Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 664

Archive 660

←

Archive 662

Archive 663

Archive 664

Archive 665

Archive 666

→

Archive 670

Moose Cholak

Hi. I was wondering if Moose Cholak would be a good nomination for either Wikipedia:Did you know or Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Also is there a place on Wikipedia to request photos? Thanks. 72.74.202.132 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You can try your luck at Wikipedia:Did you know; glancing at it this could meet their requirements. As for requesting photos, place {{Image requested}} on the article's Talk page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried submitting it but the DYK form doesn't work. I can't type on the page but I'm able to copy the template code. Am I supposed to create it through Wikipedia:Articles for creation? Apparently there is a large backlog (1,675+ articles) and it doesn't look like it'll be approved within the 7-day deadline. 72.74.202.132 (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The DYK process imposes the 7 day limit and it looks like that has already passed, regrettably. Note that the 7 days will be counted from when the article was moved to article space. You article was created in the article space straight away, so those 7 days started counting immediately. If you created an article through Articles for Creation, the count would only begin when the article was accepted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

my rejection

What mre credible references do I need for a newly trademarked and patented product. Web page is near completion and media event scheduled. I am also mention on Wikipedia on Hubba Bubba Bubblegum Soda as inventorSteve Roeder (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In general a newly trademarked and patented product will not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wait until it has received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. Press releases for the media event, and the product's own website, will not be independent so do not contribute to notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Steve Roeder. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. This is an. encyclopedia with neutrally written articles about notable topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Using Wikipedia to promote a new product simply is not allowed. The status of your web page and the schedule of your media event are of no interest to Wikipedia editors. You have a clear conflict of interest and should conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(xpost)Welcome to the teahouse. Unfortunately, you practically answered your own question by mentioning that it is newly trademarked, a webpage is near completion and a media event scheduled. It is quite common for entrepreneurs developing a new product to try to coordinate social media at the time of introduction, but Wikipedia is not like other social media. We had deliberately not interested in leading the pack but in following, Wikipedia articles lean heavily on published reliable sources, which means the product should be introduced and become established then written about extensively before a Wikipedia article is written.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do I get a reference for a quote from a video game?

In the halo character description, I quoted Sergeant Johnson directly from the game, but I don't know how to refer the quote. DGrayson (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DGrayson. As a matter of policy, all quotations must be referenced. I notice that you have drawn an inference from this quote. Unless you can search and find a reliable source making that inference, I recommend that you remove that quote from the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Whats wrong with my article

just wondering why i have speedy deletion? Andy Rivera article i made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Rivera Masterlerwing (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Masterlerwing and welcome to the Teahouse.

As best I can tell, the person who placed the speedy deletion tag on your article is an experienced WP editor who did not think the references you supplied with your article were sufficient to establish the subject's notability. I also see from the history that when you first started this article, it was proposed for deletion. All this deletion talk must be a bit frustrating for you. Can I suggest you try the Articles for creation process? By developing your drafts there, you normally avoid deletion (copyright violations and a few other things are not allowed anywhere on WP) and can engage with reviewers who can discuss the article acceptance criteria with you. After you have successfully created some articles this way, you'll be ready to create articles yourself, but you may still want to do the initial drafts in a sandbox or continue to use Draft: space. Once you have the article in an acceptable condition, you can then move it yourself to mainspace. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The criteria used for speedy deletion nomination was A7 - meaning no indication of importance. This is similar to notability but the criteria for evaluating it is different. The initial PROD was added 8 minutes after article creation because there were no references at that time. It doesn't really indicate a problem as long as a satisfactory references is added within 7 days. Gab4gab (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I should add that an indication of importance doesn't require references, only a credible claim of significance. References are helpful to support credibility of course. Gab4gab (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok i have added a lot more references on this article that also has speedy deletion. is this better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Roldan Masterlerwing (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

How many times am I allowed to resubmit my draft article?

Hi Teahouse,

I'm a newbie here. Been reading all the guidelines of Wikipedia for almost a month now and I'm trying to create an article. I know it will not be easy for any article to be approved especially when it doesn't follow the policy(which I am still mastering right now). Just wanna ask if how many times can I resubmit a draft article as it was rejected two times in a row already. I already revised the article I am writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PhpFox and I would need some advises or opinions if its gonna be approved as I'm planning to resubumit it again. Help from experts would be highly appreciated. :) Uaria2008 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uaria2008 as long as you are making a genuine effort to improve the draft, and it has not been found to be "inherently" unacceptable, you are welcome to keep on resubmitting it until it's acceptable. However if it gets declined a number of times for the same (fixable) reason, you need to ask for specific help, so that it does in fact progress and not get stuck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The first rejection was because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." It still cites zero reliable independent sources. The second rejection was because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." It still reads like an advertisement. So it seems that help from experts is in fact ignored. If you're going to ignore the good advice you've already been given, you're just wasting everyone's time by resubmitting, including your own. Maproom (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you should remove all references from the company that 'maintains' it and include references from secondary sources (like news outlets).

