Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 637

Archive 630

←

Archive 635

Archive 636

Archive 637

Archive 638

Archive 639

Archive 640

What's a rellable source for an article on a comic book?

The article on the comic book Tales of Beatrix is being proposed for deletion on the grounds that it doesn't exist. I know perfectly well that it does because I've read it, but what counts as a reliable source to prove that? For instance, would its inclusion on Amazon or Grand Comic Database (under alternative forms of the given title) be sufficient? If not, what? Lee M (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The Amazon entry proves that the comic exists, but doesn't prove its notability. The GCD entry does neither, as it appears to be editable by anyone, with no editorial control. What you need is to provide multiple reliable sources that talk about the comic in some length. It's up to you to find and use those sources. If you can't then the article won't survive. Rojomoke (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing at college/university

I'm not exactly new anymore but figured this would be the best place to ask. If I log into my Wikipedia account from school, and my IP address appears to be the same as a vandal or disruptive editor (IP or not), what are the chances I will be accused of being connected to them in some way? If this happens, how can I remedy this? My account was made at home and I've made a significant amount of edits away from school. Aspening (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aspening, and welcome to the teahouse. One of the big advantages of creating an account is that you will not be blamed for any edits from an anonymous IP address, and you will not receive warning messages directed at vandals from your school. In the unlikely event of an investigation, it will be clear that you are an innocent party. Just make sure that you do not allow anyone else to use your account, so you might need to log out of Wikipedia at the end of your session on a public computer (though this will be automatic when you log off on some systems). Dbfirs 06:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi protected ranges

Hi I'm new here! Just got wikipedia yesterday. There are pages that say I need to make 10 edits so they can trust me to edit them, they say they are 'semi-protected ranges'... I've made 40 edits and I still can't edit them. Miles.mu (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Miles.mu and welcome to the Teahouse. Such pages require editors to be confirmed which normally means at least 10 edits and an account at least 4 days old. You will qualify in another 2 days, more or less. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. Because after looking it appears to me that all your edits are good faith attempts at improvement, I have granted you confirmed status early. However, please do not make any more "corrections" of "double spacing errors" as you have termed them. They are not errors (placing a double space after a period was an extremely common convention, though it has fallen out of favor among many over the past thirty years or so), but also such edits have no affect whatsoever on the display of articles, and edits that make inconsequential changes for no real purpose, but clutter people's watchlists, are highly frowned upon. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Miles.mu (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. I hope you find articles that really need editing, and best wishes for your work in Wikipedia, but please remember to give accurate edit summaries. Adding commas is a punctuation correction (or a matter of style), not a spelling correction. In general, style "corrections" are not needed in Wikipedia unless they are for consistency within an article, or if they improve the readability. We allow a variety of styles here (though they should all be encyclopaedic). Dbfirs 06:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Template problems

I've been trying to make a template on the 2nd AP All-pro team. However, after I made some of it, it seems that the template called the 2016 AP All-pro team became for the 2nd team, and vice-versa for the other template. I've been trying to fix the two but it seems impossible, and I think I might have to delete both of them. Is there a way to fix the two templates by any means, or should I delete it. Can you help? Vinnylospo (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. Click the "View history" tab to see the edits: [1][2]. I have restored Template:2016 All-Pro Team to before your edits. You changed it to be about the 2nd team. I have copied that version to Template:2016 2nd All-Pro Team. I haven't checked the content beyond that. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A compiled list of article tags?

Is there a place that has a complete list of tags with which to tag articles for improvement? I see them across several pages, so I'm wondering if there is a convenient place one could go to find what they are looking for. Uhtregorn (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uhtregorn. See Wikipedia:Template messages (shortcut: WP:TM). Please be aware of {{Multiple issues}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Uhtregorn (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

News released and edit timing

If something comes out in the news, is it proper to add it onto an article when it comes out, or should we wait for a bit? Or does this depend on the nature of what the news is? Uhtregorn (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Uhtregorn. It depends on the nature of the news. Some celebrities are so famous that news outlets will report where they had dinner or what nightclub they attended. Such trivia is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. But if reliable sources (not random Twitter or Facebook posts) report that a notable person has died or a historic building has burned to the ground, then that kind of news should be added to the appropriate article immediately, along with a reference to the reliable source. In other words, exercise editorial judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Intersting, and very helpful. But what if its a major news story that is still unfolding? Should editors wait until the full story has come out? Uhtregorn (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How to open article wizard

Hello,i want to ask that if i have to open article wizard, then what i have to do.If i open the article wizard page on Wikipedia then it first page shows introduction and second,third,fourth,fifth and sixth page shows subject, notability, sources, content and end respectively.I don't know what to do now?Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Md.Yahiya Kamal. The article wizard starts at Wikipedia:Article wizard and has clickable boxes to navigate it, for example "Write an article now (for new users)" on the first page. What do you want to do? When you get to the "End" page there should be an option to create a draft or article if that's what you want. If you get stuck then post a link to the page where you are stuck. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Company Page Approval

Hi, I'd love some feedback on a company page I've been working on. The company is well known within our industry and I felt it needed some recognition here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'd really like to see this page become approved.

