Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 574

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 570

←

Archive 572

→

help needed at Holocaust denial

Hi. There are some users adding sidebars implying that anyone who questions the holocaust is antisemitic. This is both not NPOV and also could be deemed a personal attack on anyone who edits the article with a view to questioning the holocaust. I think the antisemitism side-bar should be removed for these reasons, since it is only a related subject, not an umbrella subject, which the sidebars are generally used for. --Rebroad (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rebroad and welcome to the Teahouse.

Sorry, there's not much we can do at the Teahouse to help you. You need to read the FAQ at the top of Talk:Holocaust denial, then perhaps review some of the archived discussions that led up to this position. Changing the consensus around this question is unlikely to happen, but once you have exhausted yourself on that talk page, you'd most likely need to go through dispute resolution, where I think you'd still find it an uphill fight. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rebroad. The discussion is at the talk page. There are ways to seek a larger consensus of editors there, but as above, this is not really a forum for seeking help with content disputes. In any event, I entirely disagree with you as the underlying issue, and agree with the general sentiment of the editors on the talk page, who have responded to you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Question for CamV8 - page: Adam Spencer

Hey Cam

First of all thanks for the work you do on wikipedia - we couldn't have this amazing resource without get efforts of you and your fellow scrutineers

Secondly; one of the many pages you have edited (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Spencer) is the page for minor Australian media celebrity Adam Spencer. I am him. There is an edit as to my marital status that I've tried to post a couple of times. I am now separated from my wife. Melanie. Each time I've posted. Such it's been removed. How do I get this edit to stay on my page?

I'm at adam@adamspencer.com.au and would love to connect

Adam s11:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.203.196 (talk)

Hello, Adam. The problem is that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. For this reason, we require that information (especially information about living people) be sourced to a reliable published source. If you can provide a reliable source (which excludes any social media, blogs, or user-contributed sources such as wikis) then the information can go into the article. (I had a quick look, and didn't find a report, but you may have more success).

The other point is that people are strongly discouraged from editing articles about themselves directly, because their conflict of interest may make it difficult to write sufficiently neutrally. Your recommended course is to put a suggestion for a change on the article's talk page, preferably with a reference: see WP:PSCOI. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging CamV8, who was addressed in the initial question. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I suppose you are associated with the account Adam Spencer? (If so, you were logged out when posting here.)

As ColinFine explained, we will need a source for that. Most information on Wikipedia is (or should be) sourced to reliable sources independent of the subject they cover (e.g. a press article, an official divorce judgement, etc.). However, an addition such as "At such-and-such date, Adam Spencer announced that he and his wife separated" could be supported by a primary source; that is, a source that is not independent of the subject, but it still needs to be reliable (for instance, a blog post on your personal website would be considered, barring extraordinary circumstances, to have been approved by you). However, it still needs to be a published source (it can be offline, it can be hard to find, it can need payment to be accessed - but it must be on the record somewhere before it gets on Wikipedia).

In the future, such questions about a particular page are better dealt with on the talk page of that article, in that case Talk:Adam Spencer. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see a fellow prime numbers fan. I have a website http://primerecords.dk and have set many records. I couldn't find a divorce source either. We don't allow self-published sources for most things but if the divorce were mentioned on your website then it should be OK when the marriage has a newspaper source in Adam Spencer#Personal life. We have thousands of editors and few of them read this page. User talk:CamV8 is the correct place to contact CamV8 but Gronk Oz has now alerted the account to this discussion. CamV8 made this revert of the divorce because it was uncited. You were not logged in when you posted here but I guess User:Adam Spencer is your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the OP said "separated", rather than "divorced". This, of course, poses the question as to whether a separation without divorce ought to count as an end date for the marriage in the "spouse" field in the infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. A separation without divorce may be more suited for mention in Adam Spencer#Personal life if a published source can be found. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

2

this is going to be my third attempt on wiki to put a article online . will it be of use if i use article wizard. the article is about recording and preserving ol stories. pls disscuuss fast and let me know on my talk page,

COOL Jordan 14:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanben (talk • contribs)

Hello Jordanben and welcome to the Teahouse! I have taken a look at your Draft of the article "Old Stories". The draft has a number of important problems, including its structure, markup language, and the absence of any reliable sources that are the basis of all articles written on Wikipedia. Another problem is that there is already an article on the topic you are attempting to describe: Jataka tales. May I ask, how long have you been editing Wikipedia? I edited for many years before I wrote my first article. This gave me time to learn about Wikipedia's policies, about how to cite sources, and how to properly structure an article. If I can make a recommendation, I would suggest that you spend some time trying to improve Wikipedia articles that already exist. Perhaps you might start by reading through Jataka tales and seeing if there is any information that is missing? If so, you can leave a note on the article talk page, Talk:Jataka tales. I hope that is helpful. -Darouet (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Evidence-based anatomy