Also it has to be less interesting, I know it seems odd, but you need to write in an encyclopedic style. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

While you do need to make use of more independent sources, it is not necessary to remove all references to sources associated with the company, Uaria2008. Aguyintobooks is wrong about that. See WP:SELFSOURCE for advice on when such sources can be acceptable. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I can't see the primary sources used meeting WP:SELFSOURCE criteria, as self-source references aren't supposed to be used to support the main content of the article. The requirement is that most of the content is taken from secondary sources, minor details can be filled in using primary sources if not contentious. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - but they might be helpful for basic details such as release dates, versions, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete my account

How do I delete my account?Annabetty (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please delete my accountAnnabetty (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Annabetty: Hello and welcome. Accounts cannot be deleted due to the structure of Wikipedia; if you no longer wish to use your account, simply stop using it. In certain cirumstances you may be permitted a courtesy vanishing; please click on WP:VANISH to learn more about it. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

How to post a bio

I would like to submit an entry for someone who was a very major music industry figure -- president of a major label, etc. -- from the '60s until about 10 years ago but has rarely been written about since, and so has virtually no online footprint. Any advice will be greatly appreciatedMajorsongs2 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Majorsongs2: Hello and welcome. A person does not have to have been written about online, as long as there are independent reliable sources that indicate how they meet WP:BIO, the notability guidelines for biographies. Books or other print media are usually acceptable as sources. You may wish to review Your First Article for information on writing an article, and possibly make use of the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Majorsongs2. Further on to what 331dot writes, please see WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Offline sources. We require that information in articles be verifiable in published, reliable sources, and there is no requirement that sources be online. Many of the best sources will be on paper, which may or may not be accessible online. However, many paper sources are online in various types of archives and databases of paper sources, that usually will not be found through a search engine, but can nevertheless be accessed online if you already know the details of what work you're looking for.

By the same token, there are a number of ways to search for print sources for a specific subject in databases that have performed optical character recognition of the paper sources they archive, that will also not be found through a search engine. Google Books, though, is often a good place to start (Google News used to be, and is sometimes useful, but was a far more powerful tool until 2013). I've written a page here that might be of help: Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources (shortcut: WP:FENS), which lists solely large, text-searchable, free newspaper databases.

There are also subscription and pay databases that are very useful, such as JSTOR, newspaperarchive.com, and a host of others. Please also be aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (shortcut: WP:RX) where some very nice people with know-how and access to such databases fulfill, among others, requests for access to paper sources. Users with a proven track record may also request access through Wikipedia to certain subscription/paywall databases for free. See The Wikipedia Library.

That being said, if you have a source in front of you that is not online, please go right ahead and cite it—transparently so others can verify it—without any qualms that it is not online. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Checking if one of the top art magazines and HuffPost which has 7 articles plus links to 3 wiki people/orgs give enough credibility

A friend of mine saw an artist's work at a festival in Columbia, but when I researched her on Google, there was this deletion comment at the top. (Sara Von Kienegger) I was checking her out online and found some really credible articles and connections so I signed up for Wikipedia and dove in! There was also a comment about someone getting paid to work on the article, which doesn't make sense because the references were not so great before I jumped in!??! There was even an attempted link to a non existent Wiki page. Could somebody check my work and let me know if it looks good? This is really fun but challenging. If anyone knows any other article where people are being unfairly dissed, let me know, I do MMA and I love to fightStephenpeters999 (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stephenpeters999. The article in question is Sara Von Kienegger, which has been nominated for deletion. I see no evidence that she meets our notability guideline for artists. Her works are not part of museum collections or notable exhibitions, and I see no coverage of her in books written by art historians. The coverage of her is mostly in lifestyle/fashion/celebrity publications, which I do not consider adequate for an artist biography since such publications are little more than vehicles for promotion. In most of the sources, she is mentioned briefly and a few do not mention her at all. Some of the references are presented as bare URLs, which can be corrected. If this article is going to survive, you must convince other editors, with evidence, that she meets the notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Need this addition to Cyber Bullying page

I would like to add my son JOHN ROBERT RIDDELL to the list of Cyber Bullying victims on the Cyber Bullying page. My son hung himself on August 19, 2017 due to Cyber bullying from his Middle school and High school peers. He was only 15 years old. I saw on the Cyber bullying page they have only two US children listed. You can google John Robert Riddell and see the obituary also the West Jordan Police,middle school and high school, plus the Utah Department of education are references.

