Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 768

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 765

Archive 766

Archive 767

→

Not sure why page content was removed

I revised the page for the American Accounting Association to include various things about the Association's history and what we do. Everything was deleted saying that it was "promotional". If I am stating facts from our website and from history books written about the association, why is this considered promotional and not appropriate to have on a page describing what the organization does. Other pages feature products and services of theirs (such as Reebok). We are a membership organization that features journals, meetings and awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyAAAHQ (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@NancyAAAHQ: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have just posted some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page, please review it and make the appropriate declarations.

Beware in citing other pages to justify something you are attempting to do; Other stuff exists, and each page here is judged on its own merits. The biggest problem with your edits was that you appear to have simply copied the information from your organization's website; this is a copyright violation, which we must take seriously. It is possible to donate copyrighted materials using the procedure described at WP:DCP, but the materials you attempted to add were very promotional. Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization wants to say about itself, or how it wants to be portrayed. Things like "vision", "value statements" and "mission" are unencyclopedic and not suitable article content, as it is difficult to independently verify what an organization considers to be its "mission". We are only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an organization, stating how it meets the notability guidelines at WP:ORG.

Now, if you have independently written history books (that is, books not written by your organization itself or commissioned by it) that have information, that may be valid article content. If so, you should not edit the page directly due to your conflict of interest, but instead make an edit request on the article talk page, for an independent editor to review. That is the proper manner for someone with a COI to change information in articles related to their COI. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How to find which Creative Commons license does an image hold?

Hello! I have been trying to upload an image to wikicommons from a domain ( https://presidentofindia.nic.in/profilephoto.htm ) but i get stuck in the part where it asks me to name the type of license the image holds. So I am asking someone to help me out and also tell me the type of license the image in the provided website holds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya harish pergade (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Adithya harish pergade, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not all images you find online are published under a suitable Creative Commons license. In fact, relatively few are. You'll know if the website has a notice that says that content are published under a Creative Commons license, such as an image caption that would say "Creative Commons By 3.0"

This website has no such notice. Indeed, it says "Copyright © 2017 The Rashtrapati Bhavan" and has a copyright policy page that says that contents on that website are not published under a Creative Commons license. Unfortunately, it means you cannot upload this image. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"How to help" page non-existent?

A while ago I had a different account and remember seeing a page titled "How to help", which essentially pointed new editors towards pages that needed cleaning up. As I look for it now, I see that I am unable to find it. Did it exist before? Does it still exist? I would like to know as I am trying to get more involved on this site. Thank you. CoolConvery (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CoolConvery. You are probably thinking of Wikipedia:Community portal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@CoolConvery: It could also have been Wikipedia:How to help or the feature at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No sources (well, just a few)

Hi there, I'm completely new to Wikipedia, I tried to create an article for "Solaris Hotels & Resorts" I was rejected 2 times, one because it was more like a novel, and the second because I don't have too many sources yet. I'm already working on it again, and it is hard to find reliable sources for the article I want to "publish".

1 - Is there a maximum number of attempts to publish it? I'm worried to be blocked or something like that. 2 - Sources in a different language are valid? the company is 100% mexican.

thanks for your help Fermo771124 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fermo771124. Please read and study Your first article. Study it until you understand it thoroughly, and do not resubmit your draft until it fully complies with our policies and guidelines. An unreferenced draft will be declined again. Do not waste the reviewer's time. Your draft article must summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. As for sources in a different language, they are permissible if comparable English language sources are not available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Fermo771124, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no stated maximum number of submissions of a draft, but if you resubmit without making any serious attempt to correct the issues previously noted, you are wasting everyone's time, and people may well be unhappy. Note that Draft:Solaris Resorts was deleted not for having too few sources, but for being promotional. Please keep any drafts and articles factual and neutral not designed to promote or praise the subject, or to advertise it. If you are in any way connected with the company, you have a conflict of interst and should disclose it and seriously reconsider creating the draft. If you are being or expect to be paid for your editing, you must disclose that in accord with our policy on paid editing. Thsi is not optional -- iundisclsoed paid editing is grounds for permenant loss of editing privilages. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see that you have disclosed being a paid editor. Thank you for disclosing properly, but expect to be held to a rather high standard in such a case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Some steps that often give good results, Fermo771124:

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of businesses. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, disclose your connection with the subject in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DES I'm just scrolling through reading the Teahouse and noticed you said sources don't have to be online. How do with source something that isn't online? For example, do we take a photo of a newspaper/book and post it somewhere on Wikipedia? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Oh and what is considered local? Is a newspaper which covers a city of 550,000+ people (or 350,000+ people if you're from one of the towns within the city yet deny you're from it) considered local or regional? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Danstarr69, and welcome to the Teahouse. One cites an offline publication with the title of the article, the title of the publication that contains it (such as a newspaper or magazine), the date of publication, the page number, and the author if stated. The publisher and location of publication may be added if they provide context, but not if they are redundant (It adds nothing to say that The New York Times is published by The New York Times co in New York City. However it may add something to state that the Times-Argus is published in Anytown, MA by Lester Communications.) One does not take a photo or a scan and upload it. That would actually be a copyright violation. Rather, one provides enough information that a reader with access to a good library could obtain a copy, possibly with some trouble or expense. For example one might cite an imaginary news story with something like this:

{{cite news |title=Smith Elected Mayor |work=Times-Argus |date=October 21, 1966 |first=Fred |last=Blogs |page=6 |publisher=Lester Communications |location=Anytown, MA |quote= Smith sailed to victory to win an unprecedented 5th term as Mayor of Anytown.}}

which would render as:

Blogs, Fred (October 21, 1966). "Smith Elected Mayor". Times-Argus. Anytown, MA: Lester Communications. p. 6. Smith sailed to victory to win an unprecedented 5th term as Mayor of Anytown.

A book is cited similarly, by title, author, publisher, year, and page number. The ISBN, LCCN, or worldcat record number can help, if available. see {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite magazine}} for some of the possibilities.

As to what is local coverage, that can be tricky. If the source has a purely local scope, that is local coverage. A weekly paper distributed in only three villages with a total population of 12,000 is pretty clearly local. But even major papers have purely local coverage, often in a "local events" section, or something of the sort. When the Washington Post publishes an announcement of a free concert in downtown Washington DC, that is probably local coverage. If the New York Times covers a concert in DC, that is pretty clearly NOT local coverage. Ultimately this is a judgement call if the matter is important. If all the coverage comes from the same city, that tends to suggest that it is local, but there are exceptions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) @Danstarr69: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Contributing to Wiki - Middle Eastern Culture and Politics

Hi Folks,

I'm very interested in politics and culture of the broader Middle Eastern Region. There is a lot of high quality content in the English Wiki especially on the main political issues. But occasionally I find articles that are lackluster, outdated or a bit biased.

I'm a complete newbie in edditing Wikipedia and I don't want to step on someones feet. So my question is basically: Is there a active community/portal that maintains these articles, or can you point me to some experienced user who I could consult, for example when I'm doubtful about a source.

Thx and have a nice one.

Mac C. Million (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mac C. Million I don't know any specific users who edit that subject area, but as for communities, there's the larger WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Asia. WikiProject Western Asia is probably the most specific to what you're looking for, or WikiProject Arab world is a bit larger. All of the WikiProjects are listed here. Often there are also places for asking more specific questions like if a source is reliable (the Reliable Source Noticeboard), or more general questions about Wikipedia (here, or at the Help Desk). Dairy {talk} 00:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Referring to youtube/vimeo

Hi there - I recently submitted my first page for review and it was rejected because of inadequate references. The page is Draft:Messages_of_Hope_&_Support, and the rejection message states "Youtube and Vimeo are not reliable sources.".

On my draft page I have included references to youtube and vimeo videos because they are actual outputs generated by the applied social psychological intervention I describe on the page. In other words, I did not intend the referenced videos to be justification/proof, but rather pointed to them as evidence of outcomes/results (which I think are useful for readers).

What's the correct way for me to reference those videos in the page? For example, I've added them in an "External Links" section - should I refer readers to that section in the main body of the page?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girish.l (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Girish.l. I just read your draft and agree that the official YouTube and Vimeo channels are acceptable in an "External links" section at the end. Do not mention these links in the body of the article. We do not actively advise our readers to look at various things. Allow the structure of the article to speak for itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Girish.l:: you may also want to read this video links related essay althoug, I'd recommend you checking out these help pages as well: Your first article, Referencing for beginners and Citing Sources. Oh, and Manual of Style/Lead section. Also, try to use the most neutral point of view. And "each video featured a Rwandan genocide survivor speaking about their positive stories of survival and growth following the 1994 genocide." taken from the cited study it's a bit different from "Prompted by the observation that there were few opportunities for Rwandans to share positive stories of survival and healing" [1]. I'd probably (don't take my word, it's just how I'd rephrase it) say it something like: "[...]each video featured a Rwandan genocide, according to a [The Name of the Study] conducted by [who conducted the study, when] [referencing the quotation]. Or something similar. Don't hesitate to come back if you have more questions and good luck with your article..Robert G. (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Celso Fonseca's Wikipedia Page