Thank You

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

MJOHN (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MJOHN. As it stands, I'm afraid that the draft completely lacks substantial independent secondary sources, without which an article cannot be accepted. Two of the references are patents, which are primary sources; one is by RA; and one is a passing mention. The first one (the study from the University of Florida) I am unable to open (it seems to want to download something in a strange format), so I don't know what it contains. But whatever "LPRC" might mean (you neither explain nor link to this term), it seems unlikely to contain substantial independent material about the company. What you need to find is several places where people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish substantial material about it, since almost the whole of the article needs to be based on these sources, and not on unpublished information or on information published by the company or its associates. (Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of any article says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with it have published about it).

Furthermore, since you say you hold the copyright ot File:Tag print.jpg, it would appear that you have some commention with the company. If that is the case, you need to read and follow the instructions relating to editing with a conflict of interest: if you are in any way paid to contribute to Wikipedia (eg if it is seen as part of your job) then you must declare this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thank You for response.

I just want to clarify my position in this. I am Loss Prevention Executive who currently works for a Large Retail Organization. I have been involved with Loss Prevention, RFID and EAS for over 20 years. My relationship with this page is strictly professional and that of an observer. My interest in designing this page stems from their involvement and innovation within the industry.

I am familiar with most product currently being used by some of the largest developers. Some of which initially designed by some of the people associated with 'Retailers Advantage'.

Both the 'LPRC' and 'RFID Journal' have been fixtures since the early 2000's and are main staples within Loss Prevention and RFID. In my opinion I do feel these should be considered as substantial secondary sources.

The 'RFID Journal' references a hard tag designed by 'Retailers Advantage' and studies found. Author 'Claire Swedberg', frequent writer for RFID Journal.

I have removed any pictures that could be considered copyright. All remaining are my own property or already on the web.

Though not as large as a 'Sensormatic' or 'Checkpoint'. I do feel they deserve recognition for their continued contribution.

Please reconsider this page or guide me on further adjustments.

Thank You

MJOHN (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

MJOHN, that page is not ready to be a Wikipedia article. I've moved it to Draft:Retailers Advantage, where you can work on it if you wish – the references and the overall tone both need attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MJOHN. The bulk of my reply still stands. I can see the LPRC report now, and I accept that it and the RFID Journal article are reliable. The problem is that neither of them says much about the company: they are focused on the product. (I am assuming this from the executive summary). These together may establish that the a3tag is notable, but not that the company is. You still need substantial independent reliable sources about the company.

I hear that you are not connected with the company; but I don't understand then how it is that you hold the copyright in a picture that is relevant to the company. (Note that "already on the web" is not adequate: most pictures on the web are copyright and may not be used in Wikipedia, unless the copyright holder has specifically licensed them with a compatible licence such as CC-BY-SA).

Your feeling that they deserve recognition of course has some relevance if you are in the industry, but Wikipedia's criteria for that is exactly what I mentioned above: that the subject has received substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia does not deal in "recognition": it is only interested in subjects which have already been recognised by independent source. See notability. --ColinFine (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I want no problems with copyright pictures. I will remove those.

I've read all the criteria. There are many holes. My impression is most of this subjective and mainly at the discretion of the admin/s on whether or not a page gets approved.

I'd be curious if all your pages meet these criteria...

I would greatly appreciate if you could be specifics with what you are looking for.

Thanks Again & Best Regards,

MJOHN

MJOHN (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There are likely many articles that do not meet the criteria, MJOHN, but over time they are likely to be identified and deleted. Many poor articles are from the early days of the project and our standards and procedures have been tightened since then - including the introduction of the Articles for Creation system, which hopefully means that fewer sub-standard articles are created nowadays. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Finding things that actually NEED to be edited