Any help you can give would be appreciated Robriddell2323 (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Robriddell2323: Hello and welcome. I am so sorry to hear about your loss. Please understand that what I will write is done with the best intentions and is in no way meant to diminish how awful your loss is. You may wish to post on Talk:Cyberbullying to explain what you would like to do. As an outside observer I would only state that I don't think the article is meant to list every case of cyberbullying but ones that are covered in reliable sources to some degree. However, I am not totally familiar with that article which is why I suggest asking about it on that talk page. Again, please accept my condolences. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that all regular Teahouse hosts will join me in expressing our sorrow for the loss of your son, Robriddell2323. Suicide and bullying are enormously important topics, and you can become a great editor in those topic areas if you set your mind and your heart to it. Memorializing your son on social media is completely appropriate and I commend you for it. But Wikipedia is a different kind of project. I lost a grandson named Emet Winston Heaphy Hill quite suddenly and shockingly two years ago. There is nothing about him by name here on Wikipedia other than one talk page remark, but I memorialized him in my own way by writing Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep (organization) which gives a small flavor of what I went through, while building the encyclopedia (I hope). My warmest wishes to you and your family. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Submission declined due to not adequate references.

When i submitted an article, it got declined stating the below note "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions)" Kindly help how to resolve this..YNHK (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I assume this refers to Draft:Ligare Voyages Limited. To get it accepted as an article, you will need to add citations of several reliable independent published sources that contain in-depth discussion of the subject. The draft currently cites four sources, but none of them is independent. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Disease controlling

How can we control dangerous infectious diseases like hiv and cholera and japanese encephalitis.

@Mohd aftab11: I'm sorry, this is not the forum for that sort of question. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mohd aftab11, and welcome to the Teahouse. As 331dot said, the Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, not general topics. You can try Wikipedia:Reference desk; over there they're forbidden from giving medical advice for legal reasons, but your question seems to be more about epidemiology, so it's worth a try. Good luck, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have about editing Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 08:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

How to unblock my IP address

Hey fend, my IP address has been blocked since few months ago. Now when I am going to edit any articles in wikikipedia, the message shown as "You currently not able to edit this article." How I unblock my IP address? Please help me guys... Iamakashnathsarkar (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iamakashnathsarkar - I wonder why are you trying to edit as an IP, rather than using your account?
However, we can't help you with the IP address until we know why your IP address was blocked - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It is very possible that your IP is caught up in a range block, but that's precisely why you should be editing while logged in not trying to edit without logging in.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

However, if your IP was blocked for your actions, by editing using an account, you are guilty of WP:BLOCKEVASION, so your account should be blocked as well. - Arjayay (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Texture for military award ribbons

Not entirely sure this is the right place to ask, but the messageboard over at WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals seems to be pretty dead.

Military award pages have a ribbon in the infobox, like so:

Does anyone know what's used to get that ribbony texture in these images? The horizontal grey/clear lines seem to be on all the ribbons made for the militaries of all sorts of countries pretty consistently. I'm trying to update and complete the ribbon set for the Sri Lankan military, but I can't see a standard image/image template that's used to get that faux-fabric effect. - ක - (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a simple color darkening on alternate lines. You can examine the effect by expanding the file in a new tab. The ribbon is an SVG file, which you can edit with Adobe Illustrator, or use the (free) Inkscape program. It has been in turn converted into a variety of lower quality PNG images. You will need to replace the colors used in this file with your own colors directly.

If you didn't understand what I just wrote, you probably won't have much luck doing it yourself since the programs I mentioned are not user friendly. You can either take the opportunity to learn about graphic design, or see if you can track down the editor who makes them and ask for a new one.

I would offer to do it myself, but it would take far too long, I tried the 'learn about graphic design' option once but it didn't make me an expert. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No that's fine, I just wanted to know if there was a standard template to base it on. Thanks for the reply :)- ක - (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding photos?

How do I add photos?Palukiwa (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Palukiwa. You can check out Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for a general overview, but as to your specific issue, a lot of it depends on which photos you would like to add. Most photos online are not usable on Wikipedia for copyright reasons, and the first thing that has to be sorted out is whether your photos are on the side of that we can use. TimothyJosephWood 17:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Palukiwa. That is a very complex question that has many possible answers depending on the details of the specific photo. Here is an overview of what we need to know. Did you take the photo yourself? If not, who took the photo and where did you find it? Is the photo available on Wikimedia Commons? When was the photo taken? Has it been published before, and if so, when and where? Does the publication have a copyright notice? What is the subject of the photo? What country was it taken in? All of these factors and more may affect whether or not you can use the photo on Wikipedia. Another thing worth reading is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Old move request that has not been closed

Hello,

I would like to suggest a split/move concerning the Delphi and Ancient Delphi pages. However, there is an old merge discussion which has not reached consensus, and has been stale since April 2016 without being closed. I participated in this discussion, but does that still disqualify me from closing it when the discussion won't reach a conclusion?

