Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

I am not going to wheel-war. I am strictly following the exact letter of the blocking policy and the policy against wheel-warring. Note that wheel-warring is defined as repeating an admin action after it is reverted, not as reverting one.

WP:WW says: When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. I am not going to do that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Simply having a typo or a missing letter in the username does not make it "ambiguous", and it doesn't make the username not a violation of relevant policies or guidelines. It's a username that was a company name; let's not beat around the bush here. If simply having a missing letter or a slight miss-spelling makes a username no longer an unambiguous violation of relevant policy, then I guess usernames such as "WIKIPEDIA CAN GO FCK ITSELF" or "IM GONNA RAEP BABIEZ" would be acceptable. Come on! Don't be ridiculous! Wikipedia policies and guidelines are created with the intention that they be read and enforced using the spirit and principle in which they are written, and we're expected to use common sense in favor of what will benefit the project. I think you're reading into our policies and guidelines much too closely to the letter and to the point where it seems that applying the spirit of the rule or even common sense is not proper enforcement, which is absolutely not true and for situations just like this. I appreciated your message, by the way, and I hope that my response was adequate :-) ~Oshwah~^(talk) (contribs) 05:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "report" function? Or does an admin just happen to stroll on by and ban after checking edit history? How does it work? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell (also somewhat new here), multiple avenues can be taken to deal with the issue. Should a user engage in disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, bullying or other bannable offences, other users will issue warnings on their talk pages. Should these warnings mount, or if the user refuses to heed them or engage with them, an administrator is notified. They can investigate their edit history and interactions with other users and act accordingly. If this plan of action fails, there is always (gasp) ArbCom, where investigations get very serious indeed.

Out of curiosity, has a specific incident and/or user prompted this query? - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I am quite likely to be entirely incorrect here, and am ready to learn a thing or two on this process myself in such an eventuality - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

WP:WARN) (though you don't always start at a first level and go up incrementally, it depends on the severity of the issue), after the editor persists with whatever the issue is, they are reported for a block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). Another way (see the discussion just above this one) is because of a username problem. That happens through Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention WP:UAA. Another avenue is people who are found to be sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Another is through a report and discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). See also the notice at the top of that page, which list other noticeboards that blocks may issue out of, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Another rather large source is just administrators doing various rounds. For example, I do a lot of copyright patrolling, and when I take action on a copyvio, I may look at the editor's other edits (where there's smoke there's fire). If I find lots of copyvios, and the user has not been issued a final warning, I will issue one, and if there's copyright violations after I check back → block. That sort of activity can of transposed to other areas. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh I forgot to mention. This is all about blocks, not bans, which is what I think you were talking about. A ban Is something else.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As

Arbitration Committee. Banning is a formal process that also results in a block. You were probably actually wondering about blocks. I suggest that you read both the blocking policy and the banning policy. They contain information about bad behavior to avoid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I just saw that someone was banned just because some people wanted it and nobody helped him, so I think it can happen to anyone any day. I don't think that's right. Dolberty (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That quite simply isn't the case. Whilst any administrator can issue a block, if they do so without good reason then a) the block will be lifted and b) the administrator risks having their tools revoked, or even being blocked themselves. Bans, as explained above, are something else, and can only be imposed after community discussion. In other words, it can't happen to anyone - if you are blocked or banned, there has to be a good reason for it. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator wrote that there were enough votes and there was no reason to wait. Dolberty (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be mistaken, Dolberty. Blocks should not imposed according to any voting system. Could you provide a link to the discussion concerned? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, people do sometimes use the term "!votes", but discussions should be closed by taking into account the quality of arguments, not just the numbers. See

WP:!VOTE on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

My guess is

WP:AN#User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder. Lectonar (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