Donner60, I am new to the editing process, but I tried to make a correction on musician, singer/songwriter, composer Celso Fonseca's page as someone phished his identity substituting their own website instead of Celso Fonseca's original website (if in fact he has one), at the end of the page under "External Links". That was not a test. When you click on any links that reference the musician, it turns out it is someone else by that same name's website. So that is all I was trying to do. Trying to inform further readers not to even click on the phishing link. It was an inappropriate use of someone's identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6036:49:3587:E78C:4919:2D2B (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous IP, welcome to our Teahouse. Don't worry - you were clearly acting in good faith. The only thing you did that wasn't Ok was to annotate your concerns about the wrong website link within the article itself. We don't do that; we either leave our concerns on the article's talk page so another editor can act on it, or we simply remove the offending content with an explanation as to why in the edit summary. That was why Donner60 left an explanation on your own talk page. This is quite standard for new editors. It can be a good way to learn the right way of doing things, and you've no need to feel upset by it. I should also point out that if you want to reply to that editor, you've no need to come here to the Teahouse to do it. That editor won't see your reply here unless you format it in a particular manner which sends them an automatic notification that you've mentioned them. The best way would simply to have replied beneath their edits on your talk page. You can also contact any editor from any page (except articles!) by writing their name in a special way, but I won't bore you with the details (but see here if you want to know more). Do come back if you need any further help on editing in any way. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the error. The two misleading links have now been removed. Dbfirs 07:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, @Dbfirs: Thanks for the ping and the response here. I am not sure why this needed to be brought here but I suppose a new user might find this the best place to ask a question. Also, I messed up my attempt to strike my first message and might have been a little clearer with my second one, which may have contributed to the idea that another opinion was needed. In any event, I thought you would like to know that I just left the following additional message on the IP user's talk page. "I had intended to strike the first message and note that it was a technical mistake, not an intentionally disruptive one. I did not format the first tag correctly nor mention that I was striking through the first comment, showing that even experienced editors will make mistakes. I did follow through and delete the link after I looked at it and agreed with your conclusion that it was either fake or someone with the same name. If there was yet another link that should have been struck, I did not see it referred to or notice it on my own. I am sorry my additional message here did not contain the correct strike code and may have been not fully complete. Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)" I saw from Dbfirs message that I did in fact miss a bad link. I'm not sure how there were two left to delete because I recall only two external links; perhaps one was in the text. That is not important now because what is important is that the bad links are gone. My purposes were to leave a message about comments in the text, strike the bad external link(s), strike my original template message because the comment in the text was the real point and leave some helpful, welcome page-like Wikipedia page links for reference. I evidently did not completely achieve that purpose but I thank you for completing the task and notifying me so I could leave another brief further explanation with the user and complete striking my original message. I think an IP can not be pinged so my further message, repetitive here, should suffice to convey the same points. Donner60 (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Mohsen Keramati (again)

I reviewed Draft:Mohsen Keramati more than a week ago, and declined it, saying that it did not establish musical notability or general notability. I was asked by its author, User:Bkkh, to take another look, and I will try to address tone issues and notability issues. The previous reviewer had said that the article did not establish notability, and had a promotional tone. In my opinion, it still has a promotional tone. I see that what the author did after the first decline was to add many references.

I asked here, about a week ago, for the comments of other editors, and one other editor thought that the draft had been reference-bombed. I see now that the number of references is down to 4. I am asking again for other editors to comment on the current version of the draft.

I will ask the author, whose only edits have to do with this subject, whether they have any connection with the subject.

The subject does pass notability in the Farsi Wikipedia, for whatever that matters.

What are the comments, again, of other experienced editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not have any connection with the subject of the article. I am interested in Persian traditional music in general.
In the first submission, I had less number of references. Because I was not sure how precise I had to be in specifying where each part of the text comes from. After getting decline on this submission, I added references to show where I have retrieved different information. This time I got a comment saying I have too many references. So again I went through my text and removed parts pf the text (that where about with which artists has Mr Keramati cooperated). As a result of this, what remained was lists of his music albums (which this time I presented as tables). I got a decline on this submission, too.
I have even checked articles about other musicians (e.g. Kayhan Kalhor) and saw the second submission was not far from what other authors had done.
Now here I am standing: If I keep the details (and their references) I get comment saying it is reference-bombed. If I remove them, it get comment saying it is promotional and does not have enough references. I will appreciate if other editors join this discussion, so I can see better what is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkhh (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bkhh and welcome to the Teahoue. I just read through the current version of the draft, and i do not thin k it is particularly promotional at this point. However, none of the cited sources is in English, and I cannot asses them. There is nothing wrong with non-English-language sources but it does make it harder for a primarily English-speaking editor to review.

I understand that you feel caught in a catch-22 a situation where anything you do seem to be wrong, and this is very frustrating. Note that when we say that an article or draft has been "reference bombed" we do not mean simply too many sources cited, we means that there are many trivial sources, more than are needed to support the facts, making it hard to find the really significant sources, particularly the ones with the in-depth coverage needed to establish notability.

As a rule of thumb, I would say that somewhere between one cited source per paragraph, and 1-2 per sentence, is often a good number, but th4e needs of a particular topic vary widely. Of course all direct or closely paraphrased quotes must be cited. So must any controversial statements or extraordinary claims.

If English-language sources of equals quality are available, they should be used. It is helpful to provide a translation into English of he title and name of publication of non-English sources, and a brief summery in English, or a relevant translated quote from the source.