Thanks, Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Wasechun tashunka. Yeah, that's a pretty old discussion, and it doesn't much look like a strong consensus, or even enough participation for any strong consensus whatsoever in a non-unanimous discussion.

I guess at the end of the day, many discussion don't need closing at all. Maybe your safest bet is to ping the editors who were involved, in case they're still active and have a strong opinion. And if they're not, or they don't, then WP:BEBOLD and make changes you think will improve the encyclopedia. If someone disagrees, then time to talk. If they don't, then carry on. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Timothyjosephwood, I'll ping them and see if they respond. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 18:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

How to describe where a place is.

I have a problem not covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section This Manual of Style Guideline does not deal with how to describe where a place is in the lede, an issue not specified. Editors use all manner of descriptions, sometimes using "situated at <place>, <region>, <country>". or "situated at <place>, <region>" or "situated at <place> in the <region> of <country>". or they use "situated near <other place>" or one of endless variations including or ommitting detail, sometimes including OS grid references, sometimes not. sometimes qualifiying the position with a "west - <place>" or "north-west <place>" or the like.

I think it would be useful to discuss how this should be dealt with, I realize there is regional variation on how specific the description should, but I am talking about places which are all in the same region of England (Devon) and the inconsistency leaves me wondering which to use. The most obvious variations are in the stub categories but even better articles are in no way consistan.t

NB: I am not referring to what is covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), specifically WP:UKPLACE, but how the names are presented, and whether grid references should be in there. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey A Guy into Books. It seems an awful lot like what you're getting at is a potential change in the MoS, which would probably be a discussion that would have to take place at the MoS talk page. But overall, probably a good guiding principle with any kind of guidance on WP is that if it ain't broke don't fix it. As much as we have mountains of guidance, policies, MoS, and essays upon essays, most things on Wikipedia actually are just governed by common sense and what works. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so just go with what seems most encyclopedic. fair enough. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I create a page for a notable person?

How do I create a page for a notable person? I have references.History lost (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, History lost. Editors who haven't yet made 10 edits can't create new articles as a safeguard against spam and disruptive creation of new articles. For the time being, I'd recommend finding articles you think you can improve and making some contributions that way in the meantime. This is your first article, so if you'd like, you can draft the article in your sandbox (a more private area to work on things) and contact me on my talk page to review it and give feedback before it gets moved into the public article space. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, History lost. I would agree with I JethroBT about getting some experience editing before you plunge into the difficult task of creating a new article. I would also suggest reading your first article carefully, and then using the article wizard to create the article in draft space. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-Editing / One on One

Hello I'm new on wikipedia. I submitted my first contribution, I read all the guidelines, as expected, my contribution was deleted, what stinks is that I received the generic welcome email, but nothing that says what I did wrong, etc. Is there anyone or anything that can help me write it the way it should be? Specifics? I'm sure many people have asked this question. I truly appreciate any help! (Lakysha May (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse. I can find no evidence as to which of your contributions was deleted. Could you please give us a wikilink to it? If you are after specific advice regarding writing a new article, the best place is at WP:Your first article, which is one of the links from the generic welcome message which you received. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Another piece of specific advice is to read about external links. In Joivan Jiménez you had included 4 inline external links. Each of them was already cited and linked as a reference, which is the right way to do it, and I have removed the misplaced external links. I also removed 2 inappropriate instances of bold formatting, see MOS:BOLD. I have tagged the article as an orphan, so you can follow that link and find appropriate places from which to link to your new article. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

David extremely grateful for your response and help, I'm truly trying to get a grip on this. Here is the link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joivan_Jimenez Lakysha May (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That was your old draft. The actual article is at Joivan Jiménez, the link I gave in my reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Error on Template:bb/testcases and Template:bb/sandbox

I am trying to improve the Template:bb page by allowing the user to enter age group (i.e. under-18 to link to United States national under-18 baseball team or any other nation or age group). As you can tell on the testcases, I need to enter an age in the way I set it up but the professional teams (United States national baseball team) do not use an age in the name, so the template sandbox will not function with those teams.

Thanks for any help.

–Aidan721 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Aidan721 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid your question is more technical than we are likely to be able to answer at the Teahouse. Can I suggest that you try at the Village Pump/Technical board? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Article sections...

Hi! I'm new and trying to make an article, and I have a question...

When I look at other articles, they're mostly broken up into sections that, when on the mobile version, are hidden unless selected. These sections can also be individually edited by other users.

