, not published. There is also a number of newspaper and magazine articles, which are not available on line and which may also be important in establishing a person's notability. Can these two sources be used in any way? Regards Kur Kur Kerdirichi (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Which magazines/newspapers those are matters. If they're something like a personal-run community newsletter, I'd say it's not a really reliable source. Also see WP:Reliable. -Kurousagi 08:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kur Kerdirichi, without pronouncing on the quality of the individual sources - it is not necessary that a source be available online for it to be used as a reference. Newspaper and magazine articles that exist only in paper form are just fine. Anything unpublished, however, can not be used; if those letters you allude to have never been published in a book, journal or similar, they do not constitute reliable sources, as their contents cannot be verified.--Elmidae (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A Better Tomorrow

In this page, if we look at the bottom, there are four templates, First three are blue and the the last is red.Is it possible to give any color, we want? Most templates are blue, where as this one is red. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Best_Film_HKFA Action Hero 11:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. As you can see, it has a part where it says |basestyle = background:#CD5C5C;;color:white;. The part that comes after 'background:' is the background color. -Kurousagi 12:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Action Hero:, to add - yes you can edit templates to make them any colour you want but remember this will affect all pages that template is used on, not just the one you might be interested in. So before making any huge changes it's the type of thing to discuss at the template talk page first. Nthep (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Action Hero: All templates in Category:Hong Kong Film Awards templates are red. I don't know whether there is a reason for the color but if you want to change it then start a common discussion about all of them, for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

re Trebisch Lincolns son `John`

John Lincoln was charged together with Maxwell-Stewart with the murder of Richards at Trowbridge Wilts, Christmas 1925. Based entirely on a rather dodgy written confession by Lincoln he was hung.Maxwell-Stewart was discharged and re arrested for burglary.Much consternation as many felt that by hanging the son the Establishment was `gettig at` Trebisch to pay off old debts.He had certainly been a thorn in the flesh for years. Trebisch tried to enter England to see his son but the establishment decreed that only if he could get to a British port before the day of execution would such a request be considered. This was physically impossible.The local MP during the trial promised to help in any way he could but suddenly changed his mind. Collection of money for an appeal donated by his fellow soldiers was suddenly squashed from `on high`. Speeches were made by highly placed politicians denigrating the feeling` which seemed to be prevalent that certain persons convicted of a heinous crime had in some way been badly treated`. A general feeling of unease surrounds the episode. Is this an appropriate addition to the Trebisch Lincoln entry? Pat Ladd86.171.146.165 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It needs citations and a little editing, but other than that it's fine in my opinion. (Even though finding the citations will probably be the hardest part.) -Kurousagi 10:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The citations are always the hardest part of Wikipedia. Finding them isn't easy for old historical articles. Formatting them isn't easy. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How to edit a picture?

I have found a picture in an article which contradicts (incorrectly) the text of the article in that it contains an arrow for direction of rotation pointing in the wrong direction. The picture is a .png which would be simple enough to edit. Is there some way other than copying / editing / deleting original / inserting edited copy? I am a complete noob at this.Thurb (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No- since there is no built-in editor in Wikipedia, you'll have to download it, edit it then update it. -Kurousagi 10:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Thurb and welcome to the Teahouse. As mentioned above, there is no image editor in the Wikipedia. If you want to change a picture, first you have to make sure that it is a free picture and not one with a limited copyright. You check the picture's page at the Wikipedia or the Commons for that. This picture is an example of a picture that cannot be altered since it is published under the fair use criteria, look at the license. After that you download it to your computer and do the necessary changes, then upload it as a new picture but state the original picture as the source for the new picture. Look at these two pictures as examples: before and after as an example. After the upload is done, you can use the new one in the article. This way the old picture is still "intact" should there be some need for it again. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 14:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Bullies, Gangs and Teams