I will look at earlier versions and may have some suggestion to make then. Robert McClenon do you find this helpful? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DESiegal - Well, yes. I wasn't really asking for advice or help myself except to be set straight if I was mistaken somehow. I was really asking for advice to User:Bkhh, and am relieved to see that they are in this discussion (rather than asking me to report back to them). I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, but I try to give sound guidance. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Bkhh, I just examined the version of the draft dating from 18:06, 30 April 2018 (revision 839044195). That version had some 25 cited sources, of which 9 were album covers. Album coves are not generally good sources, although they can establish a credit list or partial list. Again, it seemed that none of the sources were in English.

Can you point out, Bkhh, 3-4 sources which discuss Mohsen Keramati or his work in some detail, say 3-4 paragraphs or more each, and which are independent of Keramati? This would mean not interviews with him, nor content from his publishers or business associates. If such sources are not now in the draft, could they be added? Could at least one be in English? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate everybody's time and effort in reviewing my article. Now I have a better image of what I should do. I suppose the current version will soon be deleted. To get approval on the next submission, I will keep an eye on your comments. Cheers! Bkhh (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing I might have similar problems in future similar to Bkhh (talk's problems, as there are many local grime artists and few house music DJ's from my city who are known nationally and even internationally. The problem will be trying to show that they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, and for me who's not an expert on either genre it will be even harder especially when it comes to the DJ's. There's DJ's who deejay in clubbing capitals like Ibiza, Miami, Melbourne etc, international festivals like Glastonbury, Creamfields, Global Gathering etc, have their own branded club nights, nightclubs, record labels, festivals etc, appeared in magazines like DJ Mag and Mixmag, released songs with well known national/international singers/rappers, and appeared on radio stations like Leeds, Capital Xtra, BBC Radio 1Xtra, and BBC Radio 1. Then there's the Grime artists who have also done some of the things the DJ's have done, but mainly stick to large Youtube channels like SB.TV, Link Up TV and GRM Daily. The sources should be slightly easier to find as they will all be in English, but the hard work will be finding their most notable songs and where they charted on the ITunes Chart or the UK Singles Chart. Danstarr69 (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Melania Trump

According to Wikipedia:

She is the first naturalized U.S. citizen to become First Lady of the United States.[6]

According to:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/first-ladies/louisa-catherine-johnson-adams/

Louisa Catherine Adams -- the wife of John Quincy Adams, the sixth president (1825-29) -- was born in London to an English mother and an American father who served as U.S. consul, according to the White House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:148:200:91D5:1988:C9CC:A602:204A (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Its semantics, but its correct. Trump is the first naturalized U.S. citizen to become first lady. The main section of the article about Trump as first lady explains it. Adams was born outside the US, but wasn't a naturalised citizen, she had citizenship of the US by birthright. - X201 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Advice for improving a submitted page

Hi there! I crafted my first wiki page but was not accepted due to 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.'.

I was just wondering if possible to get advice on what sources were or weren't reliable within the article, so I can replace them with more appropriate ones.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skillnet_Ireland

I don't want to have to change every source if some are okay and I just need to update a few of them :)

Thanks, Ray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raylonergan1234 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You will need to establish that the subject is notable, by citing several reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. In my view, the article currently cites one such source, #2. #1 is a listing only; #6 does not mention the subject; #3 #4 #5 #7 #8 are all based on press releases and interviews with employees, and so are not independent. Maproom (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Responsibility for providing citations (WP:BURDEN) in a RFC

In a RFC about a certain topic to gather support and oppose votes from users, does it require all participants to have some knowledge about the topic being concerned (WP:BURDEN) ?

Does it require all supporters and opponents to explain clearly why they vote as such ?

Thanks Gustmeister (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Q1: no. When we write an article, we should base it on the sources it cites; prior personal knowledge is probably a disadvantage. Likewise with an RfC, prior knowledge of the subject is irrelevant, what helps is familiarity with Wikipedia policies.

Q2: it's not required. But the closing admin is likely to attach much more weight to votes that are justified by valid reasons. Maproom (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Submission Individual Master File denied

My submission was denied until notiriety policy (I'm new here so enjoy explaining things to a newbie) Why? I included sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntaxsynapse (talk • contribs) 14:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Individual Master File. --ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Syntaxsynapse. When an editor rejects a submission, the best person to ask is that editor, in this case 1997kB, normally on their user talk page. However, I agree with them: of your four references, two are not independent, and the other two just mention the IMf without saying much substantial about it. The requirement for notability (not "notoriety") is that several people unconnected with the subject have thought it worth writing in some depth about the subject, and been published in reliable places. It's not enough that they have mentioned the subject in an article about something else. (It is possible that they could cover it in depth in an article that is mainly about something else, but that is not the case here, in my opinion). By the way, please sign your posts on talk and project pages, with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Charles de La Rochefoucauld draft