I have had Wikipedia for 24 hours (more or less) and I've made over 100 edits already, but other users always criticize me on my edits... it's not very encouraging, considering the fact that I'm a new user here. I feel that I'm doing the wrong thing. If I stop editing, I suppose the other users would be satisfied, but I still want to contribute to this society... I have come across several articles that say 'needs citation' 'needs cleanup' or something. I feel that if I edit those articles, other users won't pick on me as much. Is there a certain way to find those articles? Thanks. Miles.mu (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. Welcome to the Teahouse. One place to start is at Category:Articles needing attention. You can find a lot of cleanup work to do there. About the criticism, try not to take it personally. Like you, we're all volunteers with limited time (and sometimes limited patience!), and sometimes we aren't quite as cordial as we could be. Do take any constructive criticism seriously—Wikipedia is a complex place with a steep learning curve, and the lessons we learn when we're new here will stand us in good stead a little further down the road. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Miles.mu: I don't believe that other editors are "picking on" you. But if you add a grammatical error to an article, it's likely that another editor will remove it. They don't criticise you, they criticise the edit you made. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Miles.mu: It's an exaggeration to say that other users always criticize you. Your changes of double spaces to single spaces were against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spaces following terminal punctuation. It's unlucky you made so many before an editor told you we don't make such changes. You may want to study Wikipedia:Manual of Style, or ask before making the same change a lot of times. I agree with the user saying this was an error. A conflict does not wage. It is waged by the participants. Your edit would have been correct if "waged" worked like "lasted" but it works like "fought". Maybe you can hear your version is wrong with "fought" instead of "waged". Please don't be discouraged by a few problems. You stopped the double space changes after being told. That's good. We all have to learn and respect rules. Some editors refuse to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

badges from wikipedia for my editing work?

I have been an active wiki editor since 2013. please tell me if earning badges for your work from wiki is important? how can we earn those badges? Sachsach (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sachsach. I suppose it depends on what motivates you. I have been editing for more than 10 years and can't remember receiving many badges (or barnstars, as they are known), but that doesn't bother me because I find instrinsic reward in editing. Others may feel differently. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Larry.. You truly are an inspiration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachsach (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Editors may display Service awards if thy choose, Sachsach. I do. Some find them motivating. Some find them useful to indicate roughly their level of experience. But no one should take them too seriously. barnstars are basically thank yous, and any editor may "award" them to another, when s/he thinks them appropriate. But please don't take actions primarily in hope of getting a barnstar. You may be disappointed. Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Awards. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Flag Icon for old countries

On Azerbaijan in World War II, there's a table of counties. All the countries have a flag icon for their respective country. To maintain consistency, I want to add the flag icon for two [former] nations. The Crimean ASSR and Byelorussian SSR, however there are no ISO codes for these two (for the {flagicon} template). How would I go about adding these two flags while maintaining the 25px x 15px size?

Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Toreightyone. You might be best asking for advice on this matter on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Help

What to do here I am new so please tell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhushan (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikibhushan. If you are looking to get started with contributing to Wikipedia, you might want to start by taking a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability and references

I have been working on an entry that was declined first for references and now notability. My question is does the Title make the instances be acceptable. I am writing about a former member of Pretty Ricky but the title is his real name, should I title it different?

Thull2011 Thull2011 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thull2011 and welcome to the Teahouse. It's the references that matter because good references establish WP:Notability. You should use whatever name the independent references use. The existing references are very weak. See WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 19:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How does one make a general disclaimer about accepting pay for writing articles?

I have never accepted pay for writing articles and never will. There seem to be plenty of suggestions in Wikipedia instructions about how to insinuate that a writer/editor has been paid for their volunteer contributions, but no standard way to refute the accusations.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

We generally give people the benefit of the doubt, and presume that they are not being paid. Unless of course, there is good evidence to the contrary, when we would encourage them to read our conflict of interest policies and make a clear statement about any COI and/or paid editing. As I start quite a lot of business articles, my userpage includes the statement, "I receive no payment for anything I write on Wikipedia." Edwardx (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Edwardx (talk). I will do the same.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mitzi.humphrey. See the standard template for paid editing disclosure {{Paid}}. See also the warning template series {{uw-paid1}}, {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}} and {{uw-paid4}}--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I'll look at the template series to see how they vary from one another.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

how to upload

How to upload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Margaret_Handwerker ?Isabella Zuralski (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Isabella Zuralski and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is already uploaded, so I think you want to know how to submit it for review. The draft needs a lot of work before it is ready for submission. Wikipedia has no interest in what an artist has to say about herself, but only in what WP:Reliable sources say about her. You need to find independent publications in which the subject has been discussed at length to establish WP:Notability, and add these references to the draft, otherwise it can never become part of Wikipedia. There are also some problems with the layout and formatting of the draft, but these can easily be fixed if the subject proves notable in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 20:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I will work on proper references. Isabella Zuralski (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Was act of administrator right?

Once I was gathering information about female anatomy in my sandbox. A administrator deleted the page when I was editing it. The administrator notified me We are not here so that you can develop your porn gallery. I discussed this matter on this teahouse. First read it. In light of this, I ask was act of that administrator right?