Hello It's clear to me that people have passionate views here and elsewhere. When an article is created and tends to support a particular point of view that is controversial, it would seem to welcome more dialog. But I'm finding that when editing a controversial topic, I get reverted quickly without explanation or with inflammatory reasons. For example "reverted - POV Pushing" or "Reverted - promotion of bad citation" - when the citation is not bad, and when my POV is just my POV and I'm not pushing it? It seems that there will be teams of people working together to wear me out, where one comes in and deletes, then another, then another. I don't want to go out and get my own team of people because that's against the rules, but clearly Teams of thought police do exist within articles and why aren't they held to the same standard? Otherwise Wikipedia just is a place that people sit on top of their work with their friends and makes it look like Wikipedia supports one side of a controversial topic. Example LGBT parenting (see talk page where the Research section was started by me as an IP user and review the editing history, specifically by Roscelese). Thanks, Cityside. Cityside189 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, first, once an editor has concluded that there are tag-teams of bullies, it is impossible to persuade them that there are not. However, I fail to see any evidence that you have actually had that experience, unless you had that experience, before registering your very new account, if you were editing as an IP. It is true that some editors routinely revert edits by IPs. That shouldn't happen, but it does, and the answer is to register an account, which you did. I fail to see any articles that you have edited where you were reverted with the sort of edit summary to which you refer. You may be concerned about Mark Regnerus, but you have taken that article to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was a reasonable step. I regret that the editor who volunteered to act as the moderator has about the same amount of experience as you do (very little) and should not be moderating. We are trying to deal with that situation. However, I fail to see where there has been tag-teaming or editing by gangs. I am aware that IP editors are often dismissed. While undesirable, that is not due to teams or gangs, but to some editors simply having contempt for IP editors. You did the right thing in registering an account. Also, you won't improve the acceptance of your edits by having a reputation for complaining about bullies and gangs. There are occasionally bullies and gangs in Wikipedia, and we have procedures for dealing with them. I see that you have read the dispute resolution policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting reading might be m:Why a cabal is perceived. Eman235/talk 01:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thank you Robert and Eman. Am I wrong? OK, let me think about that. My experience that led me to worry about this was the LGBT Parenting article [1]. I edited the article with a properly cited research quotation, reliable and verifiable, it was labelled as a bad study. I tried to include information about the controversy, it was deleted with "POV pushing". I gathered enough information before reverting my own edits and went to the talk page. It started seeming like any information contrary to the view of the article would be deleted. So that's the experience I speak of, and the edit summaries show that. Thank you for your compliment about going to dispute resolution, that was the only way I thought of at the time to get help. I'll get better at this over time, I'm sure. The disputant didn't think it was worth taking to dispute but he wasn't answering me on the talk page fast enough, and not having enough experience to be patient and that there is no deadline. Thank you for the information on the moderator, I just looked at his talk page and see he was just registered, so yes, I think maybe someone with more experience can help me. Can I request that this person recuse themselves? I'd like you, Robert, to read over my latest edits on the dispute resolution board and tell me what you think. I'm not going to develop a reputation for complaining about bully and gangs, but I did share my opinion that Roscelese a bully on her talk page, which I would also like you to look at and tell me your view of my messaging her there (I don't know any other way of messaging people). Overall I have come to like Wikipedia and the nearest thing to this was when I was in graduate school in 1992, when we had listservs, on VAX/VMS computers. And did the discussions happen then!! Having some time on my hands I wanted to check into this Wikipedia that I have used routinely for at least a decade. I respect it. And I grew briefly disillusioned when my "perfectly good work" :) was deleted unceremoniously! How dare they!?!  :) Anyway I would appreciate more of your insights. I'm fairly impressed that more tenured users take it very seriously. Well if you have the time I would appreciate it.Cityside189 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The article in question is LGBT parenting. I see that two editors reverted your edits with the comments that you note. I don't see any reason to think that they were acting as a team, let alone as bullies, and by making that claim here you have made Wikipedia a less friendly place. They may have just disagreed with you, or they may have been contemptuous of IP editors. It sometimes appears to IP editors that they are being ganged up on, when what is really happening is that some editors routinely revert IPs. I see no evidence of an attempt to discuss on the talk page. It is unfortunate both that you have taken this experience as evidence of tag teams, gangs, and bullies, and that you have muddied the waters by raising that claim here. I hope that you can learn from your mistake and not infer the existence of tag teams and bullying from ordinary Wikipedia behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Your use of the word "censorship" on the talk page was not helpful. The use of the word "censorship" to "win" a content dispute is common but is very seldom productive. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Cityside189, anyone at WP:DRN may request a different moderator. In fact, this happened just a few sections above the one your issue is in, see WP:DRN#Talk:Miss Cleo#WP:NPOV issue, where i happened to be tangentially involved (see my talk page if you like).
I haven't reviewed what happened at LGBT parenting, but I generally agree with the comments of Robert McClenon just above. Tag teaming does happen on Wikipedia -- I have seen it -- but not nearly as often as people claim it does. it can feel like tag teaming when two or more editors take the same view, but it is often just legitimate consensus, and sometimes it is just a widely shared bias. DES (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes I have learned from my mistakes. And I see your special expertise in this area from you talk page about the crisis on wikipedia. Will there be additional evolution of the policies to take into account? Perhaps new users should have an assigned mentor for a while before jumping into editing. If some high percentage of time is spent fixing, for example, vandalism, then it would stand to reason that new users like me being assigned a mandatory supervisor for a while would help prevent the kinds of mistakes I (and undoubtedly others) have made. Is there a way to fix the fact that I have raised this issue in the tea house and made it less friendly? Cityside189 (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Cityside189, Any new user may request a mentor. Few do. And if most did, there wouldn't be enough qualified mentors. Moreover, I have tried in the past to mentor users unwilling to accept advice. That process is highly frustrating and time-wasting for all involved. New users who are mostly interested in adding facts about relatively non-controversial topics may not need mentors, the occasional question at a help page or note on a talk page may often be enough. Users motivated to ask for a mentor are more likely, IMO to benefit from one.
Wikipedia policies are always undergoing change. At any given time there are usually several open proposals for formal change, as well as various informal processes leading to change in policies and procedures. If you have specific proposals, feel free to discuss them and perhaps eventually propose them at WP:VPP. My talk page is always open to you, if that is of any help. As to the climate of the Teahouse, any given posting rolls off into the archives where few read it in a matter of days. Don't worry too much. DES (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Request for closure: I can't close this thread because I am involved. Will someone please close this weird thread? The filer and the unqualified DRN moderator have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

