Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 644

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 640←Archive 642Archive 643Archive 644Archive 645Archive 646→Archive 650

Is there such a thing as too many sources?

I have created List of Dundalk F.C. seasons and I'm wondering if I have put too many sources in... If I have, is there any advice anyone could give me on toning it down? LampGenie01 (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

If I were to complain about that article, it would be about the barely-readable white-on-yellow column headers. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thats easy enough to take off if legability is affected because of it. LampGenie01 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Maproom: I've removed the color scheme for the column headers per your request. Is there any chance you could answer my question about the sources too? LampGenie01 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the colour scheme. The sourcing seems fine to me. Maproom (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources are used to verify that the content you put on Wikipedia is based on information that has been previously published in reliable sources. For everything you put on Wikipedia, you need to be able to point out a reliable source that says the same thing. Sometimes this requires a lot of sources, and that's perfectly okay.

There is, however, one way of overusing sources. It's when you cite multiple sources to verify something where only one source would have been enough. I can find a billion sources that say that Paris is the capital of France, but I don't need to cite all of them. I only need to cite one so that the content can be verified, and in doing so, I should choose the most reliable and accessible one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Finnusertop: that it is possible to overcite sources. I'm nervous about concluding that one is enough. I have seen situations where someone has chosen to add eight or 10 sources, perhaps to make a point of emphasis and I generally disagree with that. However, I've seen a lot of link rot, so sometimes when I'm adding a fact if I've got two decent sources I'll add them both, to help ensure in the future that there is at least one remaining. I know where saving links in the Internet archive but, even with that, I'm nervous about having all my eggs in one basket.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
True in general Sphilbrick, but when one is citing soemthign so obvious and widely known that Google will return a hundred replacement links should the one chose go bad, one will do, or perhaps even none, per WP:BLUE. That Napoleon was Emperor of France or that Boss Tweed was a New York politician needs at most a single cite. More obscure facts will be different. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hello, I recently edited Jaana Na Dil Se Door page and realize that some anonymous user repeatedly throwing their POV on the article. Despite making them aware about it on their talk page. They are not paying heed. What can I do??? PKSD (talk)

Hi, PKSD. Like almost any group, Wikipedia has its own jargon. An "edit conflict" is when two separate editors try to save changes to the same page at the same time. It happens with a fair amount of regularity at busy pages such as this page here. I think what you are describing is likely a "content dispute". You should discuss content disputes at the article's talk page. Others will discuss this with you in more detail I'm sure. Unfortunately I haven't the time to look it over right now.John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Thanks for u r reply John from Idegon (talk). But the problem is I have issued a talk page, inform it on edit summary but as they are anonymous. So they are unable to participate. I urge one of them to create a account but as usual, no response from him or her. PKSD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You've done exactly the right thing in taking the dispute to the talk page. I've re-removed the word "powerful" that you put back after it was removed by an administrator who, I'm sure, would be very willing to discuss this edit with you if you consider it necessary. I note that ABCDE22 was earlier making edits very similar to yours. Dbfirs 06:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I am working on my first article as a draft Christine Domingueze, before this I had started the article directly but it got removed due to copyright violations in text. I have re-written this from scratch this time and made sure any information from the sources is paraphrased and not copied directly. Is there a tool I can use to check the current form for any violations before I submit this for review? Civitics (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Civitics, and welcome to the Teahouse. One good tool to check this is Earwig's Copyvio Detector. For your article it produces "Violation Unlikely". But a pair of human eyes are needed to accompany this tool. It's quite clear that a couple of phrases are copied verbatim. Rephrase those. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Re-editing posts multiple times after posting them

Anyone here suffering from the same disorder of repeatedly revising and editing messages, as I? I am suffering from it since schooltimes and I don't know what to do. But it causes problems in Wikipedia, as it floods my User Contributions with edits and revisions of already published messages. The problem is - after I have wrote and previewed my new comments, I post them. But after posting them, they no longer feel correct in my eyes so I re-edit them again and again until they are perfect. The problem is that they seemed absolutely fine when I previewed them before posting them, yet after posting them, they felt wrong and in need for edits/revisions. I already had complaints from other editors about that disorder, and they were right... I must find an way to battle this. My question - is there anyone else here in Wikipedia who has been through the same problem as I? --SILENTRESIDENT 21:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It often happens to me that I make a contribution (to an article, or to a discussion page), preview it, it looks good, I save it – and immediately see an error, which I feel obliged to correct. But I've never worried about it. And I don't know why you're worrying about it, I see no complaints on your talk page. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I had a quick look at SilentResident's talk page archive and saw a comment about this, Maproom (there might have been more). SilentResident, if you take a look at the history of this page, you'll see that quite a lot of editors do this. Like Maproom, I find myself doing it too. So, I would say that it is quite common, but it depends on the extent of the issue for you. I try hard to get things right the second time, and do my best to avoid more than a couple of revisions, so as not to annoy people. How many revisions are we talking about here? One or two now and then, or several to every comment? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The amount of revisions depends on how big the comments are. Thankfully, my problem is mostly limited to the Talk pages, not on the articles themselves, since on the articles I double and triple-check my changes and I am more careful before publishing them. I think it could be better idea to not click to publish comments on talks as soon as they feel ready and correct in first glance, and give them more time. Perhaps this will help combating the problem. But it is unfortunate that I had this disorder since schooltimes. I didn't knew however I could bring it here too. Well, I appreciate alot your understanding and your kind responses, and I will try delaying posting comments from now and on. --SILENTRESIDENT 09:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Allow me to drop in here, SilentResident. What I have found useful, is this: When I think I have finished my talk page edit, I always click on the "Show preview" button. First I read again the post I am answering to, and then I read my own answer carefully. I have no count on how many embarassing errors I have avoided this way. Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome, my friend. First I read again the post I am answering to, and then I read my own answer carefully is excellent idea. ❤ --SILENTRESIDENT 10:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Image Upload?