Sinner (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I had previously noticed that you had been maintaining a page of images of female nudity, Nazim Hussain Pak, and wondered why when you were also asking here at the Teahouse how you could prevent such images from displaying. It is confusing to me why you were complaining about "porn" on Wikipedia, and at the same time building a page of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: The full deletion rationale was: "U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host: also: no non-free content, and we're not here so you can make your porn gallery".[3] Blue text is links. Some of the images like File:Destiny's Child – Nasty Girl.png are non-free and were uploaded with a fair use rationale for a specific article. Non-free images are disallowed in userspace per point 9 at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. If you want to view images of the female anatomy then please watch them where they are or download them to your own computer. Don't use Wikipedia to make a publicly visible gallery with them. All Wikipedia pages are publicly visible. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD reminders

What do you do if you have a page (you) nominated for deletion, but still, after more than a week, still hasn't received significant attention from either admins to close the discussion or editors contributing to an outcome? How would one (an editor,) raise the amount of discussion on and attract more attention for a stalling, if not completely stalled, AfD discussion, and draw it to a conclusion? alphalfalfa^(talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, alphalfalfa. It is always helpful to provide a link to the discussion in question. Based on your edit history, I am assuming that you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alumni Chapel (The Hill School). If so, I suggest that you do nothing further. Two editors support deleting the article and none yet support keeping it. You do not want to be perceived as canvassing for deletion. Wait for an administrator to close the debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Boško Todorović

Hello. I did a major copyedit on about the first third of Boško Todorović. It was reverted in full and sadly, a rather unflattering comment was added. I am looking for a quick opinion on whether the copy edit was indeed so bad or have I simply struck a difficult article. I am happy to move on to other work but only if I am actually being helpful. Kind regards and my thanks, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Myrtlegroggins: when you delete hundreds of characters of content, but describe it in your edit summary as a copyedit, some editors may form the view that deliberate dishonesty is involved. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom. on reflection, I can see from the comments made to me today that I need to be more mindful of the way that I describe changes made in the edit summary. I can assure you I was editing in good faith but I can see now how I could have upset the other editor. I am understanding that my main error was a lack of care and consideration in the copyediting process rather than the changes I made in the syntax in the main part of the article per se. I will leave well alone but I hope a good copyedit of the article can be completed at some point. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

MyrtlegrogginsWhile far from a copy edit expert, I will throw out two additional suggestions. The first is based upon my observation that while a copy added in theory is supposed to be something that is noncontroversial, there are many examples of proposed edits that may seem noncontroversial to one editor but not so convincing to another. A problem will arise if you do 20 changes in a single edit and 18 are exceedingly straightforward, but some other editor disagrees with two of them, they may prefer to revert the entire edit rather than simply override the two they disagree with. This might be especially true if they start looking at your edits and find the one or two they disagree with early in the list. One solution is to make smaller edits. Make two or three or four changes in one edit, rinse and repeat. Then if someone finds one they disagree with, the reversion only affects two or three or four rather than 20.

A second observation is there are times you might want to do a large-scale change the tone, and it may not work well to do a sentence or two at a time. When you are planning to do something like this, it may be a good idea to write down the revised version in an external editor, then post a note on the talk page with a before and after and asked for feedback. Maybe somebody will quibble with one or two words and you can reach a consensus and then make the large edit. Or they may be simply happy that you asked before making it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I appreciate your suggestions very much and I will do them. I have also made a heartfelt apology to the other editor involved. My enthusiasm got ahead of my care to others which is never what I would wish to have happen. Thank you for taking the time to comment, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this... normal?

Normal or bug?

Robertgombos (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: it's normal. When you created your account, you are creating an account on every WMF Wikipedia for all languages. I am willing to bet that all those messages are "welcome to Wikipedia" in various languages. If you don't want to see notifications from other wikis then go to Preferences -> Notifications and uncheck the box towards the bottom labelled "Show notifications from other wikis". Nthep (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, my account is 5 year old, but only today made it to the 100th edit. :) It was just a bit strange coming all notifications at once. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never had a slew of notifications like that, but I do get them from versions of Wikipedia that I've never edited before from time to time. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I understand. I just thought that is advisable to post the printscreen because I wanted to make sure there isn;t an error of some kind. Robertgombos (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: Accounts work at hundreds of wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you (or your browser via some feature?) visit a wiki for the first time while logged in then your account is automatically created there. Special:CentralAuth/Robertgombos shows 50 such account creations today within 2 minutes. In many of them you got a welcome message on your talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I see, thank you for the heads up. Robertgombos (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

new member editing suggested articles

When I first joined, there was a banner that brought me to articles that needed editing. How do I get there again? Or how do I find articles that need editing? Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Notralphwaite5. If you want to access that same page, copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true → navigate to any random article → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing URL → paste the copied code → hit enter. See also the Wikipedia:Community Portal, which contains a list of various tasks you can help out with. You can transclude its list of open tasks into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fuhg.... Thanks for the response. Where exactly do I copy that code to? I tried putting it on my user talk page but it doesn't seem to do anything. Any help appreciated. Notralphwaite5 (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

However, through the community portal, I found this list of articles that need editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit

so thanks.

