Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 486

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 480

←

Archive 484

→

Much imp ques

Hello!

If a person use different accounts on different wikis, does it allowed. I mostly use yes ji account on wikis with LATN alphabets also at some others. But at wikis like Punjabi, Sindhi,Urdu etc. I use different account. So, ANY PROBLEM???--Yes ji (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that different accounts may be used on different wikis. I don't think that is a problem. You didn't ask whether your questions on the English Wikipedia are problematic because we often can't understand them. Your questions on the English Wikipedia are often not in good English, and that causes confusion and uncertainty. We try to answer them. I don't know what your reason is for asking so many questions here, because it doesn't appear that your English is good enough for you to be able to make useful contributions here in any of the various ways that editors contribute, such as creating articles, editing articles, reviewing articles, advising other editors. I don't mean to be unwelcoming, but it isn't clear why you are doing what appears to me to be wasting both your time and the time of the other editors here by asking so many questions, when you could instead contribute to another Wikipedia, some of which have a great need for language-fluent editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, tell me, do you speak in Urdu, Punjabi etc. Maybe NO. I mostly contribute another wiki. I,m not interested much in english wikipedia. I know my english is not much better. I contribute wikis like Urdu,Punjabi,Sindhi,scots etc.

Im Asking more questions because i noticed differences in different wikis.--Yes ji (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No. I don't know those languages, and I don't try to use those Wikipedias. If you do know those languages and use those Wikipedias, that is very good. My real question is why you ask questions here, when you know enough English to think that you can ask questions here, and not enough English to actually ask questions here. We can't answer some of your questions because the English is so bad. You apparently don't realize just how bad your English is, and it is a waste of our time and your time. You asked us, about a month ago, about becoming an administrator. You will never become an administrator in the English Wikipedia with deeply broken English, and it wasn't even a reasonable question. It appears from this comment that you are comparing the English Wikipedia and the Wikipedias in the Indian languages, and then asking questions in English about the differences. The instructions in the Wikipedias in the Indian languages are the ones that you should pay attention to. The instructions here do not matter except if you want to edit here, and you don't know enough English even to ask questions here without confusing us. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not edit the Urdu Wikipedia, the Punjabi Wikipedia, or the Sindhi Wikipedia, for the same reason that you should not edit the English Wikipedia or the Scots Wikipedia. I do not know those languages, and you do not know English enough to edit, only enough to confuse us. I also do not try to edit the Scots Wikipedia. If I tried to do that, I would cause as much confusion there as you do here. You almost certainly know even less Scots than you do English. (At least its editors might think that your posts were patent nonsense, rather than trying to answer them.) If you have questions about the differences between different Wikipedias, ask them at a Wikipedia where you know the language. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you really want to be blocked for not being able to post reasonable questions here? You don't know enough English even to ask questions here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

These comments will soon be archived out of the Teahouse. I am copying a diff to your user page as a record that you have been asked both politely and less than politely not to waste our time asking questions when you can't really formulate them well. I don't want to see you blocked, but I don't want us to have to waste our time (and yours) on your questions that we often don't understand. Which of the Indian languages that you mention is your first language? Do you need someone to explain to you in your first language that your English is a problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, My first languages are both Urdu and Punjabi (Native Indo-Pak langs) and i contribute mostly to Urdu. Thanks for telling me. So, i,m wasting your time..... Ok WELL

--Yes ji (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

How can I recreate an article deleted via old AfD?

How can I recreate or (preferred) restore the deleted version of an article if an old AfD was closed with a deletion?

As per "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" it would be deleted if I just recreated it right away.

In my case the article was deleted for notability-reasons. The notability (or the proof of said) has changed since the deletion was being decided.

Note that it's probably close to impossible for newcomers to find the right thing to do when they find an article they'd like to create having been deleted before. The red box on the deleted article page should probably provide some more info here. (This has an inhibitory effect on the amount of new articles and new editors)

--Fixuture (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You missed an important part of G4, only "sufficiently identical copies" are eligible for deletion under G4. If you recreate it and include sources and claims to notability that were not in the deleted version then it is not eligible to be deleted under G4. -- GB fan 19:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks so far! Just one more question: is it possible to view or request undeletion for the old article even if it was deleted by an AfD if it would be helpful as a basis for the revised article? --Fixuture (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the article, I will look at restoring it as a draft. -- GB fan 20:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It's Cloudkicker. I don't know how the previous article looked (the other draft is a new one; also it has almost no content) so I don't know if it would be worthy of restoring and using it in a new version. If you could do that that would be very helpful! --Fixuture (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I missed your reply until now. I have undeleted the article and moved it to Draft:Cloudkicker (2) so it is separate from the other draft. -- GB fan 18:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Locked out

Dear Wiki I have tried to login to wiki and get the following "You have been globly locked out" what have I done to be locked out please? 110.20.197.141 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On the talk page of your registered account, there should be some sort of message from the blocking steward or blocking WMF employee. If not, use OTRS to ask what steward blocked you. By the way, of course, by even asking that question here, you are technically engaging in block evasion. Ask the blocking steward or blocking WMF employee, or ask OTRS who globally blocked you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Are any of the following websites acceptable to use as sources?