Another reviewer and I reviewed Draft:Evidence-based anatomy and declined it. We both had concerns about the facts, such as dates, contained in the draft. I found large parts of the draft to be incomprehensible. I did say to User:Kaykris that I would let another reviewer comment, because I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. Can someone else comment on the draft (preferably without being influenced by previous comments)? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Worth asking at WP:MED for someone to review? Nthep (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I put in a few words of review. I suppose someone will tell me if what I've done is out-of-line. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear jmcgnh, Thank you for your comments. Referencing will be changed to standard style. I will lessen promotional tone May i know whether you found anatomical meta-analysis in forensic anthropology; I could find only 2 non-anatomical in this field : 1)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26154527 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21377398. Neutrality and simpler language will be enhanced Yes all sources indicate a new word which is refereed by a small set of researchers, is it an issue? Sincerely. Kaykris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaykris (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to create a Talk page associated with your draft where further discussions can occur. The WP:NEO question is certainly an issue. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Image undeletion

HI, I am a novice editor. I have only had an account for a few days. I have been editing some pages and uploading some of my images. Some of them have been deleted because of possible copyright issues.

I do not know what I am doing wrong. The images in question are my images, (I am a professional photographer) Can someone please help me.

I have two issues. 1: How do I undelete my images 2: How do I prove that these are my images. (The images contain my details in the metadata of the jpgs) Art Conaghan Photography

I feel very out of my depth. I'm not very techy. I would appreciate some help please

Best Art (KovalamKid) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KovalamKid (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @KovalamKid: I'm looking at one of your photos that has been nominated for deletion (but not yet deleted). The metadata for that image says that it was taken with an iPhone 6s. I don't see anything in the metadata that ties the photo to you and/or your business. (As a pro photog myself, I personally use Lightroom to put my name and contact information into the metadata before exporting and uploading my photos.) If you still want to contest the deletion, you should visit the nomination page and respond to the concerns before uploading any more photos. Funcrunch (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ETA: This image (also listed on the nomination page) does not appear to have any identification of you in the metadata either. Funcrunch (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Source Question

So, some of my sources come from the Philadelphia Inquirer, which costs $2.95 per article for the archives. Would I be able to still use these as sources? Is there a way around this? (I don't mean stealing the articles or anything of the sort) JRose1317 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jrose1317 - you may use paywall sites for sources: see WP:PAYWALL. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. If you are looking for users to assist with retrieving content for you, you can always make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Justin15w (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Getting a review on a draft for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy article

Hey! I'm hoping someone can give me a hand here. I've been asked to update the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy article (which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy). I'm an employee, so I have a COI and don't want to go in and edit the article myself.

I have a draft at User:Es2017/sandbox, and I'd really like someone to review it, see if it looks good to go, and post it for me (since folks with COIs aren't really supposed to go in and update it themselves.) But if it needs to be edited to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia, please do so--I've made it as neutral as possible and have checked all the sources, but it's been a loooong time since I've worked on Wikipedia.

The talk page on EERE is completely dead, so I haven't been able to find anyone to help there. I've also posted on COI/N, but I haven't gotten any feedback there. Could anyone here give me a hand, review the draft, or point me toward a board where I may be able to get help? Thank you! Es2017 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Es2018 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's pretty clear that EERE should meet WP's notability standards, but the draft article does not use independent sources to do that. It's almost entirely a catalog of things that EERE says about itself. Normally, we prefer to see what other sources say about an organization, but we can accept a limited amount of self-sourced information. I agree that what you've written appears to be fairly neutral in tone and it certainly could be used by an independent editor to update the outdated EERE article (but I'm afraid that independent editor isn't going to be me). —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome and explanation! I perfectly understand. Thankfully, another user noticed the original post I made on the COI/N board, and they did exactly what you suggested--they took the information in my draft and integrated it into the draft in a way that's more appropriate with Wikipedia's standards. So I think everything's good to go now. :) Es2017 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

User page

Hi. I've only just joined the community and still finding my way round starting as a beginner and exploring. Not sure if I'm comfortable making a 'user page' for myself at the moment. Is that ok? Also how soon do you recommend for a new user to make a user page? Thank you.Sandtruffle (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sandtruffle and welcome to Wikipedia! There's no requirement for ever creating a userpage, so don't feel obligated. Your name will still show up as a redlink, however. If you want it to show a blue link like other people who have a userpage, you can just create the page and leave it blank. Let me know if you have any other questions and thanks for joining. Justin15w (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to put something on your userpage, you can look at Wikipedia:Userpage for ideas. Or you can fix your userpage as s redirect to your talk page. Either is fine. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Formatting Table Help

Hi, I'm not familiar with how to create tables and I noticed an error, here, with the table not listing dates correctly under the sections. Any idea how to fix it or where I can learn how to make complex tables?

Epididymus (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Epididymus: , this link will help you learn how to make a complex table: H:TABLE. Thanks._Jeceley^{(Talk to me)} 06:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The tables were made with template calls and not table code in the source so H:TABLE is not useful in this case. It's often helpful to examine the code of similar but correct tables like Texas's 9th congressional district#Election results. I have fixed it by adding three missing {{Election box end}}.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to compare other articles next time, thanks for your help!