centering photo in infobox

Hi there- I changed the photo on Paul Steihardt's page, but am unsure how to center it. It does not show up properly on my mobile device. What to do? Sleepy Geek (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

edit

I would like to know the best way to submit an up date on Premarin. Your current information is dated and incomplete22:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileen durham (talk • contribs)

Hi Eileen. Go to the talk page of the article, at Talk:Premarin. Click the New section button and supply a title for your post in the field below "Subject/headline". In the editing box below that, explain what is dated, what is incomplete, what you would change or add specifically, and what reliable source (see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) can be cited to verify each fact you want to add or change. Since that talk page is not high traffic, after you're done posting, you might drop a quick note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology, to the effect that you've made suggestions for improvements to the Premarin article, and link to your post at Premarin's talk page, to make it easy for those seeing that message to visit. The link would take this form [[Talk:Premarin#Exact Name (including capitalization) of the title of your post]]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it ever okay to add descriptions/citations of one's own published work?

I am an academic researcher (in computer science and cognitive science) and I often see wikipedia pages about topics on which I have published work.

Sometimes I think that a wikipedia page would be more accurate and informative if it included descriptions and citations to more related work, and because I know my own work and the work of my collaborators best, it is sometimes links to my own work or that of my collaborators that I think should be added.

My understanding is that I should never edit pages to add descriptions/citations of my own work. So I have not done this. But is this understanding correct?

If it is, then is there an accepted or conventional way for a researcher to bring the possible edit to anyone else's attention, for possible inclusion? Or is the only appropriate behavior to drop the matter, and leave it to someone else to possibly notice the connection and add it in the future?

Leespector (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leespector. Welcome to the Teahouse. One option in these circumstances is to post on the relevant article's talk page, making a suggestion about the use of a source but also declaring that you have a conflict of interest. The relevant policy here is outlined at WP:SELFCITE. As you'll see, it doesn't actually say that you should never add citations to your own work. Instead, it says that this "is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Leespector. If you are a published expert in a specific field, then you must be familiar with the work of the "top ten" experts in your field, in addition to you and your collaborators. So, if your goal is to improve the encyclopedia, then you should be summarizing and citing the works of all recognized experts in your field, as opposed to just the work of you and your team. If you conduct yourself in this fashion, for the clear and indisputable benefit of the encyclopedia, then I doubt that any informed editor would criticize an occasional disclosed self-citation.
When a published writer cites only their own work in a singleminded fashion, especially when they make little or no other attempts to improve the content of the encyclopedia, other editors may see such an editing pattern as spamming. Hint: We are not kind to spammers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was my edited article declined?