Yahoo.com, Gawker (gawker.com), contactmusic.com, The Huffington Post. I have found articles in all 4 websites with information to reinforce the statements that were made in a BLP article. But are any of those 4 websites considered eligible for use as sources on Wikipedia? Lupine453 (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Gawker or Contactmusic, but Yahoo should be reliable and so should the Huffington Post, unless the ref you want is on one of their op-ed pieces (op-eds in reliable sources may not be themselves reliable). For the other two sites, look to see if the content is written by admins or users; user-written stuff like forums aren't acceptable for a source. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A common saying on Wikipedia is that there are no reliable websites, only individual statements that are situationally reliable or unreliable. Context is everything. The best answers will come from WP:RSN, a forum dedicated to answering these questions. You will need to say which Wikipedia article you are editing, what statement you want to add, and provide a link to the website's content that you want to cite. Out of those, contactmusic.com strikes me as the least reliable and mostly likely to be user-generated content, as they open solicit for writers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

well cited material is removed by " interested" parties. what can we do about it?

I am getting disturbed because a very well cited content; that too with credible sources, is removed by " interested parties". I wonder should i still continue my editing work or leave it?MalikAttaRasool (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@MalikAttaRasool: which article are you talking about? From your contribution history it looks like the issue is that rather than referring to material with is reliable and verifiable, you are adding significant chunks of the text of those sources and therefore you are creating a copyright violation - and it is that copyright violation that is being reverted. That is not a judgment on your additions just how you are doing it. Write the content in your own words and then use the sources as references. Nthep (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I will only comment that many new editors do not understand that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. We may be one of the few major web sites that takes copyright seriously. However, copyright is a matter of law, and we take it (and other laws) seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that you can steal a whole movie and post it to YouTube with no repercussions is not helping us when people who have been using YouTube for years come here. It seems like YouTube, Facebook and other major sites would have to take copyright seriously or get in trouble, but they don't. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that most copyright holders whose copyright is being ripped off on YouTube or Facebook consider it to be free publicity. Wikipedia considers it to be a violation of policy and law. Wikipedia also disapproves of being used as a method of free publicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

YouTube routinely takes down copyrighted content when the copyright holder objects. Facebook is analogous to the old practice of photocopying magazine articles and passing copies around to your circle of friends. This is considered acceptable fair use by the courts. Wikipedia, on the other hand, openly encourages reuse and modification of its free content by anyone on Earth, for any use at all, including commercial use. This approach requires us to emphasize that the vast majority of our content is freely licensed, except for cited free use quotations and irreplaceable low resolution images used in strictly limited circumstances. We are a free encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Issue on Wiki page

Hi, I updated the wiki page for Barkha Sharma. I have included relevant information and reliable sources to the content of the page. A message appears on the page suggesting I remove/delete excessive/inappropriate external links from the article. Could you help me out with this? How can I have the quality of the article improved? Thanks, (Dxcu12 (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

We do not include External links in the body-text of an article - the seven in that article all need to be removed.
If they are specifically relevant to the content, like the Times of India article in EL 6 then it needs to be turned into a proper reference - see Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do that.
If it is a general link to a general website, like The Wharton Business School (reference 7) it needs to be removed, and if, as with the Wharton Business School, we already have an article, this should be Wikilinked - Arjayay (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Arjayay. I have incorporated the changes. Dxcu12 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Add Person in Wiki

Dear Sir,

Please inform how to add our CMD in wiki who is sucessful young entrepreneur of India Awarded Top 100 INDIA SME Awards 2 times recently.

Regards Nakoda Team27.58.46.162 (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nakoda Team. Please be aware that team editing of Wikipedia is not allowed. All editing must be done by individuals not groups. As for the article you propose, please read and study Your first article. Simply being included on a list of 100 business people is not sufficient to support a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Upload pdf reference as pdf/image rather than URL?