Notralphwaite5 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

how do i write about commom sense in books?

I was editing 'tyet' and I added the fact that in the Kane chronicles, one of the main characters had a tyet amulet that she used to communicate with her mother. But there is not just one sentence that explains that. It is just kind of common knowledge for readers, so do I cite it or not, and if so, how?GrecoRomanNut (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikilink to Tyet for the convenience of other contributors. GrecoRomanNut, if this is "common knowledge" for the readers of these books, there must be a first passage mentioning that the character wears such an amulet, and a first passage mentioning this use. Cite the volume(s) and page(s) or at least chapter(s) where these occur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.1 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need to reference a single sentence, GrecoRomanNut. Giving the page number or page range where the information can be verified is perfectly acceptable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thank you. As an owner of the whole trilogy, I can definitely do that. Thanks again,GrecoRomanNut (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How to take a picture from another language wiki and add it to English language wiki?

Hello. There is a page on English Wikipedia. Arabic-language version of this page has a good picture. English version doesn't have any pictures at all. I think it'd be great to take this picture on Arabic wiki page and add it to English wiki page, but how do I do that?

I also know that there are some problems with copy-right or whatever. And it's like different wiki's have different copy-right laws. I don't understand anything about that.

(I hope this question is understandable - but if now ask away! I'll try to explain better)

Nigario.sss (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

State the Arabian file name and the English Wikipedia article name please.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am so sorry I did not reply in time. This is the picture on Arab Wikipedia: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ملف:Moulay_mouhamed_ben_abde_arahman.jpg And this is this page google-translated to english: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Far.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2Fملف%3AMoulay_mouhamed_ben_abde_arahman.jpg&edit-text= And this is the English wikipedia page that needs this picture Muhammad IV of Morocco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigario.sss (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nigario.sss: although I don’t understand Arabic, I gather that this image is copyrighted and is hosted on ARWP under a claim of fair use. The same can be done here on ENWP, but a detailed fair-use rationale will be required, explaining how the image meets several criteria; please see that page and the guideline on non-free content.—Odysseus1479 05:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on reliable sources and news opinion pieces

Hello, I have been reading up on policies and have a question regarding what constitutes reliable from news sources. Must they strictly be editorial pieces from or can opinion pieces be used as well? Within this, is there a litmus test to determine reliability? Should the author be considered an authority on some subject for his opinion to be given weight? What if said authority pushes a controversial opinion or one that is generally not accepted? Is there another policy that addresses this? Thank you for your time. Uhtregorn (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

To support factual statements, news reportage and not opinion pieces are preferred. Opnion piecs are often not considered to be reliable sources for factual statements, although it varies. When the issue is a statement such as "Many people think X" then an opinion piece saying X is relevant. In gerneal a reporter does not need to be a subject-matter expert for a news story to be a reliable source. If the issue is highly technical, and particularly in the medical field, expertise is sometimes needed. Specific cases can be discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. But you must be specific there, not only what source but what statement(s) the source is being cited for, in what article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC) @Uhtregorn: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Intersting. So it seems best to avoid them if possible, but if they are included its best to mention that said statement was in fact the opinion of someone? Uhtregorn (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is often worth including interpretations and opinions, Uhtregorn, depending on the context. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is helpful in explaining what to do in these situations. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That makes total sense! I think that policy perfectly addresses what I was thinking about. I will look through it additionally to get a better grasp.

I really appreciate how helpful and open this community is. Thanks for answering all my questions! Uhtregorn (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Article with several issues

I've made a number of edits to an article (Isidro A. T. Savillo) that I think has a lot of problems, which I have tried to correct in my edits. Often another editor (usually an IP address) will revert my changes and/or make a snarky comment in the article's talk page and I've tried to respond to these comments by referring to wikipedia's guidelines, but it's very difficult to actually have any sort of discussion about the article. I've tried to avoid nominating the article for deletion, but as I've learned more about wikipedia's standards, the more I think it would be appropriate in this case. Is there anywhere I could have more experienced editors look over the article to see if it has the same issues I've identified? For this page, I think the main issue if that the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria for an academic and that a lot of the article contains trivial information. madambaster (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right. It is a long and superficially impressive article, but I am struggling to see how he passes WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Have nominated it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isidro A. T. Savillo. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

username

I signed up today. Forgot to capitalize my surname's first letter. How can I edit that?? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user Koushik ghar.