It is relevant to the topic Central Bicol. It is also encyclopeadic.Ian Basallote (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ian Basallote. Two reasons. First, it was completely unreferenced. All content on Wikipedia must be based on previously published sources per WP:V. Altho not every single thing must be referenced, an article with no references will never be approved. Second, it appears to be akin to a phrasebook, or a translation dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. John from Idegon (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

wrong redirection

"Paracycling" and "Paralympic cycling" redirect to "Cycle sport". They shouldn't, because the article "Cycle sport" contains no information about paracycling. Can the redirection for the words go to a more suitable article, such as "Para-cycling classification"?142.150.38.155 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree and have adjusted the redirect targets. Note that any editor, even if not logged in, could have made this change, it did not require any special rights or access. DES (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Many users don't know how to edit redirects. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Quite true and I should have provided that information. Thanks. DES (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right, I did not know how. Appreciate you making the change and providing the info.142.150.38.155 (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@DES Paracycling should not redirect anywhere as there is no really appropriate target article - I will attempt to create at least a stub there as soon as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Some talk pages start with a large message in a box: "This is a part of Wikiproject ______" How are they added? Action Hero 04:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Action Hero. Such a message is added by placing a template at the top of the talk page. It's usually of the form {{WikiProject _____ }}, but precise information about the form of such a template should be included somewhere on the WikiProject's "home page" (e.g., under "Project templates" on Wikipedia:WikiProject United States). You can then go to the template's page itself for information about its use. Deor (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Prevent my page from being deleted

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

How can I improve this article? Chandra100n (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chandra. You cannot, and no article should be here. There are no reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of Aura Event Planners that discuss it in detail and so threshold basis we look to to assess whether a topic warrants and can sustain a verifiable encyclopedia article cannot be met. An encyclopedia is not where nascent topics are first exposed to external and independent publication, but where we write about things the world has already sufficiently written about, that have become mainstream knowledge. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

First Mainspace Edit

This isn't exactly a question, but I recently made my first mainspace edit. I was wondering if someone could check over it and see if it is okay. I edited the page John Dee. BluJay (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BluJay.The most important thing that any new Wikipedia editor needs to learn is that we summarize what reliable, independent sources say about various topics, and then we cite those sources. You are saying that John Dee, a historical person, has a "large role" in a work of fiction. But you provided no reference to an independent, reliable source saying so. How do we know that the role is "large" or worth mentioning in an encyclopedia? You did wikilink to the work of fiction. Our article there also says that John Dee is a major character, but it also provides no reliable source verifying that. I suggest that you do one of two things: Either provide and cite a reliable, independent source backing the claim that his role is large, or remove the claim. It is exceptionally important that every single substantive assertion we make is verifiable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I understand. BluJay (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a Post vs. Writing a Post

I've never written a post before and I wondered if it is a better practice to put in a request for a post with possible source links, or to write it myself?Laurakostur (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laurakostur, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that by "post", you mean article? That's what the encyclopedic pages are called on Wikipedia. To answer your question, if you feel that the subject you want to write about meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which are explained at Wikipedia:Notability, then you should feel free to go ahead and create it. There is guidance on how to do this at Wikipedia:Your first article. To make it easier, you can also use Wikipedia:Article wizard. That will give you the option to create the article as a draft, where it will get reviewed by an experienced editor before being added to the main article space on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, if you want an article, you are better off to write it in draft space than to request it, because you know what you want it to say. If you just provide all of the sources, someone may or may not write it, but WP:Requested articles is very very backlogged, and it might not read the way you want it to read. If you write it in draft space, then it will be reviewed, and you will be told what you need to change to make it acceptable, so that you will have more control over the process. So there are two reasons to write it yourself in draft space. First, the backlog in Requested Articles is terrible, while the backlog in Articles for Creation is manageable. Second, you will have more control, subject to critical review, than if you just provide the sources and bare facts. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism action request

An editor is adding a promotional(private) site's external link to AIPMT again and again, even when I've told him to stop his addition. I want him to be blocked from editing if he does it once again. Can anybody ( even an admin on wikipedia) help me please? If you want to help me, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Red Pen (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is that editor's talk page. He seems to have had made such problematic edits earlier also. User_talk:Pranjan21 Red Pen (talk)

Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism might be the solution to your case. Dakaryammer
stuff done 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Pranjan21, and welcome to the Teahouse. On Wikipedia, 5 warnings are usually given for advertising, as for other nonconstructive edits. In this case you would write as follows:

(on the 1st time, a general note, assuming WP:GOODFAITH): {{subst:uw-advert1|Article}} ~~~~

(on the 2nd time, a caution, with no assumption of faith) {{subst:uw-advert2|Article}} ~~~~

(on the 3rd time, assuming they are deliberately vandalising, warning them about being blocked) {{subst:uw-advert3|Article}} ~~~~

(on the 4th time) {{subst:uw-advert4|Article}} ~~~~

(on the 5th time) {{subst:uw-advert4im|Article}} ~~~~


If they stop before you have given all 5 warnings then you need not worry. If they continue to do so after you have given them all 5 warnings, between edits, you may report them to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, so that they can be blocked by an administrator.