Epididymus (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

what is an addlestone

what is an addlestone 85.255.233.206 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A town in England? TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a page for general questions. Yours doesn't seem to have anything to do with Wikipedia, so it doesn't belong here. --Thnidu (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

poet John Dryden article lacks some information

Is it correct to inform on such an item and ask for its inclusion ? I am involved: The BCLA (British Comparative Literature Association) has been running a competitive translation prize named after the poet. my work has been awarded the 1994 John Dryden First Prize for my Revelation novella, translated from the original Hebrew into English by Israeli poet Betsy Rosenberg, with my cooperation. it also carries a lengthy academic article on myself and the novella. There is no Wikipedia article on BCLA and the Prize, yet their books are documented on the net and with google. Am I putting the carriage before the horses or will such an inclusion in Johשוחרת/Renica 06:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)n Dryden' article be correct and feasible?שוחרתRenicaשוחרת/Renica 06:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by שוחרת (talk • contribs) שוחרת/Renica 06:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, שוחרת. Here is my opinion: John Dryden died 317 years ago. I do not think that it would be appropriate to discuss a 21st century literary award in a biography of a 17th century poet. I do not know whether or not the association or the prize are notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Research would be required. If so, the group and its prize should be discussed in a separate article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dear Cullen 328. The prize is named after the poet.https://bcla.org/prizes-and-competitions/john-dryden-translation-competition/winners/ So, in this sense at least, the poet's memory is immortalized ...שוחרת/Renica 09:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by שוחרת (talk • contribs)

Thanks again, dear Cullen 328. As for notability, the yearly book of BCLA is published by Cambridge University Press. שוחרת/Renica 22:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)שוחרת — Preceding unsigned comment added by שוחרת (talk • contribs)

Dear Cullen 328 I've just looked at your article on Henry S. Yount to learn about references and found a citation of a prize named after that gentleman. Could this be considered a precedent although Yount, born on March 18, 1839 is a bit younger than Dryden?שוחרת/Renica 01:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)שוחרת Renica שוחרת/Renica 23:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)שוחרת

@שוחרת: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some basic things to learn about editing here:

Notice that your mentions of "Cullen 328" appear in red. That's for two reasons:
1. You typed it as [[Cullen 328]]. That would be the name of an article — an encyclopedia page about someone or something called "Cullen 328", and there is no such page — not a user page. It's a redlink because the link is invalid. The names of user pages all begin with "User:". See Wikipedia:Namespace.
2. Their username is not "Cullen 328" but "Cullen328", with no space. Spaces in pagenames count, except at the very beginning or end of the name.
There is no article called Henry S. Yount; you can tell because it appears in red in the display, not blue. Either it's been deleted in the past two days, or you've spelled the name wrong.
If you just sign your name by typing it in as you did, people can't be sure that that's your actual username. For example, the user with the signature TimothyJosephWood is not User:TimothyJosephWood (see, that's a redlink); he is User:Timothyjosephwood, with no capitals in the middle. That shows up in the editor, and also if you just hover on the signature. (Sorry to bother you, Timothyjosephwood. I needed an appropriate example, and yours was the closest.)
It's a good idea to create a user page. Just click on this link (User:שוחרת), read that page, and click on the link for "Start the User:שוחרת page." See the entry User page above on this page.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

creating my first article

i would like to get some feedback on how my first draft is looking and if it will stand the test of editors...i'm a bit confused about how to add in the references and the links. is there somewhere I can discuss it with other(s) so that i can make necessary changes before I submit? i've read many of the beginner's resources on how to make the article, but find it confusing still. thanks. 2606:6000:C34E:D000:177:A429:1D86:5B1D (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

2606: if you're confused about adding references, I would advise strongly against trying to create a new article, which is a far more difficult task. You can learn about referencing here. Maproom (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

For references - and every statement and claim should be referenced with WP:RS and WP:IS reliable and independent sources - you can either click the book with the red line running from the centre-top towards the bottom right, or you can put it between these two markers <ref> </ref>. ANYTHING not referenced can, should and will be removed, this is to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia and stop fake information creeping in. At the bottom of the article, create a heading References (==References==) and add {reflist} which will add the references automatically to this list from those in the article within the <ref> tags. Please also note that articles on anything cannot just be created - they must meet a notability guideline, i.e. be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. These can be found at WP:GNG, the basic one being that the subject must have had significant independent coverage. Promotional articles about unremarkable subjects are challenged and deleted by editors who monitor newly created content.

Every editor's journey is different, however my personal view is beginning your wiki career by creating an article is really jumping in at the deep end. The approach that worked for me was to make small edits where I saw the need (e.g. if something had just happened in the news, I could add it with a reference, if I noticed a spelling mistake, I could correct it etc). I didn't go searching for corrections, I just stumbled across them during my normal reading of the encyclopaedia. Over time I built up confidence and knowledge of article content, requirements, guidelines, code and technical stuff in order to create my own articles. No-one is prevented from creating an article to kick off their editing career, however if you consider the analogy of driving a car, you would drive short distances on quiet roads first to learn the process rather than participating in a supercar race (deep end). This is just my view, others may consider your approach a good way to fully immerse yourself into the project and gain the necessary skills quicker, however it may require a thick skin because editors will jump in and sweep up because although new editors are encouraged, the edits are live and sub-standard content will need to be improved (it's not personal).