Hello all, I'm currently working on the page Tau Sigma Delta and I was wondering if I were to upload the image featured here, how would I tag it for copywrite? Am I even allowed to upload it? Thanks! Don't help me, help the bear. 05:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, HelpTheBear, and welcome to the Teahouse. The image is almost certainly copyright (the main page says "Copyright © 2017 University of Hartford"), so you cannot upload it to Commons as a free image. But the use of a logo of an organisation in an article about that organisation is usually seen as a suitable purpose that meets requirement 8 in the non-free content criteria. So as long as your use satisfies all the criteria, you can upload it to Wikipedia itself as non-free content: see also WP:LOGO. --ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
But here's the catch ColinFine, UH may hold copyright over that page, but that image must belong to Tau as its our logo. Would I ignore UH's copyright, or can I attribute Tau as the image owner and UH as the page owner? Don't help me, help the bear. 11:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not really a catch, HelpTheBear. In order to use the image as a free image, the copyright holder must explicitly release the image under a suitable licence. The copyright probably belongs to whoever drew the logo, unless they explicitly assigned it to the society; and a licence acceptable to Wikipedia is one (such as CC-BY-SA) which allows anybody to reuse the image in any way for any purpose (including commercial) as long as they attribute it properly. Unless you personally own the copyright, or are an authorised representative of the holder, you do not have the power to license it. See donating copyright materials.
It's just occurred to me that the society was formed in 1913, so it's possible the logo was created before 1923: if that is so, then it possible that it is in the public domain, and you can upload it on that basis. I am not an expert on copyright, still less on US copyright, so you'd best ask at copyright questions.
But if the public domain argument doesn't work, you'd be much better treating it as non-free.
One more point: you use "our" to refer to the society. Please familiarise yourself with the policies on conflict of interest. Depending on your level of involvement with the society this may or may not be an issue. --ColinFine (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm a fairly new member of a chapter ColinFine, so should I cease editing that article due to COI? I'm not paid by Tau at all (I'm the one doing the paying :)). And I'll check Copyright questions out. thank you so much for your help! Don't help me, help the bear. 12:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that COI is enough that you must stop editing the article, HelpTheBear, but it is enough that you should be particularly careful to edit only in accordance what what reliable sources say, and not add anything from your own knowledge not supported by sources. Also you should place {{Connected contributor}} on the article's talk page, and fill out the parameters. Something like
{{Connected contributor | User1 = HelpTheBear| U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes |U1-otherlinks = Member of a chapter}}
As for copyright, anything published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain under US law. So are a few other catgegories of things, see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain for details. You would need solid evidence that the logo is now PD. Failing that, do as ColinFine advises and treat it as non-free, and see if it complies with all the criteria for non-free use. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I add recurring, but infrequent, cast and characters to a television show?

Hello. I would like to add Kumail Nanjiani's character of Prosecutor Leonard as a character to The Grinder (TV series). I believe that his character only appeared on two episodes. This is less than the other recurring characters listed. Any advice on how to do this for a TV series that doesn't have separate episodes or List of Character pages?

I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television but didn't find an answer. New to wikipedia editing, any advice appreciated Xplorecre84give (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Xplorecre84give. Wikipedia has a lot of guidelines, but some things are still down to individual discretion. If you be bold and add it in the Recurring section, either other editors will approve and the addition will stick or they won't approve and someone will revert. If the latter happens, it's best to discuss it on the talk page before doing anything else. Remember, you should always cite a reliable source when adding content in the first place. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Bryan Seely

I reviewed Draft:Bryan Seely and declined it. I said that it read like a combination of a biography and a how-to essay. I also said that it needed independent references. I was then asked by another editor to take another look at it. It appears that the how-to stuff has been taken out. It still doesn’t appear to me to have independent references, so it still reads like a profile for a non-notable person. Do other experienced editors want to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Fails WP:PEOPLE. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Review assistance request

i want a professional Wikipedian to help me reviewing my article. can one of them message me?Anagheem (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anagheem:

  1. I've moved your request, just above, into a separate section, as it appears to have nothing to do with the previous section, except maybe the subject line. Yours is a separate issue.
  2. When you post to this page requesting help with an article, please include a link to the article. It saves would-be helpers a lot of time and trouble trying to figure out what you're talking about, or messaging you and waiting for your reply. I looked at your contributions, and I see that the only article you have worked on is Mohamed Mahmoud Abd Al-Wahhab, so I assume it's that one.
  3. On your talk page I see that the article has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is not notable, in the sense of notability that we use on Wikipedia.
  4. I do not see any indication that you have participated in the deletion discussion. If you note there that you are asking for help, it may help postpone deletion of the article.
  5. Have you read the Welcome message that Reddogsix put on your talk page? Have you followed the recommendations there for a beginning editor? Please do; they will save you much time and discomfort in your future editing. Here they are:
    There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
    I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
  6. In line with the above, it is best to create a new article in draft space, for review and discussion before it becomes part of Wikipedia. (See the page about draft space, too.)
  7. Finally, you asked for help from a "professional Wikipedian". There are no professional Wikipedians. We are all amateurs, unpaid volunteers who edit and comment for the sake of building and maintaining the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Best regards, and I hope to see you around Wikipedia working with the rest of this motley crew, Thnidu (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Glitch with notifications?

Hi!

Recently, I received a new alert on my account. (Aka the bell symbol had a colored notification pop up). It informed me that a photo that I'd uploaded a long time ago was going to be deleted.

After sending in the undeletion request, I waited for a reply. After checking the user page of the administrator handling the file, there was no mention of the deletion nomination.

Checking my message again, I later noticed that it had a time stamp from one year ago! The image had been undeleted a year ago (I'd long forgotten), yet for some bizarre reason, I had received a new notification.

Has this happened to anyone else? Is this an error that happens often? It was confusing (both for myself, and the Wikimedia editors)!

Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

my article was deleted and requested money

Wikipedia editors. One of my article "Kang Quintus" was deleted few days after a wikipedia editor contacted the subject demanding money for his page to stay active. I have contributed few articles on wikipedia with no hidden fee from the subject. most of the subjects they are available on social medias for easy contacts. They is no day myself i ever contact people for money. I am a volunteer and if that's what wikipedia editors are doing then I am living this house if action is not taking.Abanda bride (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Abanda bride, This is a known scam. Please report the details to info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org so that action can be taken. Action has already been taken in many cases, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. Generally the scammers do not have the ability or will to delete or restore anything, they merely take advantage of deletions happening nor about to happen for other reasons. No legitimate Wikipedia will ever demand money for keeping or not deleting an article, or for "makinng it stay" DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The article was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kang Quintus. It would have been easy to see that deletion was likely several days in advance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel and everyone here. I understand a message for deletion was place on the article,however,I work to improved the page with more references to meet wikipedia policy. I am not worry that the page has been deleted, if because it did not meet creditability then it ok to keep wikipedia the most references website in search engine. My big trouble is that; someone from this house contacted the subject and demand money to keep the page. everyone now is on social media, i have no direct relationship with any subject I created on wikipedia. When you look at article i have created the subject is based on Cameroon. I am a member of the Google digital garage in Nigeria and want to take advantage to bring Cameroonian people who are notable to have a high search ranking on the web. When you look at Cameroonians on wikipedia database, it not up to 500 subjects. Nigeria and other African countries have Millions. I am contributing with no hidden fee. Wikipedia clearly state it free.Abanda bride (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Abanda bride, I can only assure you that if anyone trying to get money from you or anyone else, claiming to represent Wikipedia, claiming that he or she could save the article from deletion if you paid, that person lied. That person was not from Wikipedia. That person was a thief. Like many liars, that person took advantage of bits of the truth. There are no hidden fees, I promise, There are liars who take advantage of you and of this project, just as they might take advantage of a church or a hospital or other things that make people open to giving money. Please send an email with all the details to <info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org> so that there is a chance that this liar will be caught. Tell them any name or username the person gave, any specific statements that the person made, how the person approached you or the subject, please. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC
This makes me very angry, Abanda bride, that anyone should try to use Wikipedia like this to dishonestly get money from your or the article subject, or try to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Using this Image for The Rolls Building?

Hey! I'm sort of new here; I typically only edit articles for copyediting, Wikilinks, and sometimes lead sections. However, I'm interested in doing images as well. The first one I saw was The Rolls Building, and I thought it'd be a good start. I have three questions here:

1) How do I use a template for an image? Is there one specifically for buildings?

2) What quality of image is preferred? Similarly, is there a certain preferred file type?