A more extensive list of warning templates can be found here.

I hope this helps. Regards, --Rubbish computer 10:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to Red Pen as it seems you mistook the vandal for the user who asked the question. Dakaryammer
stuff done 11:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a small correction to the above - uw-4im warnings are not a "fifth level" of warning, but an immediate escalation to level 4 (for intances of particularly egregious vandalism, or if the user hasn't been previously warned but has made a number of inappropriate edits). After a level 4 warning (either uw-4 or uw-4im) the next step is WP:AIV. Yunshui 雲水 11:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Having now looked at User:Pranjan21, I see they have stopped adding promotional links after your last warning to them. If they start again, an AIV report might be appropriate, but for now, a block is unwarranted. Yunshui 雲水 11:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a myth that vandalism warnings have to be escalated through 4 or 5 levels. They do not. Reporters should exercise judgment in what level of warning to issue. While warnings can be escalated through 4 levels, depending on how obvious it is that the edits are vandalism and how blatant and serious the vandalism is, the warnings can be escalated skipping steps. Reporters should also use judgment in deciding how many warnings are needed to report to WP:AIV. In particular, if the edit history shows that the address or account is vandalism-only, it should be reported if the vandalism continues after one warning. If the edit history shows that the edits are largely vandalism, it is worth reporting. Administrators will exercise judgment in deciding whether to block an address or account for vandalism, but will almost always act if the account is vandalism-only or the address is primarily vandalism. (If the address is a shared IP address, then any good-faith users can create accounts.) So you do not need to escalate a vandalism warning through 4 levels, and administrators will not require that warnings be escalated through 4 levels. Go ahead and warn, and if the vandalism continues after a level 2 through level 4, use judgment as to whether to report. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to everybody for his/her guidance :) Red Pen (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon, I just happened upon your paragraph here and it was something I wasnt sure about yesterday so it helped me understand how to warn of vandalism better. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Credible Edit on Wikipedia page was deleted

To whom it may concern,

I had submitted an edit of a reference which was leading to a broken link, to have it re-directed to the right link, on the wikipedia webpage page Industrial computed tomography. Unfortunately, it was highlighted as spam and deleted. The initial link had been live on wikipedia for well over 4 years. Could you please assist me in how to move forward to have this error fixed and the rightful source of information referenced accordingly? I appreciate your time and efforts in advance, thank you.Jgarant (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that your edit has been reverted, the next step is to discuss it with the other user at their talk page. Please see WP:Bold, revert, discuss.--ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Jgarant, one reason your edits were reverted is that you used your own website as a reference. This can be seen as a conflict of interest and it is better to keep your activity as a Wikipedia editor separate from your business interests, even if you think you are being helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion questions and concerns

Hello Denniss. Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Template:Danny Dean Phillips. (TW)

I was under the assumption that I could go with step 7 and that I could start a new article in my Sandbox first as a draft article. My question is should I create the article in word before using my user space to avoid deletion, or is there something I missed? I don't plan on creating my article in one day, I want to take my time and do a good job, then have someone like your review it for me. I was technically going to enter my citations and reliable sources at the end.

The notability guidelines I followed but I am taking my time and did not enter my references and reliable sources I only had one sentence up. I am not creating a page on myself or group either. I picked my subject randomly for a school project over summer break. From all the research and references I have gathered my subject is very notable and worthy of a page and has been since the early 80's.

I suppose I should of went the template userspace draft route, any suggestions on an easy way to draft an article first, then review, then go live after its perfect?

CyrStJames (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi CyrStJames. Somehow you created the draft in the template namespace rather than as a user space draft, and from there it was deleted under WP:G11. I have restored and userfied it to User:CyrStJames/Danny Phillips. Although even in your user space it still can be deleted, we give much more leeway there for you to take your time to work on it. It was obviously not your intent to create a template, but that's what occurred. Since article draft content like this had no place as the content of a template, its deletion resulted. You can work on it now and don't worry about the mistake. We do not punish good faith errors.