If you've written a draft, you can post the link on my talk page and I can have a look. Rayman60 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

One small correction to what Rayman60 has written above. The content of the "References" section should be {{reflist}} not {reflist}. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is MUCH easier to participate in Wikipedia if you have an account (and therefore a username). As it is, nobody can send you a message and be sure you'll receive it. You've only got an IP address (2606:6000:C34E:D000:177:A429:1D86:5B1D), which is for the computer you accessed this page from, this time. Use another computer, you'll have a different IP address. --Thnidu (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Depending on the internet service provider, an IP address might change from time to time even when using the same computer. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What happens to articles created with the Article Wizard?

I've written an draft article on the English and American folk song "Hares on the Mountain" using the Article Wizard. It's about finished. What happens now? I've looked at the list of articles waiting for review, but my article isn't on it. Do I have to do something to draw it to the attention of someone who might take a look at it? Joe Fogey (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - Wikipedia seems to have already answered my question! It is a bit puzzling for newcomers, though. Joe Fogey (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. The draft Draft:Hares on the Mountain was wrongly tagged as an unreviewed article. I have replaced the tag with that for an unsubmitted draft, so you now have a "Submit" button for you to use when you think it's ready for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Can Admins make changes to an article that don't show on the History?

A certain admin undid hundreds of minor edits I had recently made to an article I doubt he wrote, but that he felt somehow protective of. I did nothing, not wanting to start a war. When I finally went back to the article, a few of his bad faith edits were reverted, but there was no history of these reversions. I had less work to do reverting and justifying my undoing each of his edits, but am flummoxed as to how this occurred. I could cite examples, but not right now. Is it possible for an admin to do this? The greater mystery may be "why".--Quisqualis (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis, Admins have a permission called revision deletion(revdel). It allows them to revert edits that apply to the criteria listed at WP:REVDEL. In your case, I don't think the admin used revdel for legitimate reasons. As long as your edits were in good faith, the admin shouldn't have used revdel. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 03:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. This could not have been revdeletion, since you have zero deleted edits. Was this possibly a reversion to an earlier version, before your many edits? Anyone can do that; it involves no admin powers. I'm afraid without knowing what article you are talking about and what edits and what edit summary accompanied this, if any, it's just too speculative. People who are administrators necessarily where two hats, the admin beanie and the jaunty regular editor fedora. They need to keep those roles highly separate, because admins have no more say than anyone when it comes to regular editing, and if they are involved in a matter as a regular editor, they must not exercise admin powers to gain an advantage. Do not mistake that separation, though, the admin role, for the user's voice of authority conferred by long experience and a thorough understanding of the nooks and crannies of the encyclopedia – its policies and guidelines – which most admins have by virtue of being highly experienced editors, which is a prerequisite for adminship. In fact, I do think I know what this is about, but it does not comport with your description – and if it is, you are tipping your hand in the edit summaries (and also being uncivil, they may be wrong but are you sure they are operating in "bad faith"; and you're also wrong that they have hidden anything from the history). The fact that the person is an admin is irrelevant, they have used no admin powers, have not edited in any admin role, and were they to exercise admin powers over a content dispute in which they were involved (even threaten to), that might be a grounds to lose administrative privileges, depending on the specifics and severity. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is User:PBS at Hundred Days. By the way, Quisqualis, I have a problem with this edit. First, "So, after" is actually not better than "After" as it is IMHO too informal, and "contain" suggests they lived there, "harbour" suggested that they were taking refuge there, two different meanings. There are no deleted or suppressed edits in that article, everything is in the history. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up Doug Weller. At 10:35, 9 January 2017 I had posted a comment on the talk page of the article in a thread about the changes that Quisqualis had made. I waited several days for Quisqualis to respond when Quisqualis did not I made my edit at 17:07, 14 January 2017. I did not use the term revert in the edit history because my edit was not a simple revert (diff on edits made by Quisqualis). One of the things I did revert was the change that Doug Weller picked up about changing "contain" to "harbor" [sic] (for the reason Doug Weller gave and also because Brittany is a maritime province it could be misunderstood to mean literally harbour).

Quisqualis has since reverted that revert without discussing it or any other change made on the talk page first including changing spellings from British English "occasionally" to American English "occasionly" (as had been done previously by Quisqualis with instalments and installments). Before starting to edit the article again and reverting some of the reverts I had made Quisqualis ought to have discussed them on the talk page.

All in all it is Quisqualis who needs to discuss on the talk page any text that I have reverted before reverting to the initial bold edit that they made, as I have my reasons for making those changes, or the change is is my opinion a matter of style in which case such changes ought not to be made without consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I import an article from French Wikipedia?