3) How do I tell if an image is copyrighted or not?

https://www.buildington.co.uk/images/projects/4ff0d01ca3d557cf7722149b390314ed.png This is the one that I was looking to use, but I can't tell if it is or not.

https://www.buildington.co.uk/new_developments/london_ec4/110_fetter_lane/rolls_building/id/2337 This is the page it came from.

https://www.buildington.co.uk/site/terms And these are the terms of service for the site. The first term seems like it can't, but I wanted to make sure.

TheTechnician27

(talk) 20:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheTechnician27, I believe that image is copyrighted and therefore can only be used under fair use, which for buildings would be if they've been destroyed. (For people, if somebody is dead you can also argue fair use, but not if they're living.) I'm not sure about your first question, but moving on to the second, we generally prefer to have a high-quality photo, but if that's not possible a slightly blurry photo is better than nothing. Almost all the files I've seen used on Wikipedia are jpg. Png or jpeg are also used, however. On the third question, there is a tool that can scan the internet for free images of a particular thing. I don't remember the name offhand, but I believe it's at Wikipedia:Requested images. You can also read Wikipedia:Uploading pictures which will hopefully be of help. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is the free image search tool. [1] White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll definitely check out the search tool. My first question was asking how to actually insert an image into the article, but I think I have it figured out. Thank you! :) TheTechnician27 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

citation issue

I am citing the same article multiple times using different pages and sections, but it keeps not showing up. I have it as <ref name="Name page=1"/> what am I doing wrong? How do I include a page # in this repeated reference?

Also, how do I include a quote in a reference? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest way, Jenhawk777 is to omit the page number from the citation, so that you can reuse the same cite for all instances, and then follow each cite with {{rp|<page number here}}. {{rp}} is designed for just this purpose. Do understand that the name attribute of a <ref> tag serves only to identify the ref for reuse, it does not modify the contents of the citation in any way. I would advise against using an equals sign (=) inside the ref name. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Basque code talkers

Hi, there:

I'm trying to correct the Code Talkers article, because the existence of Basque code talkers has recently been refuted. I think I wrote first edition not very well, but after new trials the reviewer has threatened me with blocking me for use "unsourced material"... but I have added four sources with the new content.

Could any experienced editor or reviewer help me and explain where is my mistake? I attach here the text I'm trying to include:

In November 1952, Euzko Deya magazine [1] published an article which explained that in May 1942, upon meeting about 60 U.S. Marines of Basque ancestry in a San Francisco camp, Captain Frank D. Carranza conceived the idea of using the Basque language for codes.[2][3][4] His superiors were wary as there were known settlements of Basque in the Pacific region. There were 35 Basque Jesuits in Hiroshima, led by Pedro Arrupe. In China and the Philippines, there was a colony of Basque jai alai players, and there were Basque supporters of Falange in Asia. The American Basque code talkers were kept away from these theaters; they were initially used in tests and in transmitting logistic information for Hawaii and Australia.

On August 1, 1942, according to Euzko Deya, Lieutenants Nemesio Aguirre, Fernández Bakaicoa and Juanana received a Basque-coded message from San Diego for Admiral Chester Nimitz, warning him of the upcoming Operation Apple to remove the Japanese from the Solomon Islands. They also translated the start date, August 7, for the attack on Guadalcanal. As the war extended over the Pacific, there was a shortage of Basque speakers and the US military came to prefer the parallel program based on the use of Navajo speakers.

The Fighting Basques project [5], that pretends spreading the knowledge about the Basques during the World War II, has investigated about Basque code talkers and refuted the article and the existence of this group. The project has investigated about Basque ancestry soldiers and concluded that never existed any Frank D. Carranza (neither Nemesio Aguirre or Fernández Bakaicoa) in the U.S. Marines.

Main hypothesis about the origin of the story published by Euzko Deya (and repeated by other media) considers that it could be linked to a kind of coverage about the OSS operations in the Basque zone of the Spanish-French border (relevant for pro-Axis spanish government's wolfram exportations to the nazi Germany), in order to improve the sympathy of local people for the Allied cause. The name of Frank Carranza is, in that hypothesis, a spy codename. [6][7].

References

  1. ^ "Mexico - Euzko Deya". Euzko Deya – Mexico D.F. edition.
  2. ^ "Egon arretaz egunari", Xabier G. Argüello, El País, August 1, 2004.
  3. ^ La orden de desembarco en Guadalcanal se dió en vascuence para que no lo descubrieran los nipones, Juan Hernani, El Diario Vasco, December 26, 1952, it quotes Revista general de marina. Bibliographic reference in Euskomedia.org
  4. ^ "Gaiak - Los vascos y la II Guerra Mundial". euskonews.com.
  5. ^ "Fighting Basques, proyecto de memoria de la Asociación Sancho de Beurko".
  6. ^ Pedro J. Oiarzabal and Guillermo Tabernilla (2017). "El enigma del mito y la historia: Basque Code Talkers en la Segunda Guerra Mundial'". Saibigain.
  7. ^ "Un estudio desmiente que el euskera se usara en código en la Segunda Guerra Mundial". diariovasco.com.