Koushik ghar, you can ask for a name change following the directions at Wikipedia:Changing username. ~ GB fan 10:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do about a new editor who is listing everything for deletion?

Hi, so a new editor is aggressively listing articles for deletion and voting for deletion on things - at times so quickly between actions they couldn't possibly have done proper due diligence (e.g. basic internet search) to check whether the subject is notable before claiming they are not - and not following wikipedia policy WP:BEFORE. Basically, the editor is creating work for others who then have to come and defend pages to stop them from being deleted. While the articles often have flaws in them, tagging them for cleanup, starting a discussion, or improving the articles prior to listing for deletion would I believe be the correct thing to do. In defending the pages people have suggested to the editor s/he has an incorrect perspective on when something should be deleted, or what is notable, WP:RS or how to address neutrality issues (as these are the main arguments the editor uses for deletion) however the editor continues to argue even when others have stepped in and improved the articles. This seems to be very troll-like behaviour, and it is destructive, time-consuming, stressful. I myself am only fairly new on wikipedia, so don't really know what to do. Powertothepeople (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point us to some examples?--Moxy (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Think Powertothepeople is talking about this article Muslim Women's National Network Australia and its deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Women's National Network Australia. Appears DGG goes through and finds articles to nominated for deletion. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG has been editing since 2006, NZ Footballs Conscience, so isn't new and therefore presumably isn't the editor Powertothepeople refers to. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops sorry you are right, missed the bit about it being a new editor. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

fwiw, I have for many years been challenging articles I think borderline in some respect, not just to express my own perceptions but to help clarify the guidelines for others. it is just as satisfying to me if a questionable article I challenge is resolved as keep as if it is resolved as delete, as longas it is resolved as a guide to others. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry DGG I wasn't implying in anyway what you do is wrong, I just thought that was who OP was talking about but had missed the bit where they said new editor. Just the article was one OP worked on and you had nominated which is how I came across it NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 06:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to name the person in case that was considered 'shaming' or create friction etc. Not DGG in this case. GretLomborg was who I was writing about, but please delete his name if it is not a good idea to claim publicly. On my radar due to this page he listed for deletion [4] and when someone mentioned towards the end of the discussion that he a new editor focussed on Afd I had a look at his contributions and thought it odd that some of his listings and votes for deletion and were so close together without time imho to properly assess whether the article should be deleted. I looked at a couple of them, and to my mind he was acting prematurely without really checking before listing. However I don't pretend to have done a thorough analysis of his activities (another reason I don't feel great about naming him), and I didn't want to stalk him and contest all his listings that I disagree with as that is poor form. So I kind of wanted advice about how this sort of thing should be approached. Thanks Powertothepeople (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to contribute some articles about technology and gadgets.

I want to contribute some articles on tech-related topics or if any edition to any tech article if needed how can I do so please give me some suggestions.

Thank you very much.

Shashankgizmos (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to write about any specific technology, any you have in mind? Did you search for technology articles in your area of interest and look to see if you could contribute to those? Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Shashankgizmos, You may find WikiProject Technology helpful to see existing technology articles. From there, you might identify articles that can be added and existing articles for you to improve. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving draft when redirect exists

I wanted to accept Draft:Rolls Royce Cullinan. However a redirect page Rolls Royce Cullinan already exists. How can this be moved Jupitus Smart 13:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to request it, Jupitus Smart. See WP:MOR. --ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Jupitus Smart tag the redirect with {{db-move}}, but this time I'll just do it for you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this sites claims valid?

This site claims Wikipedia has an anti-conservitive Christianity bias. This is of course a site with worse bias then us, however I'm not confident that its claims are untrue. If you cannot answer it, could you dirrect me to someone who will. Thank you for your time and consideration.22mikpau (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:22mikpau - That site, as you recognize, has a deliberate bias, and it sees differing views as biased. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello 22mikpau. Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy: on the contrary, the policy is for articles to be neutral. However, it is inevitable that there will be biases for various reasons, most obviously from the self-selection of its editors and the things that they choose to write about. Some people may regard policies such as WP:FRINGE as inherently biased. You may find some useful information in the essay WP:systemic bias. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy". Having read some wikipedia articles, I highly doubt this. Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Notralphwaite5 - Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy. Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy. If you think that we have biases as a matter of policy, please find the policy that specifies the bias and call it to our attention. If you mean that some articles have biases, that is unfortunately true, and is against policy, and we have procedures for addressing those biases. However, individual editors not only have biases, but see presentation that differs from their own views as biased. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My article was deleted based on conformity to wikipedia guidelines.