Hi,

I want to write an article on a British cinematographer and I notice there is an article in the French Wikipedia for this person. Is there a way to import the French article?

Thanks for your help,

Beryl reid fan (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Beryl reid fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can translate it. There are several options as to how to do this. I recommend Content translation tool. You can enable it here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop, for your prompt reply Beryl reid fan (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Have I used the correct Licensing for this photograph

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ED8A3538.jpg

The photographer gave me the photograph and a document with permissions for me to use the photo in any way I choose, but when I picked the License that I felt was most accurate, it didn't require me to provide proof of the document or contact details for the photographer, both of which I have. I am concerned the image will be taken down by "trolls" the moment I bring attention to the fact that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Perry_(fighter) now has a photo. The MMA communities can be a fickle bunch.

Are there any steps I can take to make sure the License is verifiable?

Thanks for your time and assistance Jahannum (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jahannum, and welcome to the Teahouse.

We need to have proof of the permission you have been given. You need to send a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

yes! that is what I'm talking about!!! so happy to be able to submit the proof

ty for such a rapid response @Finnusertop I really appreciate the help. I've sent the email, I received an automated response and I'm guessing now that the photo enters the queue (once you update it) and won't be deleted yet, and we just have to wait until it gets viewed. The page suggested it could be 49 days or more which is slightly depressing, but entirely understandable.

Thanks to the Teahouse too :) Jahannum (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bavarian stamps town cancels

I am trying to find a reference listing Bavarian town numbers on 19th century stamps. Many stamps have a wheel cancellation with a number in the center denoting the town in which the stamp was cancelled. 2601:249:703:4400:5835:FAFC:7DC2:CB08 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Please feel free to ask this question at a section of our reference desk. This page is not a general help forum but specifically for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

My infobox is not showing on my page . . . only the uploaded photo

I have a draft article in my sandbox, and I am attempting to add an infobox. If there was an option to insert a template, I was unable to find that, but willing to try that too if someone could explain how to find and insert a template). I copied code from another infobox, and replaced all the text with my text, and I ano longer see red messages about invalid operators and invalid code. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamivanahaaften/sandbox Jamivanahaaften (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You are using parameters that don't exist in the basic Template:Infobox. You perhaps intended to use a different infobox? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Jamivanahaaften and welcome to the teahouse. The problem was that you had not chosen a specific infobox. I added the word "person" to make it show up in your draft. There is still a problem and I think it is with the way that you have set up the bulleted lists. I have to go off wiki at the moment so hopefully another editor will be able to fix that for you. MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry, it seems to be showing now. May-be I needed to be patient and wait. I look forward to coming back to this "teahouse" for the next glitch I encounter.

Jami Jamivanahaaften (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much MarnetteD. Really, at this point all help and advice is welcome. I inserted some breaks
at the end of lists in the main text of the article, and that seems to have helped with he bullets there.Jamivanahaaften (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

how do I insert an inset

like the one on the right side of the Alexander Calder page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Calder Acelentano2016 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acelentano2016. That is called an infobox, a type of template. Often the easiest way to use them is to click edit at the top of a similar article and copy the template code and then tailor for your purposes. If the article you are here about is also on an artist like Alexander Calder (and I am guessing it is and that you are here about Francis Celentano), then if you click edit at the top of the Calder article, you will see the {{Infobox artist}} template in use, with filled-in parameters. If you click on the link I just made to that infobox template itself, then you will see the template has documentation, providing instructions for use. Other infoboxes templates can be explored at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. By the way, an internal link ("wikilink") is easiest made by surrounding the title in doubled brackets, rather than using the URL as you did, e.g., [[Alexander Calder]]. To learn lots of basics like this, I suggest taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Acelentano2016. After posting this, I copyedited the draft, but then discovered that most of its content was copied and pasted from previous written material. Accordingly, it has been moved back to the draft namespace and most of its content removed and hidden from view. Adding an infobox would still be good, but is very minor detail given the current state of the draft, which needs to have its main content written.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Extreme need for help from Senior wikipedia users and admins, about the fact of being a writer and a wikipedia user, and what to do

I am a researcher and writer (here my amazon profile https://www.amazon.com/Daniele-Trevisani/e/B00J78K9H0) and brought several scientific contributions in several fields. As I see at the moment, I have a score of 281 in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.it/scholar?lr=&q=trevisani+daniele&hl=it&as_sdt=0,5 - I find extremely confusing to have a discussion in which I do not understand clearly where the problem is... why contributions that are made in the benefit of wikipedia users and future generations, including research that I have been involved too, should not be present im wikipedia, if all the rules for quoting and balance are present? Is being a books author a negative variable by itself? If so I need to understand better what are the rules, if an author cannot write any contribution at all in fields in which he/she might have contributed, or if yes, under which rules. A couple of examples of arbitrary deletions of my contributions that I think can be considered exemplary detrimental for the knowledge mission of wikipedia: here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_resource_management&diff=prev&oldid=751941542 and also here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communication&diff=prev&oldid=752995425 - These are the two examples used by the MrOlly, the "agent" that made these deletions which... well, I affirm in my full honest opinion, these deletions are absolutely detrimental according to wikipedia core values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Daniele_Trevisani - I am asking to wikipedia senior experts, what is your opinion based on the facts that you see and can judge probably better than me^