Jcabalo (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is the article's talk page, where Theklan has already introduced the issue. Maproom (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thnx! Jcabalo (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

ITNRD inclusion on non-humans entities

I've been reading up on the debate that lead to the creation on ITNRD, but I cannot find discussion of the inclusion of "animal or other biological organism" in the criteria. Can someone help point me to the discussion/rationale? Also, WP:N does not seem to have subject-specific guidelines for individual animals. Would WP:BIO apply? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost: Right here. Feel free to ask ITN related questions at the ITN talk pages. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hello. My name is amit and i created a page CEDESOCIAL Foundation 2 times and every time it gets deleted and the comments are not clear. It always says your page is deleted because it did not meet some of the guidelines. There are tons of guidelines. So how would I know what all things I have to take care of? IS there a way where I can find out that because of these particular reasons the page was deleted so that i can fixed these issuesLunacamo (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lunacamo. Per the links provided on your talk page, it looks like the page was deleted because it was copied and pasted from elsewhere online. Content on Wikipedia needs to be the original work of the editor, since content from other websites is generally legally owned by those other sites, and pasting it on Wikipedia constitutes a copyright violation. TimothyJosephWood 14:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank You Timothy Joseph for a quick response. So, if I take the idea from the websites about what work they do and how they do it and write that in my own words (to preserve the originality) in order to explain how those organizations are related to my page, then it would be ok? (Lunacamo (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I would add that, although you don't need to know all the guidelines in order to create an article, if you do create an article it needs to indicate with independent reliable sources how the subject is notable. Please understand that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. I would suggest reading Your First Article to get a basic idea of what is being looked for and the process. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
And yes, it needs to be in your own words. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks once again. One last question - if I am writing about an organization, in this case CEDESOCIAL, I can take ideas from the website about what these people do and how they do it and write that in my own word. That part is clear. The doubt is - about what I have written in my own words, is the reference to that will be the website of the CEDESOCIAL organization from where I got the idea? and is that source reliable independent?

Also, if I take some information from the facebook page of some organization and write that in my own words, can i put the refernce of that facebook page? Because this is what I did when I created the page last time Lunacamo (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is interested in what independent sources say about an article subject, and not what the subject says about itself(regardless of it being in your own words or not). Primary sources can be used for some limited information in an article (mostly statistical/factual like location, number of employees, etc.) but not to establish notability. That requires independent sources- which are not things like the company website or social media accounts. Independent sources are things like news stories, independent reviews, anything not written by or associated with the company/organization you are writing about. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to review the organization notability guidelines to get an idea of what is being looked for, but in short, what is desired is in depth coverage of the subject in independent sources, not things like brief mentions, press releases, routine announcements. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I got the point now. Thanks a lot for guiding and pinpointing me as wiki guidelines and information are like an ocean. Take aways from the discussion is include independent sources such as articles and news written by third party and reliable source and write the content in your own words rather than copying and pasting to avoid conflict with copyrights.

I am writing the article in the draft space now for the initial review. I hope it works this time. Thanks a lot once again Cheers Lunacamo (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Disconnect between my desktop and tablet re: editing

Hi! I've had a profile on Wikipedia for a long time, and have edited a little bit here and there over the years. I got a tablet 3 years ago, and I don't use it often for going on the internet, but every once in a while I do. Today, not wanting to turn the desktop on so I was browsing on the tablet, I was looking up something and wanted to make a minor edit to a page, and got a message that I'm blocked from editing because my IP address is believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy. As one of the instructions in the infobox suggested, I sent an email to the functionaries asking what this was all about.