Hi everyone, I created a draft article on Charles de La Rochefoucauld on 30 April, using an Article Wizard template and clicking on 'Publish' when all my references were complete. I fully understand the process for new articles is driven by volunteers and that there are a lot of articles needing to be reviewed, but is there any rough rule of thumb, please, as to how long it might take for something to be seen? Also, I can't find the draft in Category: AfC submissions by date/30 April 2018 - does that mean I haven't submitted it properly? Would I need to add the code {{AFC submission|||ts=20180510135344|u=Markmiseldine|ns=4}} to the article, or is that unnecessary if using an Article Wizard template? Many thanks! Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmiseldine (talk • contribs)

This is about Draft:Charles de La Rochefoucauld. I don't believe it has ever been submitted for review. The "Publish changes" button is misleadingly named; it used to be called "Save changes", and that is what it does. Another editor has added a button to the draft, which will allow you to submit it for review. 14:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Maproom (talk)

Hello, Markmiseldine. You haven't submitted the page for review. I have added the AFC template to it so that you can do so if you think it is ready for review. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation recently changed the "Save" button to read "Publish". I believe they did this because they wanted people to understand that everything saved anywhere in the encyclopaedia is visible to the entire world (some people thought it was private to them until they formally "published" it); but now other people think, as perhaps you did, that "publish" means "make this a part of the main encyclopaedia". By the way, on talk pages, and project pages like this one, please sign your contirbutions with four tildes {~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Account login

I have been notified that someone has tried to log into my account. I do not know who it is and I have not been on Wikipedia for some time. However I have changed my password but I don't think this is enough. I have never been hacked or had some one try to login without my knowledge. Can someone ether tell me how to add better security or can someone or a bot watch my account to see if it will happen again as I think the person might try to get into my account again. Thanks CanadiaNinja 14:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi CanadiaNinja. Lots of users get such messages. Somebody probably tries random passwords on random accounts. They are not targeting you personally. If you have a strong password and don't use it at other sites then don't worry. Just ignore the notifications, or disable them at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@CanadiaNinja: If it happened on May 3, 4, 5, 7, or 8, it happened to thousands of other users. The graph can be found here. There is a thread at WP:VPT#"a failed attempt to log in to your account" alerts and a Phabricator task at phab:T193769. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sudip Mazumder

Hello,

whether anybody can create a wiki-page? For example, I'm talking about Sudip Mazumder's page. I know this person quite well. He is an IEEE fellow. That's correct.

There are lots of IEEE fellows around the world. Whether they have wiki-pages? The answer is no. Because, I presume a wiki-page means something noteworthy. Is not it? Being an IEEE fellow, does not mean, the person will appear in wiki. Am I Clear?

Please do verify his credentials at UIC and then create his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sribose (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sribose: It is not acceptable to post unsubstantiated accusations about any person on Wikipedia. Users doing so may be blocked from editing, so please treat this as a warning. Am I clear? To answer your question, yes, your are correct: only people who meet our criteria for Notability, based on reliable sources, and not hearsay, personal gripes, gossip, or their own website, are likely to have a page about them remain on Wikipedia. Being a member of the IEEE or any other similar institution is not going to be sufficient on its own. Volunteer hosts at the Teahouse rarely get involved in creating articles for others, though there is a process to request an article if someone believes they merit it, but have a good reason for not doing so themselves. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I just wanted to know whether any body can create a wiki-page. I got the answer. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sribose (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Anybody (who is not banned for previous infractions) may (is permitted to) create a Wikipedia article, but it is not an easy thing for an inexperienced editor to do, so whether a given person can (is able to) or cannot depends on them. However, any such article must comply with Wikipedia's standards and policies, and may be removed (possibly quite rapidly) if it does not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.152.127 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What can I do?

There are many errors on the page for the clitoris. This page appears to largely be controlled by a young *man* with a background in *computer science.* This does not seem right, especially considering that Wikipedia is so male dominated as is, with 85% male contributors. Apparently we can’t even have correct female anatomy on Wikipedia thanks to this gender imbalance.

Currently, the editors insist on publishing that the clitoral glans is 1.5-2 cm long. This is absurd. I contacted the author of the source they cite, and she verified this was an error. No articles in high impact journals nor legitimate OB/GYN or Urology textbooks confirm this absurd claim. The Wikipedia article contradicts itself, as it also says the glans is about the size and shape of a pea. It also says the glans is 5 mm in longitudinal diameter (length) in the very same paragraph where it claims the glans is 1.5 cm long.