I know I can make headers by typing "==header==" "===subheader===" Etc. (except w/o the quotation marks)

Is there something else I have to do to make these different sections drop down/able to be individually edited?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.154.225 (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Nothing else! After you publish your page, the individual sections can be edited by other editors. See Help:Section for a further in depth explanation. eurodyne (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Image deletion and upload help

Hi, I uploaded an image but it only seemed to half upload. How do I flag it for rapid deletion and what did I do wrong when I uploaded it? Thanks EvilxFish (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi EvilxFish. It probably wasn't your fault. If the stored file at Media:Partizanskaya station Moscow.jpg is different from your copy then just try the link "Upload a new version of this file" at commons:File:Partizanskaya station Moscow.jpg#filehistory. The old version doesn't have to be deleted. It wouldn't be fully deleted anyway but just hidden from non-administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:Thanks for the help it seems to have uploaded fine now! EvilxFish (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

newly created page "power abuse disorder" deleted within hours without discussion

I generated the page on "power abuse disorder" today. It was deleted within hours, without any previous discussion. Very annoying. I think that enough scientific evidence has been generated and evaluated by independent research groups to warrant drawing public attention to the fact that certain individuals get intoxicated by wielding power ie controlling others. IF this behavior is harmful for their subordinates and is not for the greater good, it may be considered 'power abuse disorder'. There is enough evidence that power wielding changes the dopaminergic system in the brain. Based on the reviewed scientific evidence, it seems very likely that power abuse disordered individuals suffer from a disturbed dopaminergic system. So what can I do to have power abuse disorder covered in Wiki? stoopormundi 20170903— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoopormundi (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Stoopormundi. The article wasn't deleted because someone thought it was unimportant; it was deleted because it was an unambiguous copyright violation. In almost all circumstances, content cannot be copy/pasted onto Wikipedia from other online sources, because that violates the intellectual property rights of the original author.

All in all, making a brand new article is one of the more difficult things to do on Wikipedia, especially for very new editors. Most people start off by trying to make improvements to existing articles. But I would recommend you read through our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Hopefully those will help to clear up a lot of things and get you oriented to the way Wikipedia usually works. TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Timothyjosephwood, the article from which I copied and slightly changed the text is an OPEN ACCESS article (that can be checked out in PubMed). I always thought that the open access status meant that the text can therefore be freely used in media like WIKIPEDIA. What did I miss please? And what if I the original authors granted permission to publish the text? Please advise. Stoopormundi (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Stoopormundi, The source is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND, which includes the caveat that it cannot be used for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, this is not compatible with the CC BY-SA license that Wikipedia content is under, since that allows unlimited reuse, even for commercial purposes. Sorry that you've found your way very quickly into relatively complex licensing issues, but the short and sweet of it is that Wikipedia has to treat this content basically the same as we would copyrighted content, since we can't republish it under a non-compatible license without the approval of the owner. TimothyJosephWood 13:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, thank you very much for your prompt and detailed reply! So with the CC BY-NC-ND lice, who IS the copyright owner? The authors or the scientific journal? Stoopormundi (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Stoopormundi, even if the CC license of a source is compatible with Wikipedia's rules, the source still must be cited (credited) if it is used on Wikipedia. So in that sense, it's not worth the bother of trying to get the copyright (or copyleft) holder to change the license to CC-BY-SA. A combination of brief direct quotations, marked with "quotation marks" (or set off as a blockquote), and paraphrasing, is the best way to include in a Wikipedia article material found elsewhere. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well Stoopormundi, admittedly, I'm an experienced amateur and not an expert, but it looks like the copyright is either held by both the author and the journal, or solely by the journal, since they seem to retain the rights to permit and prohibit certain uses of the text by the author, and not the other way round.

At any rate, it doesn't prevent Wikipedia from using the information in the article, even if it can't use the verbatim text. And really, we don't actually want to use the verbatim text in most situations. That's a journal, and it's intended for consumption by an academic audience. This is an encyclopedia, and it's intended for consumption by a very general audience; at least as wide a one as possible.

Of course all this is assuming that the subject has received wide spread coverage not limited to only this or to only a very few papers by few authors. If it hasn't, then it may not yet meet our guidelines for notability. If it has, then there's nothing stopping you from making an article on it, so long as the text of that article is an original creative work, and you are therefore legally able to consent to license it under CC BY SA. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stoopormundi. I started writing this a bit back so it may go over some things already said, and I've snipped from here obviously redundant content. In any event, for future reference, "open access" is a somewhat ambiguous term. People sometimes use it to refer to copyright as well, but in general it means free to access; that the document is not behind a paywall/subscription barrier or otherwise restricted from being seen by anyone. All content under U.S. law is assumed non-free copyrighted (which requires no copyright symbol or affirmative claim associated with the intellectual property—however, in this case, the source document actually provides "© 2017 The Author(s)").

You can only determine whether something is in the public domain or has a free copyright license (some of which are compatible for use here) when you find affirmative evidence of a release, such as a release notice posted at the end of the document itself (or, in some cases, some condition of status that means a document or image is in the public domain, such as because it was published in the U.S before 1923, or is a work of a U.S. federal employee, created during the scope of their work duties).