Later today, I did turn on the desktop, and had no problem making the edit I had wanted to make. So, I think this has something to do with my tablet. How is it that my tablet, which I'm using at home on the same WiFi as my desktop, and on which I'm signed into my Wikipedia account, has a block? To tell the truth, all that information that was in that Infobox is just about gibberish to me. I have no idea what it all means. I use my tablet and desktop interchangeably, and both are logged into my WiFi the same way - neither uses an open connection, both use the logged-in connection. I'm very security-conscious with my home WiFi account. To top it off, I got an automated reply to my email that I'm a non-member emailing a member's only list. That further confuses me. What does it take to be a member? Is having a Wikipedia profile not being a member? I'm not trying to be a smart-alek, I'm terribly confused. I'd never, ever try to hide who I am on here. I make sure I'm always signed in when I make edits, get into discussions, even most of my browsing on Wikipedia is done logged in, just in case. I sign the things that I can. You all even have my CV on here, which is pretty much my entire background. I'm also wondering if it's because I wasn't using my Chrome browser on my tablet, I was using my Puffin browser, but I'm still signed into my account on there. I made sure of that before I tried to make the edit. I use multiple browsers on both of my devices - sometimes, like today, I have one thing opened in one browser, and I need another piece of information, so I open a 2nd browser rather than a 2nd window of the same browser because of the sensitivity of the information in the 1st browser. But it's still me! How can I get you all to recognize that my tablet is me, not someone posing as me, which is what I suspect you think it is (and if I have that wrong, please forgive me, like I said, totally confused). Kelelain (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It sounds as if your tablet is failing to log in to your Wikipedia account, and that you have a shared IP address. Try replying to this message using your tablet, and sign your reply in the usual way, then you will see whether you are logged in or not. If you don't want to reveal your IP address, just preview the reply and see whether your four tildes produce your signature. Do you log in each time you return to Wikipedia, or do you rely on your desktop to remember you here? When you open a new browser, you might need to log in again for that browser. Dbfirs 20:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kelelain: I wonder if part of the problem, and why you are seeing the error about accessing through a proxy , is down to using Puffin browser. Puffin browser claims to speed up browsing by using cloud servers, but this might appear to wikipedia as if you are using a proxy, since requests could come from the Puffin servers rather than your own connection? Beevil (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm waiting for my tablet to turn on so I can try coming to this discussion and I'll try signing it from both my Chrome and Puffin browsers - if Wikipedia will even let me. I just wanted to say to Beevil, thank you, that's something new I didn't know about Puffin.Kelelain (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This is using my Chrome browser from my tablet. To answer the first question, because I use so many websites on any given day, and due to my mental health problems and their treatments, it's easier for me when any website offers to keep me logged in on my private devices, so no, I don't actually login every time I use Wikipedia, I just remain logged in.Kelelain (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I tried responding from my Puffin browser. It wouldn't let me go into Edit, so I clicked on Join Conversation. I made a short comment, signed it with the four tildes, and selected Add My Response, but it's been about 5 minutes and so far I don't see it through either the tablet or here on my desktop. Does it take a while for a post to show up that way, as opposed to doing it through Edit? I've never had to do it that way before. I guess I'll just remember not to use my Puffin browser for anything other than looking things up on Wikipedia - that's my takeaway from it. I was just worried that I wouldn't be able to use my tablet at all, and if that's not the case, and I can use my Chrome browser, then I'll just try to remember to do it that way. 24.145.52.79 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it must have logged me out here when I relogged in on my Puffin browser - sorry about that. Kelelain (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just Curious

Why is this User getting so many welcome messages? It is quite funny, watching his talk page getting bombarded with welcome templates. Razer(talk) 19:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That may be a good question to ask Anoptimistix as to why they feel the need to leave four or five different welcome messages for the same user. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Why senior editor on wikipedia not making follow up?

One of my page subject "Bony Dashaco" was label with wikipedia template messages saying, I used promotional words,main contributor has a direct relationship with the subject. I have improved on the page. removed promotional words to make it neutral and other contributors have edit the page too to meet standard. I left a message on talk page but sad no body ever responded for me to know if the page is ok now or i need more work to do? Abanda bride (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Abanda bride! I have replied to your question at Talk:Bony Dashaco, where it was originally asked. If you have any other questions, feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page. Have a good day! Daylen (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

my own wikipedia page

hello, i'm wondering if i may have a wikipedia page of my own. i notice that a number of my colleagues have one, and i was curious as to how they got their own pages, and who contributes to that information, etc. would you kindly let me know? i'd appreciate it, angelina69.118.52.74 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not allow anyone to have their own page (except for their user page which must not look like an article. Some people have articles written about them (but do not own the article) because they have been written about in independent WP:Reliable sources, making them notable in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 21:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Angelina, welcome to the teahouse. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, you will see that we highly discourage autobiographies. The goal is that all articles are written neutrally, and best practices are that they should be written by editors who are independent of the subject. Because we don't require any verification of identity, we are aware that there are violations of this guideline. I don't know whether that's the case for your colleagues. One thing you can do is to take a look at the editing history of any of the articles. If you see that multiple editors are involved, that's a great sign. If there is a single editor primarily involved it's not necessarily a bad sign but could be an indication that someone is violating our guideline.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The above two beat me to saying what I was writing, but I would add that having a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily a good thing; you cannot keep others from editing it, you cannot lock it to the text you would prefer to see, and you cannot keep unfavorable or otherwise negative information off the page(as long as it appears in an independent reliable source, it can be in the article about you). Please keep that in mind. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting to the same page

Hello! I'm brand new and I created an account to add a few entries to a list. All the other entries on the list (it's a list of species under a certain genus) have blue links, but when you click them, they redirect you to the page you're already on. The entries I added have red links.

I tried to make a redirect page for one, but the link remains red. All the other entries also already redirect without my having added redirect pages, so the main issue is really just turning the red links blue to match the rest of the article.