Hello,

I'll be needing a clear-cut assistance on how my article can meet Wikipedia standards. Though i have gone through the necessary guidelines but i feel i'll be needing the assistance of a professional who is conversant with how information are posted as a guide. Thank you Olusegun Ajakaiye (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Olusegun Ajakaiye - You won't like this advice, but experienced editors will agree with it. First, do not try to use Wikipedia to host your autobiography, and do not try to get it to "meet Wikipedia standards"; it probably won't, and you will be wasting your time. Second, I very strongly advise you not to try to get the assistance of a "professional", that is, a paid Wikipedia writer. Wikipedia very strongly disapproves of paid editing, and many paid editors make grandiose claims about their editing ability that are not true. Most articles by paid editors are deleted, and paid editors are banned as quickly as we can ban them. Don't waste your time and money hiring a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Make good edits for admin privileges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have difficulty making good edits to Wikipedia, to become an admin. I wanna become an admin. I wanna know if the source is "questionable" or "reliable", so edits will not be reverted. Bemahewal (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

How much edits to become an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemahewal (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bemahewal. There is no hard and fast rule as to quantity of edits in order to become an admin. Displaying competence in a variety of areas including those that demonstrate a need for admin tools and facile knowledge about the project and its policies and guidelines through good edits and discussion (and a lack of bad edits) are much more important. That being said, a certain minimum number of edits is required for anyone to achieve the level of experience necessary to meet such goals, as well as to have a track record so that people can verify any candidate meets these expectations. So, without any number being the important part, I would say 5,000 (non-automated) edits would be a bare minimum, but again, simply having that minimum number of edits would be the least of what would be considered. I'm sorry but I think I have to bring up another [disqualifying] issue that is a simple reality here. Communication skills are very important for an administrator to have. Unless you become much more fluent in English, I do not believe there is any way you could ever become an administrator on this Wikipedia. You could instead concentrate on the Wikipedia in your native language. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Something I want to add to Fuhgettaboutit's answer, Bemahewal: in order to become an administrator, you need to have a good answer to the question "Why do you want to be an Admin?" A good answer will always be of the form "Because I want to serve Wikipedia in ... way, and I need the privileges to do this effectively". If you are looking to be an administrator for reasons of status or power, you almost certainly won't get granted the privileges. I have been an editor for over ten years, have made well over 10 000 edits, and have helped hundreds of people (I hope!) here and on the Help Desk. But I have never even requested to become an Admin, because I don't need to be for the way I want to contributed to Wikipedia, and conversely, I do not want to serve in the ways that would require me to be an Admin. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I wanna become an admin because I would like to experiment with the functions that only admins can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemahewal (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Until you already know what at least most of the admin functions do, and how and more important why to use them, Bemahewal, you are not likely to be accepted as an admin. Edit steadily and productively, and ask again in 2-3 years. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Bemahewal - That is one of the worst arguments for becoming an admin that I have ever read. With power comes responsibility. Admins do not experiment with the functions that only admins have. An admin who experiments with the administrative functions is an admin who will result in demands for desysopping. If you think that you want to experiment with admin tools, you are a very long way away from being an admin. That is one of the worst arguments for being an admin that I have ever read. Learn better English so that you can contribute positively as an editor, or consider contributing to another Wikipedia in another language. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

my profile was deleted

dear, why my profile was deleted Apkidunya (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not host profiles. Maproom (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Apkidunya - You made the mistake of asking about a "profile". Don't use that term in Wikipedia discussions. Wikipedia is not a directory or a social medium. Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles that must be justified by notability. User:Maproom was abrupt in answering your question, but was correct. Referring to Wikipedia articles as "profiles" can lead to incorrect assumptions, and to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Apkidunya The use of the word "profile" discussed above, and what it implied about the use of Wikipedia for am inimical purpose is borne out. The entry very much read as a "profile" for, say, linkedIn or Facebook, and very much did not read like an encyclopedia article, nor is its subject likely to meet the standards for an one, as referred to above, and was properly deleted as "blatant advertising" under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The notice left on your talk page referred to this basis for the deletion, and provided links to a number of other standards and guidelines to explain the deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How to open Draft

Hello, i have to ask that how to open a draft which was created by another person.Means that, for example if a person has created a draft on a project then how to open it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Md.Yahiya Kamal. If you know the name of the draft, you can just type it in the search box, preceded by Draft: (eg "Draft:Rolls Royce Cullinan" in the next question). If you know the user name of the person who created it, you can look at their contributions by typing "Special:Contributions/User name" in the search box (eg Special:Contributions/Md.Yahiya Kamal), and then picking a link to the page. You have to get the name exactly right. --ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir.Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading information

I found a deliberately misleading and biased info in a page. I fixed the info but the author of the misleading reverted my editing back to the original misleading info. In addition, he sent me in a notice that I am in an editing war and that I could be blocked when all I did was to fix the misleading info. In fact the question is about an internationally recognized country border versus the political view of a secessionist movement that has no legal and international bases. All I am asking is that Wikipedia should not serve a particular political propaganda of a mouvement, region or country and should stick to the facts. My intention is not to go for or against something or anything but just to stick to the facts and the only guidance being: are the borders reflecting the reality and the legality of the international law as defined by the United Nations ( country being a member of the United Nation).