As to "what if I the original authors granted permission to publish the text?": that is how much copyrighted content is legally used at various other websites–the authors grant a license for a particular use (sometimes for a charge) and retain their copyright. That cannot be done here because of the copyright scheme we employ. Instead, we require that the material itself be released (irrevocably, to the world) in a manner compatible with its use here.

I don't agree with one of the posts above. We can only use short quotations under fair use, so it's sometimes very useful to obtain an irrevocable release of the material, which can then be used in full with a notice in the references (see e.g., Category:Attribution templates). Credit must be given to the authors. In fact, most free copyright licenses require suitable credit and a posting of the license for use. Even if public domain you must credit the authors, though this is not a copyright issue but one of ethics – avoiding plagiarism. On the other hand, obtaining a release is sometimes a waste of time because the text is not suitable for use here for reasons other than copyright. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion log

Pls, help me to check my page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Rock_Kingdom_Church

I was just clicking to add the references but i receive that a deletion tag request was placed on the page, pls, help me.. I was unable to contest for it due to my device. Thank u! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionjohnny (talk • contribs) 01:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Visionjohnny. You successfully contested the request for speedy deletion of Solid Rock Kingdom Church (though it's possible the article will be deleted anyway). When adding references, be sure they are independent of the church; newspaper or magazine articles, or books, are generally good sources to use (but note that interviews do not count towards notability). The references also need to cover the church in some detail, more than a passing mention. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have. Also, remember to sign your Teahouse and talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~, please. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Visionjohnny. I have moved the page to the draft namespace. See the message I left you on its talk page at Draft talk:Solid Rock Kingdom Church. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability Requirements for a Megachurch to have an Article

Would any church fitting the statistical definition of "Megachurch" (a Protestant Church with at least 2k in weekly attendance) automatically be considered "notable" enough for a Wikipedia article? I notice that Sherwood Baptist Church, which only has 2k weekly attendees has a Wikipedia article, so it is at the very bottom threshold of being classified as a "megachurch". That particular church may have an article due to its involvement in producing the movie Fireproof and other movies through it's Sherwood Pictures branch. I will mention that the SBC 500 list (linked below) states that this church actually has a below 2k weekly attendance, thus is not considered a megachurch (data is self reported by churches). I had two churches in mind- both St Louis area megachurches; one with at least 4k weekly attendance and another with over 2k according to Hartsem Megachurch database. The latter I have a personal affiliation with and I have further numbers from the SBC 500 as well as personal emails from the staff on their exact numbers. How would I properly cite the email, if that is considered a valid source?

If not all megachurches, should there be a minimum amount of attendance or something about the church that makes them well known enough to enough people? For example the latter church is the second largest Southern Baptist church in an entire State. I am also interested in creating articles on other megachurches that I am familiar with/done much research on. Please ping me in your response so I may know when I get a reply.

In Christ, Superdadsuper (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Superdadsuper, it appears you do not understand exactly what notability means. It has nothing to do with any size statistics. A church with six members is theoretically just as likely to be notable as a megachurch. Now in practicality, that is not true. What makes anything notable is being written about in detail in multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject. So if you have multiple reliable sources, not connected to the churches in any way, that discuss the facts about the churches in detail, you can create an article about it. If not, not! As churches are organizations, there is an additional requirement that at least some of your sources be from geographically diverse locations. In other words, if all your sources are from Metro St. Louis, you do not have an article (yet). Hope that clears things up a bit. John from Idegon (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

An aspect of churches is their organization. Churches are also buildings. Sometimes historic structures. In recent deletion discussions general notability is the guideline referenced to determine the notability of churches in most cases. Both WP:ORG and WP:NFEAT are also mentioned at times. Gab4gab (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

To answer the other question you had, Superdadsuper, all sources must be published sources. You cannot use an email, a personal interview or personal knowledge. All these things would be considered original research here and are not allowed. Encyclopedias are by nature a tertiary source. In simplest terms, that means we do not write about a given subject; rather we write about what had been written about a given subject. John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers everyone, based on all the information given I am better of to be able to determine if the articles I had in mind would be eligible.