The article in question is Heteragrion, a genus of damselflies. The entry I tried to make a redirect page for was Heteragrion brianmayi, though I'm unsure if I actually did anything. If anyone could teach me how to do this, I'd very much appreciate it! Thank you!! AshwiniNA1217 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey AshwiniNA1217. These kinds of redirect loops (see WP:SELFREDIRECT) are generally discouraged since they serve no real purpose, and should generally be removed from articles. Red links are ok, and they can help make editors aware of potential articles that still need to be created, but redirect loops serve no navigational purpose, since they don't help anyone find anything, and they serve no information purpose, since they give the impression that an article exists when it doesn't. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I've removed all the unnecessary square brackets, but left the two where there is a real article. If anyone writes articles on the others, then that is the time to put the square brackets back in. The fact that most are currently redirects suggests that no-one intends to write the articles, but perhaps someone is planning them? Dbfirs 21:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Messed up another's bibliography entry.

I edited a Wikipedia article and then tried to add the book I referenced to the bibliography, but could not master the html code to make it appear correctly. In the process, I messed up someone else's bibliography entry. Although I tried to show it in the same html as the other entries, it has not saved properly. The page I was working on relates to Gerhard Barkhorn76.176.68.96 (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it, please check Gerhard Barkhorn. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Phew! Thank you David. I still need to add my own bibliography entry. Could you please give me a template for doing so?

Thanks, Brian Carlin.76.176.68.96 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that i properly inserted your book in its alphabetical place. Please check that. I did not know that you were the author of the book. Please be careful about adding links or cites to your own work -- it can seem to be self-promotion, which is viewed very negatively here.
The wiki-code I used, following the format used for the other entries on that page, is:

* {{Cite book
|last=Carlin
|first=Brian
|year=2017
|title=Kestrel Squadron, Groundcrew Memoirs
|location=USA
|isbn=978-1521246924
|ref=harv}}

Which will render as:
I hope that is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability and Neutral Point of View

I and another editor, Smartse, are in a disagreement over whether Draft:Bryan Armentrout constitutes an article about a notable person and whether or not the language used is promotional. Going back and forth won't come to a conclusion. What should I do? Gferr (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gferr. See WP:DR. When a dispute among the "local population" of an article reaches an intractable sticking point, then it's time to decide which step in dispute resolution is mostly like to solve the problem and most easily. Maybe WP:3O might be a good option. TimothyJosephWood 17:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You should open a discussion at Draft talk:Bryan Armentrout and see if you can reach a consensus there. —MRD2014 17:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Gferr We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources say about a topic, your draft article is very promotional in tone."internationally recognized" "Bryan went on to found his own company, The Food Leadership Group, to use his expertise to have a wider impact on industry practices" "Bryan is the author of bestselling book" etc. none of this is an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Gferr, your article, which you moved from draft space to the encyclopedia without getting approval was moved back to draft space and then deleted. Your subsequent recreation of it was also deleted. There are 0 Google news hits on the subject of your article, and the only Google books hits are to a historic figure with the same name. It is highly highly doubtful your subject meets the Wikipedia standards for notability. It would be helpful for you to adopt the attitude that people trying to help you are actually doing that. It seems you have the misguided notion that everyone is entitled to a Wikipedia biography or that notability means something that it doesn't. We are happy to help you learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, but you must realize that this is not Facebook or LinkdIn. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Help

I want to edit on an article but I don't know where to start— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhandu (talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kmhandu: Thank you for asking! The Wikipedia Adventure may be a good place to learn a basic idea of what to do and what not to do on Wikipedia. If you have any questions about how to do something specific on Wikipedia, please let me know. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Request article review

I just wrote my first article, a BLP, and request a review. Do I need to reference it here so it can be found? How do I know I've put it in the right place to be found?