Thus my question: What are the best option to fix misleading information deliberately added to a Wikipedia page? Axmedi (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Axmedi (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Axmedi - Read the dispute resolution policy. Discuss the issue on the article talk page. If that fails, the dispute resolution policy lists several ways to try to resolve the dispute. If you have any specific questions about any of these methods of dispute resolution, you may ask here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There are other cities in this region. How about using the phrasing from Hargeisa: "the self-declared but internationally unrecognised Republic of Somaliland in the Horn of Africa"? A discussion was started three months ago on the talk page of the article in question. Dbfirs 16:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional v. non-promotional articles.

What makes an article promotional in nature and how do I avoid that? Mariaabalu (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If an article promotes or praises someone or something, it is promotional, Mariaabalu. This does not mean just commercial advertising, although that is surely promotional. Advocacy for a cause is promotional. Admiration for a person is promotional. An attempt to "raise awareness" about an organization, a concept, a trend, a meme, or anything else is promotional. Proper Wikipedia articles should be neutral. They should state facts, largely supported by sources. Any opnions or judgements should be be attributed to a named person or entity, preferably in a direct quotation, and should be cited to a source inline.

To avoid promotion, avoid adjectives of praise, avoid expressing judgements, stick closely to what the reliable sources say. Use independent sources as much as possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @DESiegel!

I tried to edit this page, Pamela Abalu, but people kept saying it was promotional in nature. If you don't mind, would you look at it (view the history too lol) and tell me how I could have edited it better? I used tried to use as many sources as I could. Would appreciate your input, but also ok if not! Mariaabalu (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider your most recent addition to Pamela Abalu. Itt makes claims, in Wikipedia's voice, that sound like something from a web site or brochure written to persuade potential clients to hire the subject. One specific claim it makes is abstract and not objectively verifiable even if it were reliably sourced. And it isn't reliably sourced; the source (which is incorrectly placed as an inline external link instead of a reference) is an fluff piece containing an interview in which the subject makes claims about her own work. So you're using the subject's own claims about herself to construct ostensibly factual, highly positive statements about her in an encyclopedia article. Please read again the advice DES wrote to you above. That last edit you made basically contravenes every part of it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A secondary point is that though "Pamela is an architect whose work has evolved beyond physical structures to digital infrastructure" is meant well, it may make the reader suspect that she is a bullshitter rather than a real architect who designs real buildings. Maproom (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

why is this page a stub?

The page 'family tree of the Norse gods' has a stub tag on it, why? It has all the info it is supposed to, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings GrecoRomanNut and Welcome to the Teahouse... To improve the Family tree of the Norse gods article a number of those gods and goddesses in the family tree are unreferenced. Each of the two major sections could use an introductory sentence or two describing the content that follows. This would be helpful to a Wikipedia reader not familiar with the subject. Lastly, I did add another entry to the "See also" section, and two norse navigation box templates. Thankyou for your question & I hope my remarks above are helpful. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok JoeHebda I will try to add some sentences. Do you mean on top of the whole chart, just saying 'below is a family tree of the Norse gods, a line between two shows partnership, the row under is their offspring', or something like that? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes GrecoRomanNut, I realize it is like stating the obvious, but for those who are not familar with family trees, this is helpful. Part of WP encyclopedia style of writing, direct & to the point. Cheers! P.S. I took the liberty of correcting spelling on my username above. — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful. But afterword, should I remove the stub tag? JoeHebda, I am hopeless when it comes to that kind of signature stuff. Thanks again, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GrecoRomanNut, the stub tag should not be removed until more content is added to the article. Even with more content the article still needs more work. As noted at WikiProject Norse history and culture, Assessment section, this is one of 740 stub articles. Once the article is improved, yes, the stub tag can be removed, and on the Talk page "class=stub" should be changed to "class=start". Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

JoeHebda, thanks, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved {{{access_date}}}. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

As a newbie. Can't figure this one out. What did I do wrong. Where my mistake was made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Forney_High_SchoolFranklyFrank (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @FranklyFrank:! No worries, I fixed it for you. Basically the problem is that Template:NCES Private School ID requires an accessdate, which is the date used in the cite reference. I added a access_date parameter and used today's date. Help:Templates contains loads of useful info about templates on Wikipedia. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Quixotic_PotatoFranklyFrank (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)