Hi I'm still a bit confused about this... I received some feedback that, if it's a reliable source, I can reference a pdf without it having a URL. However, I'd like Wikipedia readers to be able to read the pdf, so would like to be able to upload it for reading. It's no longer available as a URL. I don't understand where or how to upload it? Does it need to get saved as a jpg first or something, then can it be uploaded as an image? Thank you Lisa Playethic (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Playethic. As far as I know, it is not possible to upload PDF files to Wikipedia. I can't think of a way to convert a whole PDF into a single image, and doing so would likely be a copyright violation in any case. You could upload the PDF elsewhere on the web, but that might be a copyright violation and we can't link to copyright violations from Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You say "It's no longer available as a URL" - if you have an old URL it may be possible to re-access it via an internet archive such as the Wayback Machine - Arjayay (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Lisa: Has the document been published? If it has, all you need to do is give details of when and how it was published, so that readers can verify it if they have access to a library that holds it. If it hasn't been published, it's not acceptable as a source anyway. Maproom (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was published in 2006. We will try the recommendation for trying the Wayback Machine. Otherwise, will try uploading it as a jpg? Not sure if the jpg will enlarge so people can read it. Playethic (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

From the technical side of things, it's possible to upload and display PDF's. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So it is, Finnusertop. I've just found Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Text files. I've learned something there. I don't think I've ever seen one, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I now remember that I have seen them, at Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Resources. I agree with other below that an uploaded PDF is unlikely to be useful as a reference, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly it's possible to upload a PDF as a file just like (for example) a JPEG, if copyright can be satisfied. But I can't think of any way that such a thing would be usable as a reference, because the provenance of the uploaded copy can't be established: even if it was originally published, its contents could have been altered at some point. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And if it has previously been published elsewhere, it is likely to be a copyright violation to upload it to Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded files are not reliable as sources, if that is the intention here. Digital files can be manipulated (not that I am suggesting this one has been). Far better to find an archive of the original site and use the {{Cite news}} or {{Cite web}} templates, or {{Cite news}}, {{Cite book}} for hard copy sources.--ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Uploading photo

Good morning, I am attempting to upload a photo, I receive this message "you are not auto confirmed, you need to have made 10 edits and have had your account for 4 days." All of these things have occurred. Advice please. JenWUSTL (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JenWUSTL, and welcome to the Teahouse. You created your account at 15:23 (UTC) on 16 May 2016, so it won't be four days old until tomorrow afternoon. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks!JenWUSTL (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

But in most cases, JenWUSTL, it is better to upload photos to Wikimedia Commons, which does not have such a restriction. Please use the Upload Wizard. The only case when it is better to upload a photo to Wikipedia is if it is not freely licensed, in which case its use must meet all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. In order to upload to Commons, you will need to be able to show that the photo is freely licensed: if you took the picture yourself, you can license it as you upload it, but if not, the copyright owner must explicitly release it, otherwise it may not be uploaded at all: plese see donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

i want to know to get the micro sign

how do you get the micro sign μ M!necraft36O 02:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M!necraft36O (talk • contribs)

Hello M!necraft36O. If you are using a computer that runs OS X, simply use "option+M". Otherwise, right below the edit window (in the "Edit source" tab), there is a list of various special characters you can input. Use the dropdown menu in that list and select "Greek". μ should be in either the first or second row. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

--thx M!necraft36O 01:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M!necraft36O (talk • contribs)

Editing "Sherlock Holmes"

I was editing the article on "Sherlock Holmes" - trying to add a quotation. After having finished the editing, I was met with a message saying that the article is semi-protected. How do I proceed? woodpecker 20:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wikifan1248, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should make an edit request on the talk page of Sherlock Holmes (Talk:Sherlock Holmes) by using the template: {{Edit semi-protected}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You also need to fix your signature, Wikifan1248, to make it comply with WP:SIGLINK. You probably just need to untick the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in your user preferences. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your account can edit semi-protected pages. The message is just informational. If you get an edit window then you can edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Now it worked!

woodpecker (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

And you now have a working signature. Thanks, woodpecker. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry woodpecker (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Need assist for reviewing Draft:Karen_Civil

Hi all,

I need someone here to helping for reviewing my draft article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karen_Civil

Last reviewed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onel5969 on 16 May 2016. Then at 19 May I received report from Ms. Karen that she got mail from some one called "Stevvy Steve" offering and mention he is a "gate-keeper" of Wikipedia. He ask some money to do review and publishing my draft of Karen Civil.

Please advice.