Thanks! Tn-morgen (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tn-morgen and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no point in requesting a review of Draft:Martin E Olsen, M.D. at present because it reads like a CV (resume), not at all like an Encyclopaedic article, and it has no in-line references whatsoever. You might like to read WP:Biographies of living persons, and WP:Referencing for beginners and come back here if you need more help. You need to find WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been written about at length (not just mentioned), and use these as references. Best wishes for your continuing work on the article. There is lots to do before it will be suitable as a Wikipedia article. You might like to look at some good or featured articles about well-known doctors to see what is expected. Dbfirs 21:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The biggest issue with it is that it has no, or virtually no, inline citations. That's a problem with any article, but especially so for a BLP. The promotional tone is easier to fix than finding a reference to support each statement. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, Tn-morgen and welcome to the Teahouse. I did a few format changes, converting your italic and bold headers to proper wiki section headers, and adding some wiki-links. Dbfirs is generally correct. For example, we do not need every committee that Dr Olsen has served on, only the most significant, if any. On the other hand, we would want more details about the significance of his inventions, if there is an Independent secondary reliable source (or better, multiple sources) that discuss and analyze it.
Currently the draft does not cite any sources. The items in the external links might be valid sources, I haven't checked them, but more would be needed in any case. Patent documents are primary sources at best, they are not usually cited here. Secondary sources that can speak to the significance of the patent are much better.
In future, please do give a wiki-link to any draft or article you discuss here, such as: Draft:Martin E Olsen, M.D.. It saves effort on the part of responders. But often we can figure it out.
Spell out state names, do not use postal codes. Link significant terms if there are articles to link to, but do not overlink. Do not use phrase such as "for 25 years" or refer to "the present". Imagine that the article is approved and then not edited for 5 years. How will the reader know what time is meant? instead give a starting year or year span such as "since 1992" or "from 1998 to 20017". Do not use trademark symbols.
I hope all this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Tn-morgen. The draft is at an improper title, but that cannot be corrected without moving the page and hence can be done when and if it is moved to the main encyclopedia. We do not use titles (with some exceptions) or post-nominals on Wikipedia. At this point, there is nothing on the article to indicate that it ever will be moved to the encyclopedia. All articles have to meet notability, which is our standard for inclusion. This is met by showing that the subject of the article has been written about in detail in multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject of the article. Also, biographical articles are required to have what we call "inline" citations. I will leave instructions on how to do that citation style on your talk page. Notability does not directly equate to fame, or importance. It is all about how much has been written about the subject. Patents, which are the only references you have shown, are not relevant to our concept of notability. Neither is what one has written. At this point, due to the extensive list of publications, this appears to be quite promotional. Wikipedia is not the place to post someone's CV. However, that being said, you should take a look at WP:NPROF. There is an assumption of notability for academics such as Olsen whose works have been cited extensively. I am not familiar with the exact requirements there, so please read it and bring any questions that may arise back to us for clarification. In short, the article needs a lot of work. Also, when you submit it to Articles for Creation via the template at the top of the draft, you will get a review. There is no need to ask for review elsewhere (like here). Until you've addressed the issues noted here, I wouldn't bother submitting it for review, as it will undoubtedly be declined. Best of luck to you. John from Idegon (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Need help properly documenting soundtrack discography

I'm a relatively new Wikipedia editor and have been building my skills by expanding the Discography section of session musician Vincent DeRosa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_DeRosa#Discography). I've been documenting the studio albums he contributed to and would like to start documenting the film and TV soundtracks.

How should I document soundtrack contributions in a Discography section as distinct from other contributions? I've looked at the Wikipedia pages of musicians who are known for contributing extensively as sidemen on both albums and on film and TV soundtracks (e.g. Conte Candoli, Mundell Lowe, Barney Kessel, Tommy Tedesco) for examples of how to do this but don't see any. I've also searched Wikipedia's help pages for editors and haven't found anything that addresses this.

It seems odd to list a soundtrack entry under the name of the soundtrack composer, e.g. "With Bill Conti" (the composer) as the heading, and "Rocky (soundtrack) (United Artists, 1976)" as the bullet under that heading. This would call attention to the composer rather than to the move/TV soundtrack, when for practical purposes the sideman was "with" the soundtrack more than the composer. It also seems odd to list the soundtrack contributions within the Discography section under the name of the film or TV show. For example, this would require having an entry simply called "Rocky."

What I'd like to do is give the Discography section two headings, one called "TV and Film" and the other something like "Albums." I'm reluctant to do this because, first, I haven't seen this anywhere else, and second, soundtracks are released as albums, so it doesn't seem to make sense.

I'd sincerely appreciate any guidance about this.

If there's a special forum for minor questions like this about editing articles about musicians, I'd appreciate knowing that.IncorrigibleCantor (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi IncorrigibleCantor. You can try asking about this at WT:FILM and WT:ALBUM. Maybe editors from either of those WikiProjects would be able to provide some advice on this. You can also check MOS:FILM and MOS:ALBUM to see if what you're looking for is covered on one of those pages. Finally, looking at some featured articles can also sometimes be helpful since featured articles are generally considered to be the best articles found on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! These are all excellent suggestions and I'll follow up on them. Really appreciate your help.IncorrigibleCantor (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Help me to write a Draft to Article Technical Guruji

<Draft content redacted>

017 (UTC)

hello bro,

View my Draft Article please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Technical_Guruji.. this is a famous.. go google search Technical Guruji...Technical Guruji Gitesh Sharma 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bro.. view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Technical_Guruji Technical Guruji please help me.... 03:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Technical Guruji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Giteshs78. Please do not copy the contents of an entire draft here, simply provide a wiki-link. This draft has been submitted once, and declined as not demonstrating the notability of the subject. It was then resubmitted with no changes being made. This is rude as it wastes the time of the volunteer reviewers. I am about to decline it again. Please find and cite multiple independent professionally published reliable sources before you consider resubmitting. Read Your First Article and our notability guideline for businesses please. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Giteshs78: Fame is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Notability is. Writing about oneself is not a practice encouraged here. There is no indication whatsoever of the subject's notability, either on the article or with a websearch. An article of the same title written by you was recently speedy deleted. As such, I've nominated this draft for speedy deletion too. When and if your endeavor becomes notable, someone else will write about it. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_644&oldid=1141877373"