Superdadsuper (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

*A sunday of miracles;and wings of change*

This forum is unique as it colaborate well with learnership and tutorial s from overseas/underground resorvours and archives. We need no libraries of structure but eyes good sombre mind and strong feeling for learnership:We with and hope for the best we can think/imagine of.Thanks for the good use of modern technology;SUMMER is on this site/side of the globe;But unfortunately windy as never before;Good luck all you peers THANKS (41.138.78.20 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC))

Thank you for your contributions. This one appears to be wishing us well without asking a question. If you have a question, the Teahouse is here to help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

School Inclusion

I seek to include my school in the list of schools in Nigeria found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Nigeria. I though that the list is incomplete and information therein is little. Please advise on what I should do better to get my school listed too. Thanks so much. startriteschools (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Startriteschools and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that all of the schools in that list appear as "blue links" to existing WP articles. The first step for getting a school on that list is to create an acceptable article about the school. If you are closely connected with the school, however, you may have a conflict of interest. Please be sure you are in compliance with our policies before you proceed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

My Best Friend who died

Hello

I wish to publish a short article of my Friend who died suddenly. JudgeBeth (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@JudgeBeth: Hello and welcome. I am very sorry to hear about your loss, and I don't mean to sound harsh in any way; however, Wikipedia is not for memorializing our friends and loved ones who have passed away. There are websites that do that, which you may be able to find with a Google search or using any other search engine. Some might also be listed at WP:OUT. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with reliable sources to be notable. I have no doubt that your friend was notable to you and others, but that is a different form of notability than what Wikipedia is looking for. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Article in red

As a novice on Wikipedia, I pre-emptively submitted an article the other day before I spent even more hours editing it and attempting to post the final product. It was deleted by an admin before I could finish it and verify its relevance. I just spent a few more hours recreating the page and attempted to post it. I cannot contact the admin, and the page shows in red. What can I do to get past this and get the article live? Mdean13 (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mdean13 and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have again posted your article without a single reference, and so it is likely to be deleted again. There is some advice on your talk page which you have probably not had a chance to read yet, but you might like to start with WP:My first article and WP:Referencing for beginners. The external links to self-published sites such as Facebook do not establish WP:Notability. You need to find at least one source where the band has been written about by an independent WP:Reliable source to ensure that your new article remains. Dbfirs 23:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Mdean13. Your account has no deleted edits. You refer to a deleted version of Novarium (band) created by User:TristateEntertainment. See Wikipedia:Notability (music), and you may have to see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You contacted the deleting admin only two hours ago. Give it at least two days before saying you cannot contact somebody. The article link at User talk:TristateEntertainment#Speedy deletion nomination of Novarium (band) is blue now. When a page is created or recreated there is a delay before existing links change from red to blue. The new version also risks being deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for creation is recommended to work on drafts. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

How to respond to a message

I am a new user, so I don't know about anything here... I got a message about an edit I did from a Wikipedia editor (another user) on my talk page. If I want to respond, do I do it in my talk page (where his message is), or in his talk page? I want him to get notified about my message so that he reads it. Thanks. Jonathanlobl (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jonathanlobl: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.

In most cases, you respond to a message on the page where it occurs. This helps keep the conversation together. You can inform the other user by placing, somewhere in your response, a template like {{ping|User1|User2|...}} where you can put one or more other usernames (separated by the "pipe symbol '|') in place of "User1", "User2", etc. While this won't guarantee that the other user reads your response, it will send a notification as long as the edit has your signature at the end. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have an article suggestion regarding as person..

I read there is a place where we can suggest an article (even if we don't directly contribute it), or either way, I want to see if sources for a particular person are enough to have a wikipedia article started. They are twitter verified, in TV/FILM, writer and advocate for animals on a significant basis as an influencer. I can provide sources, persons name etc if this is the right place to ask for the article to be created, or guidance on this. thanks.Manager.pf alex (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Twitter verification doesn't matter at all.

The sort of sources needed are citations of multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources with no affiliation with or connection to the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, @Manager.pf alex: your name, in the context of your post, gives the impression that you might be the manager for the person you're suggesting an article about. If that is the case, you need to read WP:Conflict of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi no I'm a manager of a dance group, not the talent manager for this person. I wasnt sure if this would be a conflict of interest since I work with them in a capacity but no not the talent manager, if this is what you mean? I will still read through the article regarding conflicts of interest. If working with them in terms of a dance coach/same dance group IS a conflict of interest, can I suggest the article for someone else to look into writing for the person??Manager.pf alex (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Also yes this person has been published in legitimate media publications which have no relationship with the person.Manager.pf alex (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify based upon what read, working with the person is ANY capacity (dance in this case) can be considered a conflict of interest, based upon what I read on the link, so I can (as I mentioned) propose an idea from an article and then let others who contribute look into it, that is my original thought, as I read if there is a possible conflict of interest, an articles subject matter (person article is about) could still be suggested? Or did I interpret that incorrectly? thanks. Manager.pf alex (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Manager.pf alex, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Requested articles. I must say, it's nice to see someone with a COI doing their reading and complying with policy by suggesting an article. Thank you, and please feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 05:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this article too detailed?

Hello. Just want to point interested editors to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020. It seems to be too detailed and violative of Wikipedia's inclusion policy. I've tagged it for others to take a look. Thanks. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, BeenAroundAWhile.