Dega 05:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dega, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to have an article reviewed and accepted is to resubmit it for review - which I see you have done. Please do not pay anyone who contacts you offering that sort of service. It is likely a scam, and you will likely be wasting your money, because if the draft is approved without meeting Wikipedia's criteria, then it will be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: You also need to fix your signature, Dega, to make it comply with WP:SIGLINK. You probably just need to untick the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in your user preferences. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless_Larry for your advice about my fail signature setting and specially for my draft article. Do I have to wait for decision from the last declining user? Or any other user may review and make some decision? Dega (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The review could be done by any number of reviewers, Dega. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dega, you have previously been advised to remove promotional language from your draft in order to comply with the neutral point of view. You have not yet done so. Your draft is packed full of overtly promotional and unreferenced praise of Civil expressed in Wikipedia's voice. Your very next step should be to go through the draft word by word, sentence by sentence, removing every trace of promotionalism, and leaving only dry, factual prose behind. On the other matter, never pay so called "Wikipedia experts" who reach out to you. They are dishonest con artists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, thank you for your great advice about my writing. I will do carefully edit again, word by word, refer to neutral point of view. I hope my last future editing would be a good result. I will be back after finishing it. Dega (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dega, can I suggest that you forward the e-mail to info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org? I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible AfC review scam? and was told that that address has been set up to deal with further instances of the scam described in the article I linked to. Furthermore, since you appear to know the subject of the draft you are writing, please read and follow the advice given at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A final comment: I saw that you added yourself to the list of Teahouse hosts. Perhaps you didn't realise what being a host involves, but to clarify, to be an effective host, you need to have sufficient experience of editing Wikipedia to be able to provide answers to questions here. You will no doubt make a good host someday, but I would focus on editing for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What do I do about red links?

I assume that these are links to articles which no longer exist. Therefore, should I remove the brackets?
-- Vmavanti (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

They are links to articles that do not exist. They may be links to articles that no longer exist or they may be links to articles that have never existed. Each link should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it is reasonable for an article to exist at the name then it should remain. If the article should not exist then it can be removed. More information can be found at WP:Redlink. -- GB fan 16:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the answer already given, Vmavanti, although there might be occasions when it is reasonable for an article to exist but when a red link to it should nonetheless be removed, to prevent what is called overlinking. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is quite rare (nowadays) though for red links to be appropriate for removal for overlinking. If something is commonplace enough that linking too it would be overlinking, then it's now getting rare for that commonplace link to still be red. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help

Hello, this time i don,t want to disturb you, some days ago i asked a question about uploading images and my that question was not answered better, again asking this. Please tell me the tips. I want to post my own work image but in this HTML how can i post, now help me. 🌴🌹.--Yes ji (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yes ji. Your question was partly answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 484#How to upload, and partly responded to explaining tha you need to give more information about what you are trying to do. Incidentally, I don't know what you think HTML is, but it is irrelevant to this question. --ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

shashi kumar(Arjun)

The name of the page created properly Arjun skymax (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is unclear what your question is, Arjun skymax, but you appear to have written Shashi Kumar (Arjun) about yourself (or is it Steve Jobs?). Please don't do that - see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Marie-Florence Gros

I reviewed Draft:Marie-Florence Gros and declined it on notability grounds. Its author then posted an inquiry to my talk page:

Hello Robert, You declined my article's submission about Draft: Marie-Florence Gros because of unadequate documentation about the subject's notability. I understand the reasons but this article is only the translation into English version of an article in French already published on Wikipedia and providing the same references (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Florence_Gros#La_paroli.C3.A8re). If the subject has been already approved, how can I make my translation published? Thank you for your help! Wwsheng

First, approval procedures and criteria on the Wikipedias in different languages are different. (Smaller Wikipedias, for instance, may have less stringent rules on notability, in order to get more articles.) Just because the article was approved in French does not mean that it will be approved in English. However, the main problem that I see is simply that, in English, biographies of living persons must be referenced by in-line citations, also known as footnotes rather than only by end-of-the-article references. The references need to be moved into the body of the article. That is the obvious comment that I have. Do other experienced editors have other comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: There are some bits of promotional language here and there, such as With a very sharp and artistic vision and Her passion for photography led her to work on, and to open La Galerie Paris 1839 [9], in Hong-Kong, so that is something worth noting. It seems like there should be coverage of her music career and exhibitions, likely in French, so I expect the person probably does meet the notability threshold. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there are tone issues that need correcting. I also agree that she is almost certainly notable. However, as I mentioned, the draft doesn't establish her notability because it doesn't have in-line citations. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It does have the code for inline citations, just not a references section, so I have added one. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Blanking content