Thanks in advanceCulturalresearch (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Culturalresearch and welcome to the Teahouse! I see here that there is an ongoing discussion at WP:COI/N, a noticeboard regarding conflicts of interest, about your case. While you may be very accomplished in your work, it is Wikipedia policy that editors not write about subjects that are very close to themselves. For a researcher, that would mean refraining from citing one's own work, and not creating or editing articles about organizations or books that you have written.

That said, you are welcome to edit on topics where you have expertise. But, in this case, just be sure to avoid citing your own work, or writing about your lab or organization, etc. You can see more information about this at WP:COI. I hope that helps! -Darouet (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

CR: Just to add a bit, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of subject matter experts, and they can be a great help to the project. I remember one instance in particular, on the No Gun Ri massacre article, for a while we had the guy who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the event, and he helped promote the article to GA status.

But having said that, experts often struggle with the shift to the Wikipedia format, because, while your expertise is valued, the status as an expert doesn't confer any privileged status as a Wikipedia editor. We are all on equal footing when it comes to gaining consensus for changes or additions, and reaching compromises with other editors when disputes arise.

Furthermore, while it is not always inappropriate to cite your own work (as an example, the work of the reporter on the No Gun Ri article, was much of what was available, and was essential in detailing events), but you have to take great care not to give the impression that you are using Wikipedia, and citing yourself as a means of self promotion. The community is generally hostile to this type of behavior, and it is completely against our policies to do so.

There are a lot of policies and guidelines that govern how things work here, and it can take a while to get used to, and be very frustrating at times, especially to someone who may expect things to work here like they work in academia. They don't. That doesn't mean you can't be a valuable contributor, but it does mean there may be a steep learning curve to overcome. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Basing an entire section of an article as broad as Human resource management on a single source, as you did here, isn't really balanced, Culturalresearch. Moreover, your book appears to be self-published. Is that correct? Really, we should only be using academic sources that have been subject to peer review and have themselves been the subject of secondary coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My books are mainly published by the major Italian publisher in social sciences (Franco Angeli), 11 books published since the year 2000 up to 2016. Other 3 books are in English and published by a small independent publisher (if this is a world of freedom, it should not be avoided) while the publisher is dealing for getting translations from English to Arabic and other languages. I wish to know if this delete from MrOllie (that I really ask anybody to verify personally and carefully) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empathy&diff=762231586&oldid=761391400 is based on some criteria of usefulness to wikipedia mission, or instead can suggest the application of

WP:ASPERSIONS - Casting aspersions; it is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause
WP:HOUND WP:Wikihounding - repeatedly confronting or inhibiting another editor's work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. (is considered a form of wiki bullying)
WP:DISRUPT Disruptive editing- a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article, edits are largely confined to talk pages; comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion.
WP:OZD- Overzealous deletion - pattern of regular deletion; deletion of large passages; exclusive deletion of a single editor's work
WP:No-edit orders issuing no edits orders that are not backed by WP policy - considered a form of bullying

and probably many more violations of wikipedia codes of conduct.--Culturalresearch (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I was wrong about the book being self-published, Culturalresearch. I didn't recognise the publisher and it looked self-published on Amazon (by the way, we don't link to Amazon when citing books on Wikipedia; Google Books links are more appropriate). Reverting your edits is not hounding. You need to follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue on the relevant articles' talk pages to establish consensus for your additions. Personally, I think your additions are potentially undue, and it doesn't help you case that you are adding references to your own books. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: The OP is currently indefinitely blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

unsure of when "consensus by silence" is attained

Hi again. I made a | Bravery Barnstar and posted it for comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards over 2 weeks ago. There have been no comments. Does that mean I can assume "consensus by silence" and add it to the list of Barnstars? Related: am I correct in assuming that the way I should phrase these sorts of proposals is by ending with "Any objections?" rather than "Comments?" Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, I have now commented on the barnstar, however, I'm afraid you might not like the comment. If you wish to discuss further, we can do that at the Talk page. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

new to the wikipedia.

I recently published, for the first time on wikipedia (wiki), an idea that I've had and promoted for a political reform idea. Within a day, twice, a speedy removal action deleted it. The reason for the removal was not specific and no reference was provided. (I find this confusing.) I can understand that the long time wiki editors do not want people publishing non-sense or misinformation on wiki nor people to claim credit for other people's ideas and I support that but what I published was none of those and specifically it was not an idea that was stolen from someone else. I have done a significant amount research on the idea I advocate for and I believe that I should be allowed to publish it anywhere on wiki where it is on topic. (I do not have time to waste or to do the same thing over and over again in a battle with editors at wiki.) Any comments or suggestion about how I properly publish so that my idea or proposal will not be removed? How can I know why my entry was removed from wiki when no specific reason was give?