This is so crazy! Can someone please help? I would really like to contribute to education about clitoral anatomy via Wikipedia, but this is made impossible by people who insist on publishing incorrect information. Jessicapin (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There are not many errors in the article. There is Jessicapin disagreeing with what reliable anatomy and medical sources state and then saying that we can't trust any of the literature on the clitoris. Do see this, this and this section, where matters have been explained to her. Also see this version of her talk page since she is again messing with people's comments and taking them out context after having been told not to do that. In this case, she has tampered with Oshwah's post. Jessicapin keeps saying things are wrong despite what sources state and keeps telling us to look at our own clits if we have one. Jessicapin has already been told that I am not a man. And I don't know where she got her "a background in computer science" conclusion from; in that regard, she must be talking about Oshwah. As for the author she is referring to, I told her that we only have her word to go on regarding what that author stated and that, regardless, an author's email is not a reliable source. I also asked her: What did the author mean if not 1.5-2 cm? She has not answered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Please do not engage in content discussion on this page. It is the wrong venue, and unlikely to be productive in any case.

@Jessicapin: As far as your post is a request for help, it can be broken into two categories: how to make a change in article content and how to discuss if others disagree.

To insert new content in an article, you need reliable sources backing up the claims made. If reliable sources say A, but you know for sure it actually is B, Wikipedia will go with A. You should not engage in original research, as you appear to have done by [contacting] the author of the [cited] source - there is a question of verifiability because we have no way to check your claim, and in any case a personal communication would not be a reliable source since we cannot expect the claims to have been checked, criticized etc. by peers. (I have no idea if Flyer22 Reborn's characterization is accurate when they say your claims go against sources.)
If you disagree with someone else about article content, first discuss it on the talk page of the article, and if things don't work out, ask for a third opinion or start an RfC. If the result to these goes against you, tough luck; that's how we operate.

I also feel I need to point out a few things. You are right that there is a systemic bias in Wikipedia articles due to the demographics of editors, but that is not really relevant here. That bias materializes by certain subjects being more contributed to than others - but clitoris is quite a well-developed article with lots of contributors. You seem to believe that a young man with a background in computer science somehow is less legitimate than you to edit the article. That is not the case. The whole premise of Wikipedia is that we go by sources, and we cover subjects only insofar as a motivated, intelligent person who is not a topic expert can check by themselves from available sources. The idea is that John from New York is able to critically evaluate sources about (say) a Byzantine church in Istanbul just as well as Mehmet, a local inhabitant who can visit it every day; and stuff that is not in the sources (hence unavailable to John to check, even if Mehmet can plainly see it) should not be in the article at all. Topic experts are sometimes able to contribute to very specialized topics in a way laypersons cannot, but they never have a right to shut down debate with an argument from authority. (Why it is so is another, long-to-answer question, but part of the answer is that we do not want articles about crystal healing written exclusively by crystal healing practitioners.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Tigraan, thanks for taking the time to try to explain Wikipedia protocol to Jessicapin. I know that this venue is not the place for dispute resolution, but Jessicapin mischaracterized the matter, and I felt that it was important to clear it up. I've done so before when the complaint has concerned me. In any case, this matter was settled via WP:ANI. Jessicapin is currently indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Forbes

Hello. Can we give reference of scott mendelson of forbes article. Because someone gives it on a wikipedia page.DCEU (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi DCEU. Forbes is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Whether it's suitable to cite a specific Forbes article for specific information in a specific Wikipedia article would depend on the circumstances, and editors may disagree. I don't know what you have in mind but Scott Mendelson writes a lot about box office predictions. Wikipedia is not a news site and often prefers to wait for actual information instead of discussing predictions. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Note Forbes / forbesmagazine.com is an RS, but the related website forbes.com hosts blogs which are not. MB 16:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but yes after actual numbers not predictions, one can reference Forbes's articles written by any writer on Forbes, or articles written by some specified writers on Forbes are referenced.DCEU (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@DCEU: - most often, raw box office numbers are sourced from Box Office Mojo, which I find to be a perfectly thorough and serviceable source. If you are citing Mendelson for his analysis/predictions, you may encounter the issue which PrimeHunter has alluded to above. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't upload

The https://video.online-convert.com site can make "webm" files, that Wikipedia can read, but the sound isn't the best. The https://convertio.co/video-converter/ site can make "ogv" files, that is better, and it's the other video file type, that Wikipedia can read. But I have a problem. The Wikipedia Commons doesn't let me uploading g a new video, what is a correct historical content. The automatic control system write to the screen: it is wrong content. So where can I show it for your controlling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idesz (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:UPLOAD. Septrillion (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

General Question on Page Improvement

Hello,

Ran across this page clicking through random:

MANTRA-Rajbhasha

Seems to be in need of some TNT, but I'm out of my depth for notability guidelines for an article like this or knowing where to ask for improvements. Am uncomfortable pushing to AfD as well.

Punting here since I'm not sure what to do.

Thanks,
Hwdirre (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Hwdirre: and welcome to the Teahouse. You helpfully tagged the article for 1) no footnotes and 2) peacock terms. Within minutes an alert editor noticed and rightly nominated for speedy deletion because of a fatal complication, copyright violation. Welcome to Wikipedia! ;) See: WP:COPYVIO Copyright violations are absolutely not acceptable.