I am trying to work on an editing issue with another editor who blanked a lot of content that I referenced very well and was an update to older research. I would rather do this between the editor and myself before I revert, but isn't blanking content sometimes considered a form of vandalism? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bfpage, you're not a new user by any means; why are you asking this at the Teahouse, since you know perfectly well how WP:BRD works? Assuming it's the sequence of edits at Probiotic and its related pages which are the issue, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine is the place to go for what will be a discussion requiring fairly specialist input on the relative validity of different research groups, if you can't get a consensus on the article talkpages. (I'm noting a singular absence of attempts by you to discuss this on the talkpages, FWIW.) ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you really are User:Bfpage, an experienced editor and a Teahouse host, not a Teahouse guest, then I wonder whether your Visiting Scholar account has been compromised, because you know how to report vandalism and how to use WikiProjects to get expert participation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Privacy in Biographies

I've read some of the sections on Biographies and took note of the mention of privacy, always a big topic. Sometimes I come across an entry, for example, rock star John Smith married his high-school sweetheart Lucy Banks, and here's where they went to school, here's where they live now, and here are the names of their children. Lacking journalism experience, I lack the standards typically applied, if any, in these situations. My own inclination is to delete material like this -- but don't worry, I haven't and I don't. Yet. What information do we really need to have? A big subject, I know, but if anyone would like to comment, feel free.
-- Vmavanti (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is also a case by case basis. Is the information discussed in reliable sources? Is is widely reported? If it is then it might be kept. If not it should be removed. I have removed many names of children. If you find addresses, phone numbers or other non-public personally identifiable information you can ask for it to be completely removed by following the instruction ast Wikipedia:Oversight. -- GB fan 17:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vmavanti. The best guidance for such cases can be found in our Policy on biographies of living people, which is an essential core content policy. That says:

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

It is common to find the names of the children in the biographies of various people, without a reference being provided. These names may have been added in good faith by someone with personal knowledge. But this is wrong. All such mentions of children's names should be removed unless they are discussed in reliable, independent sources, both for reasons of verifiability and of privacy, especially of minor children. When in doubt, remove the children's names. It is incumbent on any editor advocating inclusion of children's names to provide reliable sources and to explain why it is proper to include these names. Curiosity is not an adequate argument when it comes to the names of non-notable minor children. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Information about family, including minor children, is common in articles that were originally written as autobiographies or by other family members, because the author doesn't understand the privacy issues and doesn't understand that Wikipedia isn't just a social medium. If the person survives notability and any non-neutral language is toned down, the unnecessary family information may remain. The conclusion is that experienced editors, in cleaning up a promotional biography that is being made encyclopedic, need to be careful to take out the children unless there is a reason. (Of course, often the questionable article gets deleted, which resolves the question of the children by deleting them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the biggest Wikiproject?

Im looking at WP:MilitaryHistory and it is extremely comprehensive, just by looking the main page. Is there a project "bigger" than WP:MH in breadth? — Etimena 17:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Etimena and welcome to the Teahouse, With over 1 million articles, I believe that WikiProject Biography is the largest. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

To get some ideas about editing

Today I wanted to write some articles but unfortunately it was already informed and posted. Would you like to give me some ideas how to make my articles perfect to make them promoted for wikipedia? Amiy Chakraborty (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amiy Chakraborty. Please be aware that we need lots of help improving existing articles. If you want to write new articles, please read and study Your first article. You can ask specific questions about editing here at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I will add a few comments. Creating articles with references is the hardest task that there is for Wikipedia editors. Also, with five million articles, it is very likely that a topic of interest to an editor may already be covered. There are many ways that editors can help Wikipedia, especially by improving articles. While we have five million articles, many of them need various sorts of improvement. As mentioned, if you have specific questions about how to improve articles or otherwise how to edit, you may ask here. I will repeat a question that was asked at your draft article. Was this part of a class project? If so, maybe the instructor should be asked to read WP:Student assignments. Unfortunately, some class projects duplicate what Wikipedia already has and waste the time both of the students and of experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Amiy Chakraborty – Another place to find more Wikipedia articles to be improved is at the Community portal, Help out section. The grid there shows nine different types of updates on a variety of articles, and that page is frequently updated. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox

What is a sandbox page? — 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the answer at Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Miron Construction Co., Inc.

I reviewed Draft: Miron Construction Co., Inc. and declined it for an overly promotional tone. Its original author has now been blocked as a promotional-only account. I now received a question from User: Chiekhaefer:

Hello! First of all, I am connected to a few non-profits that Miron Construction supports (in particular Big Brothers Big Sisters, the Boys and Girls Club - which they just finished building a new one in our community, and some Fun Runs that they sponsor). I know there is an original article out there that was declined. I'd like to understand why (new to this side of Wikipedia - to date, I've only read their posts, not submitted) and then I'd like to work on the Miron Construction Co., Inc. article and clean it up for re-submission. Can you make some recommendations on what sections need editing and maybe some ideas of what I can improve on the original post? I'm new to this, so any insight would be appreciated! Thanks.