However, I do have one serious concern. The first line is very short, so I would not classify it quite yet as blatant copyright infringement, but it does appear to start off in almost identical manner to existing write-ups on him, at his website/linkedin page and other places. Please understand that you must not copy and paste previously written content (nor take copyrighted content and perform surface modification). As we often tell people: "You may use external websites [or other sources] as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the assistance. The first sentence is where I stopped last night. I started reading the articles: Wikipedia:Writing better articles and was stumped on how to rework the Lead section starting with the first sentence since whom ever wrote the one on the personal page basically captured it. CyrStJames (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Improving my draft

Hi, My draft has been declined three times and I am wondering what I should do to improve it and get it approved. Thanks for the help! Iceprincess95 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this refers to Draft:Edward (Denny) Emerson.--ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Iceprincess95 (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iceprincess95. I have completed a copyedit. From the comments, an overriding concern is more and better secondary, independent, reliable sourcing. Have you looked at the sources that come up upon Google Books and Google News searches: [1] and [2]? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the help! I haven't looked tried there yet. At the moment I am trying to gain access to magazine archives. Thanks!! Iceprincess95 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Article declined because of inline citations

Hi,

My article, Draft:Chris Rogers, was declined because of issues with inline citations. I've done my best to clear up the issues and am wondering what are the next steps to getting it approved.

Ardenarnold (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The major issues that were raised were the lack of inline citations, which are required in biographies of living persons, and of notability information, which is required in all articles. I think that you have added the required inline citations. The mention of Nextel does seem to be relevant to notability. I suggest that you Google on him and see if he has any other significant achievements that add to his notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Article I submitted that is being challenged and is up for deletion

Need some help with an article I submitted that is being challenged and is up for deletion. Can you assist me? Rexweiner1 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be easier for people to advise you if you were to give a wikilink to the article in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
DAX (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would be my guess. Or maybe not as it's not up for deletion...--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
That almost certainly is the article, because, while it is not up for deletion, one of the tags warns that it reads like a press release, and, in extreme cases, may be tagged for speedy deletion. My advice is to rewrite the article in the formal neutral tone required for an encyclopedia. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or anything else. Remove any promotional language. That is my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Userbox box questions

Attn Please click edit next to this header to read this post as my examples are screwed up outside of edit mode.

I was looking into putting userboxes on my userpage. But I would like them enclosed in a userbox box. The only template that I have seen makes them appear in a vertical column like this ([ U ]=Userbox)- 

______________
|  TEXT HERE |
|            |
|[    U     ]|
|[    U     ]|
|[    U     ]|
|[    U     ]|
|____________|

I would like a template thay encases them horizontally instead of vertically so like this- 

__________________________________________________
|                   TEXT  HERE                   |
|                                                |
|[     U   ] [    U    ] [    U     ] [     U   ]|
|________________________________________________|

Could someone either refer me to an existing one or create me one if they have the expertise?

Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've added <pre> and </pre> tags to the comment above so that the text appears the same as it does in the edit window. CabbagePotato (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

My ArTICLE WAS DECLINED

Hello Teahouse, Please can you help me. I got a message that my article was declined. REASON: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.Runciecwc (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RunciecwcRunciecwc (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Runciecwc, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several problems with your draft article at Draft:Runcie C. W. Chidebe. As the rationale for the decline suggests, it isn't written in a suitable tone for an encyclopedia article. Specifically, it is far too promotional and not written in a neutral tone. The following sentence is a good example of this: "He is changing the way Nigerians think about cancer by creating cancer awareness and providing free breast and cervical cancer screenings". Your username also suggests that you may well be Runcie Chidebe. If that is the case, then the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Autobiography, which states: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community". Can you confirm whether you are indeed Chidebe? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer.
I strongly agree with you that the article is not Neutral. Thanks for your insights. However, please can you check the again, before I submit it for REVIEW; It has been grossly edit now.
ThanksRunciecwc (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Runcie_C._W._Chidebe It has been reviewed197.210.224.61 (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I get permission to post album covers?

I have posted three articles for the EPs of the band Big Big Train, and supplied art work from the official BBT website. I have obtained permission from Greg Spawton of BBT via Facebook to post the artwork, but as it doesn't have the necessary Commons license, I see that the artwork has been removed.

How do I go about getting permission that is acceptable to Wikipedia, or can that only be done by the band or original artist? Will an email from Greg suffice?

Faroutsider (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Faroutsider. Would any band in its right mind (collectively) release its album cover art under a Creative Commons license allowing anyone, anywhere, at any time, to reuse its artwork for any purpose, including selling T-shirts and posters without permission, and without sharing a penny of the profits? I think not. That makes no sense at all. So, forget about a Creative Commons license in this case.
Instead, if the albums in question are notable, we can use a low resolution version of the cover art under the legal doctrine of Fair use without interfering with the copyright. This grants no rights to re-use the image in any way, and its use here is limited to that one article. See WP:NFCI for complete details. Permission of the band is not required in such a case. Just do it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This was done in 2010 for File:Big Big Train From The River To The Sea.jpg and File:Big Big Train The Infant Hercules.jpg so you should be able to use a similar format - Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WP: policy on minor edits that achieve little

There are so many little policies and I've not been in often to remember where they all are. Saw something that said not to do an edit that was so minor that nothing was achieved by it.