The article's content is now, or soon will be, history, but its subject may still meet notability requirements for a new version, a mere stub, preferably about a paragraph or two, no more than the sources will bear. Start with Google Scholar and ask if these sources are 1) independent of the software developers and 2) published in reliable sources: Google Scholar results for "MANTRA-Rajbhasha". You might quickly draft a stub in the Talk page of the article or your own User space. Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any followup questions. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I see the article has been deleted for copyright violation. Follow the redlink above (your post) for a helpful link to creating a draft in your user space. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Federal grant money (under the arra)

I am a vietnam vet that is from and residing currently in calif.Who would like to know if there any options available to me to obtain aFederal grant for low income individuals who are over the age of 65yrs.Have not signed up for S.S. yet I do receive a very small income from a pension from being on active duty during the vietnam war. That pension is $1000,which is not even enough to live on per month.Not to mention mortgage payments,property taxes,amd all the rest of expenses that go along with owning a home,a home that was left to my brother and I by my parents.Who were both in their nineties when they died.Currently my brother is handicapped for almost 20yrs.now.My point being that,we don't want to have to give the hm.away,with it still being a buyer's market.Yes the realality market is going up,but it will still take some time to become even between,buyer and seller.Anyway to my point;Is there any type of grant money that I could use to at least do some hm.improvement,outside and inside. . Also,help with overall costs.As I said before we atr living below poverty level. Thank you,Rick Hennig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricster4252 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your straitened circumstances, Bicster4252, but I'm afraid this is the help page for editing Wikipedia (and nothing else), and we cannot help you here. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)}

Please can you provide some advice?

Hello,

Please can I ask for some advice?

I am quite new to this but have already managed to create a few apparently acceptable articles without any issues. I have become a little confused about an issue.

While working on articles and looking at others, I found that although many include the term 'Lordship of Bromfield and Yale', none of them are linked because no matching page existed on Wikipedia. I have created a new page and added it to the mainspace. My intentions for the article are mentioned on the talkpage, but simply I want to connect the articles that include the term, including those less obvious to find. The page will develop as links are added by myself, and hopefully others. After completing this lengthy task, it is my intention to find other sources about potential links, if required to research them, and create additional pages. The topic is so big it would be similar to writing the history of North East Wales but by using the links on my new page makes any research on this Lordship much easier for wiki users. Due to a polite message I received, as a newbie, I am worried that the page will be deleted. If that is the case I do not want to spend too much time on it. Any advice about the usefulness of this page, or if I am doing this task correctly is much appreciated.

Regards,

--WPCW (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, WPCW. Welcome to the Teahouse. Creating any unreferenced or poorly-referenced and only partly-completed Wikipedia page (even about a notable topic) is never the best approach to take because it's always likely to attract people who want to delete it. For that reason it's never a great idea to create a page and assume you can develop it later. Instead, develop it in your sandbox or as a draft (as you did), and then only move it over when it's in a state to stand on its own two feet. I think the best approach might have been to have 'red linked' all the examples of that term whenever you encounter them. Adding a wikilink to a term that doesn't yet exist as a standalone page is quite acceptable, so long as there's a very good chance that page would, eventually, be created. That way, when it is finally created, all the articles which previously had red wikilinks in them are suddenly linked to it with blue wikilinks that work.

I'm no historian, but I think your article topic is definitely notable. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't work as an encyclopaedia page should. I want to be able to read any article and understand, clearly, by the first sentence what that topic is going to be about. Yours fails that at present because you assume the reader already knows what you know - and most wont. Because I didn't understand any of the terms that followed it, I was unclear if the Lordship was a person, a pubname or a parcel of land. A trick to writing a good first sentence is to imagine yourself giving a talk to a group of Womens' Institute ladies in England. They're terribly interested and keen to hear you talk on your favourite subject, but you're a visiting speaker and you need to ease them in gently, and simply. You wouldn't dive in expect them to understand all the technical terms or even where it actually is, would you? Do they even know you're talking about a part of Wales? As I haven't got time to research the details, I'm going to have to make this up, but nevertheless I'd suggest structuring it more like this (I've ommitted the wikilinks):

The Lordship of Bromfield and Yale is a 13th century term applied to a large area of land in mid-Wales. Extending across an area of approximately 75 square miles (190 km²) it was formed in 1282 from the merging of the medieval commotes of Marford, Wrexham and Yale. That merger took place because of the 1282 Act of Parliament that impacted on all landholding across Wales. The Lordship of Bromford and Yale remained in existence for xxx years, owned by the Fitzalans (the earls of Arundel) until 1415, but in 1483 ownership eventually passed to the Crown. (here's a useful reference)