The entry was for: Four Primary Days

Under the Four Primary Days proposal Iowa still has the first caucus (or primary if Iowa decides to change to a primary) and it on the last Tuesday in January. The New Hampshire primary is second with it's primary on the first Tuesday in February. The third primary day is on the first Tuesday in March and it includes the next 23 smallest states, Washington D.C., and U.S. territories by population. A month after that on the first Tuesday in April the fourth and last primary day would be for the 25 most populous states. The state population data that is used to schedule the primaries would have to be agreed upon by all the states involved.

Four Primary Days as a system is designed to create the best primary system and to resolve all of the flaws in the current primary system. It specifically seeks to create a competitive and responsive system, to have a balanced and fair system, for any state to not have an advantage over any other state, and to not have any state be irrelevant or marginalized as much as is possible. The tradition of Iowa being first and New Hampshire being second, this tradition is maintained to implement a system that is best for all the voters and for all of the states, other small states and large states, both in the primary and in the general election. Four Primary Days is also designed to shorten the primary season as much as is reasonable, to consolidate the number of primary days, and to create an efficient primary system that is more inviting to voters and potential voters. 4.53.137.66 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia is not a platform to publish or promote original ideas. Please read our policies on original research and promotional writing. I'd encourage you to consider starting your own blog or promoting your ideas using some other medium. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

How to change my username

Hello,

I am a university lecturer currently running a course assignment through Wikipedia. I have made my username the course code, however I realised that it is not very easy for my students to recognise me, and taking a longer term perspective, it is better I have my real full-name so I am able to continue participating in the Wikipedia community after the course is completed. Could someone advise me on how I could change my username to my actual name? Thanks a lot!

M0SN24-TD (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi M0SN24-TD. Please refer to this page to rename your account. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Starting a page

I have spent hours writing a page on Patrick Jones (1970) and wikipedia sent me a 'criteria for speedy deletion' rewriting my page name as: Patrick Jones (activist). I do not want my work deleted. please help. Cheers Permapoesis (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Permapoesis and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is that your page, Wikipedia.org/wiki/patrickjones is duplicating a page that already exists at Patrick Jones (activist). The latter is up for speedy deletion due to no references. My suggestion is to transfer your content to the Patrick Jones (activist) page, including all of the references! Let us know if you need clarification. Justin15w (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the articles are very similar, almost identical, perhaps we can move your page to the existing Patrick Jones (activist) to save the work needed to transfer the references. Hoping another Teahouse host can chime in on that. Justin15w (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Permapoesis and Justin15w: I've done a history merge, which rendered the CSD A10 tagging moot. The article needs some work Permapoesis--possibly it should be moved to the draft namespace. For the moment, it would be great if you reformatted all the naked URLs into attributed citations. I've done one for you as an example. Please refer to Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:CITEHOW. I'm not sure at this juncture about the notability of the topic and the related reliability and nature of the sourcing – I did not look for other sources myself, and, because of the naked URLs, it's more difficult to assess the existing references without extra work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Permapoesis: BTW (though I haven't looked there), for Australian subjects, Trove is often a great place to look for reliable references.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for you help. I think you'll find the page Patrick Jones (activist) is much 'healthier' for links and citations etc now. Permapoesis (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

want to remove "highly promotional in tone" description/warning from Wikipedia

I've written a biography of a New York woman who runs a media company, a media-based podcast operation and has written a report referenced by Forbes and Yahoo Finance. She seems legitimately "notable:"

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

But I'm getting a warning from Wikipedia:

"Highly promotional in tone. Does not provide independent evidence of notability."

I've written the piece in a largely neutral (maybe completely?) tone. The warning threatens a potential deletion within seven days. I've been re-reading and trying to discern the best way to modify the bio to Wikipedia's policies. But I'm not sure what to do.

Any suggestions? Is this a viable entry for Wikipedia?

And thank you.

Phixson (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Phixson: Welcome to the Teahouse. Independent of the tone, your article lacks reliable sources. The Internet Movie Database is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia because it contains user-submitted content. The other three references you list are all connected with the subject, which does not establish notability. And the sources you do list (Forbes etc.) are formatted as external links, which should not be included within the main article text; these should be inline citations. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article and getting more practice editing other articles before creating one yourself. Funcrunch (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ETA: I see that you did create another article a few years back, but that one is also tagged for insufficient citations. Funcrunch (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Phixson. Consider this passage:

"Gabriella's passion for the arts and her business expertise provided the motivation to cofound ANATOMY MEDIA with Mark Valentine in 2000. Anatomy Media is a New York-based creative firm that specializes in promotion and marketing for large entertainment brands. Gabriella and Mark made artistic aesthetics the driving focus of their work which helped secure clients like Amazon, National Geographic and NBCUniversal. Gabriella pursues artistic excellence beyond the area of her professional work."