I agree with your placing the {{overly detailed}} tag on that article. It's clearly a topic of intense interest to many people, but there should be some sort of shorter overview that does not get into the weeds of every single campaign appearance. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph. I may need to put one of those "I make plenty of mistakes" disclaimers on my talk page. All you have to do to see this is read the many misspellings and other goofs in my edit summaries where they are not so easy to fix. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

need comments and ideas

A suggestion for a reorganization of the "Bible and Violence" [[1]] has been made on the talk page there at topic number 15) Reorganization ideas. Please give it a look-see and contribute. Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Time before a page hits google

I was given the impression that pages stay hidden for 90 days before appearing on Google searches, yet a page I created yesterday has already appeared on Google searches. Why is this? A Guy into Books (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The key part that you missed was "unreviewed pages are not indexed". Your page was reviewed almost immediately. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes perfect sense now. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What the best course of action?

Posting under a throwaway account.

The situation I find myself in is as follows - I wrote an article and another editor made a change that is absurd. After reverting the change back and forth, this person starts to push for their edit on the Talk page. It quickly becomes obvious that they simply misread certain bit of information and proceeded to make a change based on that. However instead of acknowledging the mistake the editor becomes stubborn and keeps on insisting on the change, as inane as it is.

Next, lo and behold, another editor shows up and backs up the first one and takes over the first one's place in the discussion, except this time they also ignore all the arguments and defer to hand waving and generally complementing first editor's changes as fully justified. They also stall any attempts to request a 3rd party opinion by shimming their comments into every branch of the discussion and thus turning it into 3+ person exchange.

First editor is very active, holds a title of Senior Editor, the account is 5 years old, but the bulk of their edits is with smaller cosmetic stuff, like fixing references and infoboxes. Second editor is less active, but the account is even older.

Now, onto the interesting part.

I looked at these editors contribution history I see that they very frequently engage in discussions using the same pattern. One would start an argument, the other will "chime in" later on, fully supporting the first one, patting it on a back and generally talking down to the 3rd party involved. Then they will decide between themselves that the edit was excellent and argue loudly against any further reversals. And I'm talking here about half a dozen instances in past couple of months alone.

This is either a very long-running case of sock-puppetry or it can be that these are in fact two different persons, covering for each other and pushing shared agenda. Either way that this is not a fair way to gain the upper hand in discussions.

So. How would one go about resolving this situation?

Thank you, ElmerTheTree (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Without specifics it's hard to judge, but what you're describing sounds like a definite case of sockpuppetry (or possibly meatpuppetry). Either way, the best course of action is to file a report at WP:SPI (see this page for my simplified explanation of how to do so). Yunshui ^雲_水 09:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick reply. I am aware of WP:SPI. I was involved in one few years ago and it was an unpleasant process even though I wasn't even a filing party. I wonder if there's a way to get a second opinion on my assessment of the situation, before going all in, docketing the evidence, aggravating people and such. ElmerTheTree (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you wish, you are welcome to email me or another checkuser in confidence, and we'll happily take a look. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, very generous. I will get in touch shortly. ElmerTheTree (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Spelling in citation titles

I encountered a citation were "Generalized" in the title had been changed to "generalised". I assume it had been done by the contributor. Is there an MOS standard covering this? I cannot imagine changing spelling in the title of a book or article.

Also, I ran across this statement: "Use title case unless the cited source covers a scientific, legal or other technical topic and sentence case is the predominant style in journals on that topic." How would anyone but an expert know this? I use to use the title as published, but have since been told not to use the "stylistic flourishes used by the cited source's publisher, such as ALL-CAPS, all-lower-case, Small Caps, etc." User-duck (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@User-duck: welcome back to the Teahouse.

Changing the spelling in the title of the citation was improper. It may have been inadvertent if they were transcribing the title by hand and simply spelled the word the way they are used to it being spelled rather than how it appeared in the actual publication.

Titles of references are mostly created by copying from the web page. There is no blanket requirement that you alter the style from title case to sentence case (or vice versa). If the title is styled with ALL-CAPS or small caps, you may need to exercise some judgment about how to render it as either sentence case or title case, but in most cases you can do it either way - but most editors object to leaving it as ALL-CAPS. I suppose if the title were rendered as all-lower-case, you should at least change it to sentence case for WP style conformity. As for the "predominant style in journals on that topic", I'd recommend that you leave that for others to argue about. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should have added that I ran into this when I was checking an article for use of British or American English. There were a few usages of "colour" vs. the many uses of "color". I added the American English template. I realize I now need to check the titles in citations. Also, MOS does say that sentence case or title case should be used consistently in an article.User-duck (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. If someone is developing a new article or trying to pass a GA review, I might want to point out that standard. But for an existing article, if the title style on citations has become inconsistent, I do not consider fixing them to make them consistent an obligation on every editor who touches it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)