Of course, unlike my made up waffle, you need to be able to support everything you say with a reliable reference, and you should already have done that before moving anything into the main encyclopaedia. Inline references don't have to be in the lead paragraph, providing you do expand on content you've mentioned in the lead (lede) further down, where the references can be then be inserted, if you wish. There seems to be a lot of mentions of this land unit online, and I see there's even a map on page 248 of this reference. So you should have no difficulty dealing with establishing notability. Don't randomly link back to other articles just because they happen to mention it, or be places falling within it. I think 'Related articles' should be renamed 'See also' and should bullet-pointed, or you could (in due course!) consider creating a new category to link related articles together. I might guess that 'People linked to the Lordship of Bromfield and Yale' could reasonably be expanded into a paragraph relating to key people who owned/managed it. Does any of this sound like a sensible approach? Regards from the [[Hundred (county division)|Appletree Hundred), Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My first thought was that the "Lordship of Bromfield and Yale" must be a heritable title, like the Earldom of March, and therefore surely notable. But it seems it isn't like that. In fact I'm not sure quite what it was. Was it a geographic region like the County Palatine of Cheshire? Or a set of landholdings, bestowed by the monarch but without being heritable? The article ought to say. A Google search finds many reputable-looking hits, so I think it must be notable. But while it's not ready for mainspace, I've moved it to Draft:The Lordship of Bromfield and Yale. That way, you can continue to work on it without danger of its being deleted. Maproom (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@WPCW: After a bit if an edit conflict, I see Maproom has very sensibly converted your article back into a draft, where I genuinely think you should continue working on it. I would be upset if you felt disillusioned by these actions and the (hopefully, helpful) feedback you've received. In fact, I've taken the liberty of removing your author-requested 'speedy delete' request that I see you've just added whilst I was preparing my response to you, above. I really, really don't think you should delete it because I am convinced the topic meets our guidelines for Notability - but I'm sure you can see it still needs some work. If you're able to address that, I think it would be a very valuable addition to the historic geography section of Wikipedia, counterbalancing all the rubbish about minor football quarterbacks, insignificant companies that want to advertise themselves, and myriads of non-entity non-celebrities that get written about in far too much detail by the mass media of today, but that no-one will care one iota about in a century's time. Keep up the good work, and if you need any further advice on creating great content here, don't hesitate to ask. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice, kind words, encouragement, it is much appreciated. Changing from academic papers to wiki is quite a change, I'm only a newbie at this but I'm sure I'll soon get my head around it! Wayne

WPCW (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@WPCW: No worries, Wayne. I recently adopted a retired and antarctic scientist/geology professor - he had exactly the same problem adjusting to our wiki-ways. One really important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is only a collation of what other good, often academic, sources have already stated, and that its most valuable (but most misunderstood and sadly-overlooked) element is its use of good, reliable references to support everything said here. Unlike academia, where you're expected to do it, we never present original research here, nor synthesise other works to draw our own conclusions. Don't be put off by all our guidelines and style rules - we do often leave unintended curt messages for editors who've erred a bit in good faith. Eight years on and I'm still learning from my mistakes! Come back anytime (and don't forget to sign each post with four tildes, like this: (~~~~). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ganavya

Hi there, hope all is well. We're working on a draft for an article called "Ganavya" with a friend. The original review got rejected on the basis of it sounding too much like an ad; we removed more information and were wondering if we could get advice on whether it looks appropriate enough yet. This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ganavya We're trying to write more about women of color and represent our musicians well on Wikipedia! So trying to learn the best tone to write in. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittalvihar (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vittalvihar. The biggest problem that I see with your draft is the lack of references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Ganavya. What I am seeing are brief passing mentions of a sentence or less in secondary sources. In its current form, the draft does not clearly establish that Ganavya is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How to remove template messages on articles?

I've updated Seattle Foundation's Wikipedia page to add more sources and categories, but I'm not sure the right way to remove the template messages at the top. Please advise? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleMN6 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NicoleMN6. One of the templates says that the article relies too much on primary sources. When I look at the list of references, I see a lot of primary sources, specifically references to the foundation's own website. So, the way to remove that tag is to address the issue that the tag identifies. In other words, replace the primary sources with reliable, independent secondary sources. By the way, do you have any conflict of interest regarding this foundation? If so, please declare it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the criteria for notability of a place (temple)

I want to create a new article, there are very few sources, so I want to understand what are the guidelines for notability of place? --G (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RELIG/N covers the notability of religion and religious buildings.

WP:GEOFEAT covers buildings. Hope these help. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --G (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Kenyan actor

Hello, I want to write the biography of a Kenyan actor and i cannot determine if she's notable according to Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitch Blaze (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stitch Blaze. Please read our notability guideline for entertainers, and also Your first article. The quality of the reliable sources that you cite and summarize is all-important. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of edits

How do I find out how many edits I've made? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Jenhawk777. Click here: [2]. Chetsford (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For the running total you can also click Preferences at the top of the page when logged in. ー「宜しく」 クロノカム 08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)