I am glad to see a neutral editor who wants to rescue a draft that was written by a promotional editor.

I will comment that the current references are something of a case of WP:CITEKILL or WP:BOMBARD. I would suggest getting rid of the Leadership entries for people who don’t have their own articles. I would suggest focusing more on the history of the company and its history of projects. The current focus on Sustainable Practices and on Community Involvement looks as if the focus is primarily on how good they are, not how notable they are. Trim down the references and the praise. Expand the history. Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ckiekhaefer (you seem to have spelled that wrong above), Robert McClenon. Expanding on Robert's comments above, it seems that many of the references used in the article are to the same three or four sources. The advice given at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once should be followed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

PLease review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Doon_Consulting_Privated_Limited Shehnaz17 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shehnaz17. To submit the draft for review, click on the "Submit your draft for review!" link. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Talk:Psychopathy

Can I remove the unproductive edits by an IP editor on the Psychopathy talkpage from Talk:Psychopathy#The poor psychopath and below? Also, what can I do to get this person to stop? I haven't tried anything yet, just noticed it and wasn't sure what to do, so I posted here. Maybe the person is done. I think it's all from yesterday. —PermStrump(talk) 23:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: yes, go ahead if you like. It looks like a violation of WP:TPNO. I would leave a polite message on the IP editor's user talk page that briefly explains WP:NOTFORUM. If they don't stop, you could contact a friendly admin or go to WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

How to insert a logo for Wren's Super Wax Shoe Polish?

Hi,

I need to know how to insert a logo for Wren's Super Wax Shoe Polish?Latency23 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

To save other editor's time - it appears the user has worked this out - Arjayay (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Latency23, thanks for uploading the logo. The one concern I have is regarding the copyright status of the logo. Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, so we want to be extra-sure that we have permission to use any content we borrow from other sources. Currently, the file File:Wren's Since 1889 Logo.jpg, which is currently in the infobox at Wren's Super Wax Shoe Polish, lists the source as "My designer created it" along with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. In order to use the file under this license, we need to have concrete evidence that your designer (presumably the copyright holder) has given permission to release the work under the license. Please be aware that if you choose to release the logo under that license, anyone (not just Wikipedia) would be free to use the work for any purpose, as long as they credit your designer as the creator. If your designer did not agree to release the file under the Creative Commons license, we can still publish the logo on the article under our non-free content guideline. I understand all this might be confusing – our image use policy may explain it better. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mz7,

how do we publish the logo under non free content? Can u teach me the procedure? Thanks! Latency23 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Guidance with article submission (rejected draft "Yitzhak Buxbaum"

My draft article "Yitzhak Buxbaum" has been turned down for a third time. As you can imagine this is frustrating, since I have reworked the article after every rejection, trying to address the critiques and recommendations provided.

This time the reviewer suggested that more promotional language has been added. But all the added citations were attempts to establish notability - which was the main point of reviewers' earlier comments. That is, Buxbaum's work has been recognized as good and important by a variety of sources. I can happily delete the quotations, but please explain how to establish someone's notability without including favourable comments on their work.

Earlier reviews of the article commented that there was a lack of reviews of Buxbaum's books. At this point, the draft cites four reviews of different books by Buxbaum from different, independent sources (Tikkun, Sentinel, Hadassah Magazine, The Algemeiner), as well as references to his books in other sources.

The citations also demonstrate the respect according to Buxbaum by people considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and beyond his own Jewish community. Not counting publishers' websites and the like, seventeen independent sources are cited, including six printed books from significant authors and publishers. It is true that none of these books have an in-depth discussion of Buxbaum, but all of them acknowledge his importance.

I am troubled by the implication that any personal connection with Buxbaum would invalidate the article. I am a tenured university professor publishing work on Hasidism; in that capacity, I frequently use and cite Buxbaum's books. I have avoided citing my own citations of Buxbaum exactly in order to maintain objectivity, but they are, in fact, further evidence of his significance.

Is the message is simply that without something like a front page New York Times article or an existing biography in an encyclopedia, nobody is going to get into Wikipedia?