[[3]] changed a lot of references that had already been bot altered, to change the refs from trove.nla to the shorter nla.gov with different / in the url

each link, while being noted by trove as the cite ref for the article, would link back to the article with the full url trove.nla

whereas, they could have been all expanded using the given trove wiki cite refs to show better detail on each ref entry.

so where's that entry on minor edits to not do and should i suggest that this wasn't a needed thing to do ? Dave Rave (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Where did you read that one should not "do an edit that was so minor that nothing was achieved by it"? Wikipedia:WikiGnomes commonly do that. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Dave Rave. Please remember to assume good faith. If you want to know why the editor did that, go to his talk page and ask him. He mentioned something about "persistent links" in his edit summary. Perhaps he knows something you haven't considered. Thst would not surprise me, as he has been here longer than you and I put together. John from Idegon (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I had no prob with the edits, trove's cite is the shortened version, but when used it goes to the url that was edited away from. and if you're going to use the short persistent link from the trove cite, why not use the trove cite from the same.
THe wiki help was sort of "don't do an edit that does nothing" like changeing a '100 ft' to a '100 &nbsp: ft' for the hell of it, though that example isn't the best, but for the display of the page it makes no difference. Dave Rave (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
the user used AWB to make under the code changes that make no change to the rendered page
Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser rules of use #4 Dave Rave (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible for Wiki Users to see a declined article submission?

Hello,

I'm writing today to know if it is possible for a wiki user to see a declined article submission?

I submitted an article about 1 month ago concerning the an artist/photographer, Adam Marelli. Unfortunately, the article was declined. However, one month later the subject, Adam Marelli, was contacted on his public Facebook page by someone claiming to have seen his recently declined article submission. Said person was offering their services to help get a successful resubmission.

Is it possible said person soliciting services was a wiki editor that reviewed the original submission? Has anything like this ever happened before? Is there something we can do to prevent this from occurring again in the future - specifically on our resubmission of the article?

Thank you in advance. Lifegami (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. AfC submission drafts whether never submitted, pending review or declined are visible to anyone, although typically less easy to find in search engines. This allows other users to pitch in and help out. However, this has led to issues and scams such as what happened in your case. There are banners about this on various pages related to wp:Articles for Creation. In short, bona fide AfC reviewers will never ask for money to help with reviews. Fellow editors acting properly will communicate with you on Wikipedia (for example on your talk page or the draft's talk page). If you wouldn't mind, please inform the project of this incident at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk so it can be addressed. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Lifegami (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Lifegami. Yes, anyone who is interested can read Draft:Adam Marelli (Fine Art Photographer) at any time. Although draft articles may not show up high on search engine results, they are available to any internet user who is motivated to find them and read them. This is a collaborative open source project, so it is not possible to prevent people from offering to help. If the editor in question was asking for money, please be aware that our Terms of Service do not forbid paid editing but they require that paid editing be openly disclosed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It has already been discussed at the AFC help desk, on this thread. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Happy Squirrel and Cullen for you prompt response.

I was not aware of this detail. It has been duly noted.

I will certainly report this case.

Thanks again.

Lifegami (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The account bearing the same user name as the person identified as the solicitor has been indefinitely blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Tamsin Kendra was doing this all over the place, including Facebook and by email, in some (if not all) cases pretending to be me (hence the notices on my user and talk pages). I have reported it a couple of times at WP:COIN.--ukexpat (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Should citations come at the end of sentences only?

On a lot of articles, I see citations in the middle of sentences rather than following the period of the sentence. This is often used when listing multiple facts from different sources like Tom eats only pieref, Bob eats only cake"ref", and Jane eats only cobbler"ref".