Who says all of that stuff about passion and excellence and driving focus? You? Her? That and similar language is overtly promotional in nature and does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. Please remove all of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I see this article was deleted before I had a chance to review it, how can I view it?

Epididymus (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Epididymus. The section I quoted above is representative of the overall style of the article. Only administrators can view deleted articles. If you believe that the topic is notable and intend to create an acceptable article, many administrators will provide you a copy of the deleted article in your own user space. It would then be your responsibility to clean it up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing for Wikipedia requires a high degreeof "dryness." That is to say, every bit of colorful language is questionable, and must be attributed to the statement of an outside source. For the writer to do the opposite is what journalists call "editorializing," trying to pass off a personal opinion as though it's objective and indeed universal.

Writing here is much more akin to terse newspaper style than the more languid (even folksy) magazine writing.

Calling someone "notable" is not a good start -- you HAVE to demonstrate that this is a credible assessment, or that someone else has claimed it to be so. Piling on with "seems" and "legitimately" -- as with any other superlative -- simply makes your position more difficult.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Where to discuss the problem of consistent and persistent liberal bias across Wikipedia?

In the past, whenever I've brought this problem up, my edits are deleted and I get banned from topics as punishment for even hinting at it on the talk pages. The admins who voted for Hillary Clinton (or supported her, if they're not American) consistently back the editors who also voted for Hillary Clinton and/or supported her candidacy. How do we go about fixing the problem if we can't even talk about it? It's getting worse, and worse, and worse. Examples: Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, Hillary Clinton,Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016,Fake news,Alternative facts,Sean Spicer,Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy, and many many others. They're all dripping with liberal bias, and nobody seems to really care about the direction Wikipedia is now going. What forum do we use to confront this problem before it gets even more out of hand? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just a bystander, but you can only fix it one little (reliably sourced) edit at a time. It is apparent that liberals are pretty active on Wikipedia, so some of their innate bias will slip through, and obtain consensus. I did not see bias on Alternative facts, other than the Dan Rather quote being a bit over the top towards the end, but your real role in toning down liberal bias (and the role of anyone who values NPOV) is to change a word or two in one sentence that seems to embody bias, thus defusing the entire article's bias to some extent. Go back to the article a week later, and find another sentence to repair. Take the emotion out of the article, leaving it a limp rag of well-sourced facts, from which a reader may extract what they want. But don't do so for six months on "the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed."--Quisqualis (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hidden Tempo. If you have concerns about the neutral point of view of a particular article, then the best place to first try and discuss that is the relevant article's talk page as explained at WP:DR. If you find you're efforts to engage on the talk page to be not getting anywhere, then you can try to get feedback at WP:NPOVN. If your concerns are more about the reliability of a source or sources cited in the article, then you can ask for feedback at WP:RSN. However, regardless of where you do the discussing, you be aware of WP:TPG, assume good faith and stick to trying to make your point by discussing the article content/sources that you find problematic and try really hard to avoid discussing/categorizing other editors like you did above in your post. Speculating on who an editor may have supported in an election is not going to help you achieve your goals, and will likely only lead to a battleground-type of discussion which is not very conducive to achieving a consensus. If you have problems with the behavior of another editor, the best place to discuss that is at WP:ANI, but before you do it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:ANI advice to give yourself a better idea as to what happens during such discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hidden Tempo. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are the subject of a six month topic ban on American politics due to your disruptive editing in that topic area. That topic ban began in December, 2016 and applies to all of Wikipedia including the Teahouse. Your question here is therefore a clear violation of your topic ban, and I am pinging Bishonen in case anything I have said is in error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"To claim bias is to demonstrate bias" -- not always true, but surprisingly reliable. (FWIW, I voted for Ford and Reagan, and was a proud NRA member for years. But I'm not afraid of people whose opinions differ from mine own.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

How to REVIEW abd EDIT the search CATEGORIES for my draft article.

I would like to review the "categories" associated with my draft article: Jean Jepson: Dancer, Teacher, Choreographer. I have tried but I am unable to find my categories much less review them. I have tried the Help Categories feature. It provides a lot of definitions and suggestions about using categories.

However I am not able to find any specific guidelines that say something like:

 go HERE to LOCATE your categories and 
 do THIS to EDIT them.

Please help me with this focused request. Thanks! CableHut (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CableHut. Your draft article does not have any categories and does not need them at this time. Categories are for completed main space encyclopedia articles. Your draft article still needs a lot of work before it is ready for the encyclopedia. My suggestion is to concentrate on improving your draft first and worry about categories much later. Please read Help:Categories for more information. The coding for categories appears near the very end of the wikicode for an article. If you examine the code for a categorized encyclopedia article, you will see the category coding at the end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to hide edits from watchlist that got reverted?

You know, when sõme vandal edit the page but got reverted. Bertdrunk (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bertdrunk and welcome to the Teahouse.

Not exactly. There's a Preference under "Watchlist" called

 Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent

that you can un-check. A lot of people prefer to see their Watchlist this way and it would have the effect of hiding reverted edits (but not necessarily the edits that reverted them). —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)