If not, more guidance would be greatly appreciated. Justin Jaron Lewis (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

First, the article in question is Draft:Yitzhak Buxbaum. If you ask about a page, it is a courtesy to us to provide a link, although we can find it (and you did provide his name). The most recent review is the one on which I would suggest that you focus, which has to do with the promotional tone. I haven't checked all of the peacock quotes against the originals to see if they are in the originals, but the amount of peacock language, even if properly quoted, is cloying. At this point my advice would be to go through the entire draft sentence for sentence and make it neutral in its wording, with a limited amount of properly quoted praise. I would also advise you to read our conflict of interest policy to see why there are concerns about a connection between you and Buxbaum. The main concern that I see about COI is that you evidently had the rights to an image. I will let other editors comment further. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Justin Jaron Lewis: you wrote "please explain how to establish someone's notability without including favourable comments on their work." It seems an odd question. Perhaps you are confusing notability with merit. For an example showing how to establish someone's notability without heaping praise on him, see Miguel Treviño Morales. Maproom (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Justin Jaron Lewis. Your draft article reminds me a little bit of an article that I wrote about five years ago, Fred Rosenbaum. I, too, relied on quotations from reliable sources praising him to help establish notability. Maybe if I was writing the article in 2016, I might tone it down a trifle. Although I get Maproom's point, I think that there is a bit of unfairness in what they said. People can become notable for works that are praised, and their Wikipedia biographies can reflect that praise. People can also become notable for crimes that are condemned, and our biographies should reflect that as well. But I see little point in removing well-referenced praise from a draft just because other notable people are criminals. The issue is the neutral point of view. Reliable sources that establish the notability of people doing "good work", broadly construed, often include praise of that person. It is a delicate balancing act to write such a biography, including some well-referenced praise, without the article being perceived as a hagiography.

Another factor in this discussion is "promotionalism". which in my opinion is an especially great concern for biographies of young people just beginning their careers. In this case, we have a person in their 70s with Parkinson's disease, at the end of their career. In my opinion, the promotional concerns are negligible though not nonexistent in this particular case.

You have been criticized for a possible conflict of interest because you were involved with uploading a portrait of this person. It is not a conflict of interest to have a passing personal interest in a topic. If so, Wikipedia would not exist. On several occasions, I have attended speaking engagements of moderately notable people, taken and uploaded portraits of them, and written or expanded Wikipedia biographies of them. I gained nothing but satisfaction from writing and illustrating such articles about notable people, and had no true conflict of interest whatsoever. There is nothing at all improper about this, and this is how we build an encyclopedia.

My advice to you is to trim the references to the very best ones, to tone down the promotionalism a bit, and to stand by your assertion that he is notable. The best of your sources demonstrate that, in my opinion, but the weaker sources tend to conceal that. Here on Wikipedia, a few strong sources are perceived as far superior to many weak sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You asked earlier whether you should add a list of his works. One advantage of doing so is that if an OCLC or ISBN is provided, the works do not need further references, each entry on the list is self supporting. That could allow you to get rid of poor sources (user-generated Goodreads, publisher's websites whose main purpose is to sell the books) that detract from the better sources and drag the whole draft down. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

i want to create my new article so please help me

Dear Sir/mam my first article deleted by someone so please help me. how can i save my article for public? my article is related to public figure. bhsuhan kumar kushwaha 11:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushan Kumar Kushwaha (talk • contribs)

@Bhushan Kumar Kushwaha: your first article appears to have been a one line article about yourself and your company. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for the reasons writing about yourself is strongly discouraged and WP:NOTPROMOTION for an explanation of why Wikipedia is not the place to advertise. Nthep (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Article problem

Dear Teahouse, I read about my previous question's answers and I was grateful. But I couldn't find any area where I could write all student's assignment. I would please request you to help with me to find the area where I could complete assignments like that Amiy Chakraborty (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for writing students' assignments. Your latest article creation seems to have copyright problems. Did you just copy the text from a website? This is not allowed for legal reasons. Could you explain what it is you are trying to achieve, then perhaps we could help. Dbfirs 17:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Creation article

Dear TeaHouse! In our article (A model of averaging dipolar coupling in solid-state NMR) we tried to meet the requirements for Wikipedia. To be specific, we used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pake_doublet as example. The model we publish in Wikipedia is a development of this formula (Pake_doublet). It has already been published in academic Journals and has been cited as such by third-party researchers as can be seen from the References section. Please, tell us what is to be done to publish the article with Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:A_model_of_averaging_dipolar_coupling_in_solid-state_NMR

SGKozlova84.237.81.73 (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Reasons have been given for declining your article at the top of your draft. Would it not be more appropriate for an encyclopaedia if you just add a brief sentence about dipolar coupling to the article on Pake doublet or to that on Magnetic dipole–dipole interaction? Dbfirs 18:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Citing translated works from antiquity

I would like to cite the book here as a reference for Octavia the Younger, and include a quotation from the book. How should I reference a quote from a public-domain translation of a classic work? Thanks! Chickadee46 (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chickadee46. All of the information that you need to create a reference is available in the first few lines of the Wikisource entry. Please use Template:Citation and you can delete the parameters that are not applicable. In the "Author" section of the documentation, you can find optional "Translator" fields, which should be used in this case. Referencing for beginners provides lots of useful information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Article