I would think that, though putting the citations directly on the cited facts makes finding sources more easy, all three citations should be at the end of the sentence rather than inside the sentence tagging specific facts. Surgenski (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In my experience it depends on the material. If one ref states a fact that is not contained within the others (or may even be contradictory), it can be very misleading (perhaps even inappropriate attribution) to have them all listed at the end. It is perfectly acceptable, of course, if all three state the same fact and you are simply adding multiple sources for the reader's benefit.DrChrissy (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
An example I came across was a sentence stating how two sides of a debate viewed a given argument. It was a very controversial topic and an active article. Editors were constantly checking references. Since the two parts of the sentence were saying very different things, the references had to be clearly placed to make it clear each of the two controversial statements was supported. Placing both at the end led to some reversions, if I recall. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Citations can certainly be placed mid-sentence. It looks best, if you ask me, if they follow punctuation marks such as commas. See MOS:PUNCTFOOT for some examples of this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Old pictures without a formal source

In Facebook, there are some groups that show old photos about my city and other cities in Mexico. But the problem is that when I want to upload them to Commons I can't say that they belong to me, but also I can't give the information about the source. What is clear is that copyright is over because those photos are older than 100 years. Does anyone know a solution for this. Thanks. CoroneldelNorte (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CoroneldelNorte. How do you know that the photos are older than 100 years if you have no information about the source? Is it possible that they might be 90 years old? I am not familiar with Mexican law on such matters but my guess is that it is very similar to U.S. law. If the photo was published before 1923, copyright has expired. But an 90 year old photo taken and published in 1925 may well still be copyrighted. And even a photo taken well before 1923, but never published until recently, is still subject to copyright. It is not the date that the shutter was snapped but rather the date when it was first reproduced for view by the public that determines when the copyright period begins. So, if someone scans great-grandpa's ancient inherited unpublished photos and posts them on Facebook, the copyright is fresh and the heir owns the copyright. This is why it is so important to have accurate information about the origin of a photo before uploading it to Wikimedia Commons, or anywhere else under a Creative Commons license. You are legally certifying the copyright status, and that should not be done lightly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your clear explanation and help Cullen and Fuhghettaboutit. I will check more careful the copyright issues. Thanks again. CoroneldelNorte (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your Opinion/Vote

Hi, Im in the process of usurpating the username Frigid and am looking for an arctic themed signature. I have decided on one type but which order of colors looks best. Please vote 1 or 2. If you have any cool suggestions too, I would like to hear them. Im posting this in a few places and am going to choose the one with the most votes. Thanks. Here they are.

1.Frigid(Talk)

2.Frigid(Talk)

Thanks again, Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikipenguin 8. I see that you have only been an editor here for a couple of days. Therefore, you may not yet be aware of the essay WP:FORUMSHOP. In brief, "forumshopping" is a type of behavior where an editor asks the same question in several different locations. This is highly discouraged. There is an expectation that new editors will focus on improving encyclopedia articles, not asking for votes on the style of their signatures. When I made a signature, I just did it. That is my personal opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the forum shopping policy applies here. That's about trying to shop for opinions in regard to Wikipedia:Consensus, and consensus isn't required to change one's own signature. Still, I agree that you don't need to ask about this, Wikipenguin8 - just go ahead and change it, if that's what you want. Personally, I'm not a fan of signatures that don't match usernames, but I don't think there's a rule against it. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Cullen328, I wont this again. Im glad I got an answer though and didnt choose myself because one person said that they would be able to read my username better if it was the second one because of the contrast and thats what I was looking for so I think Ill choose that. I was up towards midnight last night editing and I just needed a quick break so I worked on my signature so that wasnt all I was doing. And Cordless Larry dont worry, I hate non-matching signatures too. Im in the process of changing my username to Frigid. Ill keep all this stuff in mind, sorry I was a disruption. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles continued to get deleted regardless of citation amounts

Hi, I am working on two Articles for Creation that keep getting deleted. I have added so many references and both of the people are highly notable academics and business leaders. I can't figure out how to make them more "notable" when I correctly reference that their work has been cited over 7,000 times and published in major scientific journals. I list all of their positions (held in highly esteemed universities) and list their current positions. Can anyone help me? This process is so frustrating because clearly the information I have about them is correct! Draft:David V Schaffer and Draft:David H Kirn. Eloisekirn (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Eloisekirn:. At Wikipedia, neither merely being "correct" nor existing are sufficient for a stand alone article on a subject. The subject must have been the subject of more than passing discussion by reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight that are not closely connected with the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
and note that citing a paper is a very different activity from writing at length about the author of the paper, Eloisekirn. The trouble is that even if 7000 people had cited a single paper by somebody (I know that's not what you're saying, it's just for the sake of example), the only thing that that would allow an article about the author to say is that they wrote that paper; nothing else - not even that it got 7000 citations (that would be WP:original research). A Wikipedia article needs to be based nearly 100% on material that has been written about the subject of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_373&oldid=1142564645"