I have created an article and I want someone to review my draft before I make final submission. Shehnaz17 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "final submission", Shehnaz17. Submit the draft, it will be reviewed, and then you will have the chance to improve it and submit again if it does not pass. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm - that said, I can pretty much guarantee that Draft:Doon Consulting Privated Limited will not pass review in its current state. You need to do more to establish notability. To do so, you must demonstrate that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You made the same request at the Help Desk, also referring to a "final submission". Asking for assistance in two places at the same time is sometimes considered forum shopping, and annoys those who are willing to help you. I see that the submission was declined on tone grounds, with which I also agree, because the draft contains too much peacock language praising the founder of the company. Please rework it and resubmit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears be nothing but an advertisement for the company. Wikipedia does not allow advertising of any kind. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as G11. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Creating an additional draft at Doon Consulting doesn't increase the likelihood of getting your ad accepted. (You copied it from your sandbox with the speedy deletion tag still on it.) If you continue to try to make additional copies, you may face a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Do I use inline citations or footnotes?

Hi, I am trying create my first article for my 92 year old sculptor friend. He has a long and distiguished career as a sculptor and academic. I have been knocked back because of my inline citations. I can see why in some cases (to many citations about common things eg I used a link to 'Paris'.)

My question is when do I use 'inline citations' as against using footnotes? Should I modify the article to all 'in-line cites' or all 'footnotes'. If I use both how do I decide which to use to referenc my sources?

I also have problems with my format but should be able to work that out myself.

Thanks,

John Flashpepi (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Flashpepi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Slightly confusingly, "inline citations" refers to footnote referencing. The main problem with Draft:Marc Clark (Sculptor) is that there simply aren't enough citations. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. You also need to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources by citing some of that coverage, to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, which is another core requirement. Finally, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and declaring your relationship to the subject on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I see that one of your references is another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles - you can imagine the chaos that could cause! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Larry. A a bit out of my depth here. It's OK to link to another Wiki Page isn't it?

Thanks again for your quick response,

John

Flashpepi (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Flashpepi - you can and should provide relevant links to other articles, but they don't qualify as references. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse Archive Page Too Big

When I reached the end of questions on this page, I was looking for a series of numbers, or perhaps "Previous page" to see questions asked previously. Near the top I found, in small, thin, grey type, "Teahouse Archive." I clicked on the link, but that page was so long my browser had trouble loading it. Maybe this big archive could be broken up in smaller pages to make them easier to access.
-- Vmavanti (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: you'd have to say which page, this page has 485 archive page/s so far. Nthep (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it this one. It seems to be a full index of every question ever on the Teahouse. My browser also had trouble with it. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I can find no link saying "Teahouse Archive." I guess you mean the link saying "Question archive". It goes to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive Index ("this one" in the above post). It currently has 1.7 MB source. That's a lot. It's made by User:Legobot, a bot operated by User:Legoktm. We have an archive search box at top of this page but not the huge Archive Index which seems of limited practical use with the current size. Maybe we should remove the link from Template:TH question page. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to use the archive search function instead, Vmavanti? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, Questions Archive. It's not a big deal. I forgot my internet speed is much slower than most people's. Thanks for the replies.
-- Vmavanti 23:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmavanti (talk • contribs)

Sourcing on Katy Perry page

Katy Perry has been selected as a Featured Article. And yet, there are no footnotes in any of the paragraphs preceding the table of contents. What am I missing?

Also, footnote 1 refers to an autobiographical DVD. I thought autobiography was considered an unreliable source.
-- Vmavanti (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vmavanti. The section of an article that precedes the table of contents is called the lead, which should summarize the main part of the article, called the body. If the information is well-referenced in the body, there is no requirement to reference the summary of that content in the lead. More detailed guidance on this issue can be found at WP:LEADCITE. Direct quotations and controversial assertions should be referenced in the lead, but routine summarizing prose in the lead does not need to be referenced.

Autobiographical sources cannot be used to establish notability, but they are acceptable for non-controversial biographical details. Autobiographical sources are not routinely considered unreliable, but they are not independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean a band's web site can be used as a source for information about the band, i.e. factual, noncontroversial? Could Katy Perry's web site have been used as a source for information about her?
-- Vmavanti (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The answer is "yes" in both cases, Vmavanti, as long as the claim is neither promotional or controversial. Verifiability is a core content policy, and a section of that policy discusses this specific issue. The shortcut is WP:SELFPUB. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)