In which case, my point stands - there were very good reasons to reinstate that particular ban. Again: you cannot be banned/blocked for no reason. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand everything, but Lectonar you just voted and ignored what he said. He asked for evidence and you didn't give any. That's not ok. But I don't want to get involved. I have a school project to do and I am leaving this topic. I just saw that it can happen to anyone simply because people don't like you, and that's still what I see. Dolberty (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with people liking you. Hardly anyone here actually knows anyone else, so liking or disliking a person doesn't come into it. The only criterion is whether or not your behaviour is good for the project - if you are disruptive, you get blocked/banned, regardless of whether you're the sweetest little old granny on earth or a tattooed thug with personal hygiene issues. Conversely, you can be a raging psychopath and as long as you stay within the rules, you can edit here forever. It's nothing personal. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people say you behave badly because they know that is how to get rid of you, not because you really did. It has happened to me in school, so I know. Dolberty (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry, was unwisely unbanned and needed to be banned again. This isn't the place to argue that case, but the case is about whether the punishment was appropriate to the crime, not whether the editor was punished without a crime. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, you guys! And yes, I meant blocked, not banned, my bad. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate someone's clarity - despite research, cannot find answer. A recent article I created does not show up in any search, Sheryl Nields. Is this because it needs a New Page Reviewer to approve it? Maybe I needed to tag it for review. Also, I extensively reworked my first attempt in order to remove any appearance of promotion - all content is kept to solid references. I dare not remove the "peacock" label myself. Does that get an assessment and hopefully removal by Reviewer? Marcomgirl (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcomgirl, by my admittedly limited understanding of this, you are correct. Unless an editor has autopatrolled rights, any new article they create will not be indexed by search engines until it is marked as reviewed by a New Page Patroller, or after 90 days, whichever is sooner. I am pinging Kudpung here for clarification, as he seems to have been leading the reform of NPP (New Page Patrol). Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

WP:NPP. This process changed recently to make it more thorough and is currently severely backlogged. You are correct about that being the reason the page is not indexing to search engines. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do but wait. As far as the peacock tag goes, I would have removed it if it weren't for the phrase "award winning" in the lede. Whereas that is true, listing the awards as you have done is sufficient. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@John from Idegon and Softlavender:. Marcomgirl is a paid editor whose only concern is that her clients' articles be referenced as quickly as possible in Google. I am reluctant to offer any of my unpaid time to help here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have left what I feel is an appropriate comment on Marcomgirl's talk page. If you think it's OTT, don't hesitate to let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've

PRODded the article. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheryl Nields. Note that the discussion should be of the article and the topic, not of any individual editors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article already in Wikipedia that has been tagged as biased. I concluded that is partly from the periodic use of loaded language, and partly from the weight of content on one side only of a controversial issue. As someone with knowledge in the field, I thought I would make the effort to bring more balance, but my first effort contained too much that was not sufficiently referenced. I knew I was referencing published works, but I didn't have every sentence documented accordingly, so it all got reverted. I thought perhaps I could write another article and the two articles could be merged. Now I have been told I can't do that either because it duplicates what is already here. I have information on both sides of the issue, I am neutral and balanced, I am not pushing a particular point of view, I am just attempting to include the most recent scholarship with new views and information. The current article is based on 200 year old scholarship; that's a good foundation, but not adequate by itself to create a truly neutral posting. So I tried editing the current article, again, using what I have already written in my new draft (that isn't supposed to be a draft). I was careful just to do a small section this time and to be sure every sentence was referenced appropriately. It all got reverted again. The editor claimed it was opinion, but it is not. It is summary of published authorities in the field. I don't know what to do. I am feeling blocked at every turn. The article is Christianity and violence. Perhaps the title is enough to explain the controversy. But this is my field. I would like to make a contribution if someone could help me figure out what I am doing wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've made edits, they've been reverted, and you've discussed things on the article's talk page. That's the recommended, and most likely effective, way to achieve at least some of what you want. Either carry on, or give up on this article and find a better use for your talents. Your new plan of creating a rival version of the article will provoke hostility and achieve nothing – I've seen it tried before with other contentious articles. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I strongly recommend that you move

Draft:Violence and Christianity to your user space before it gets deleted. You've put a lot of work into it (misguided work, but some of it potentially usable), and it would be a shame to see it all vanish. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)~[reply

]

Maproom is correct, I think. You may be able to find more editors interested in your proposed changes at the talkpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I certainly had no intention of being hostile to anyone! Would you be willing to give me some advice on what is misguided? I am brand new here and still learning the rules and I do want to comply and cooperate. I will do as you say and move the article. Thank you for responding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends, I am interested in both editing and creating new entries. As part of my job, I am interested in making sure that we have a positive and truthful presence on Wikipedia - but want to make sure that I am adhering to policy. Any advice, help and guidance are appreciated.

Thanks.Kirschnik (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kirschnik. The most important piece of advice I can give is that if you are editing as part of your job, you need to make a paid-contribution disclosure. I will leave a welcome message on your talk page with further links to pages that explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also important, don´t

WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello,

WP:CORP). --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

while i wish to hear from you back and ready to learn and stay in the community in peace without any violet of the trems of use on wikipedia. Thanks Abanda bride (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you can't, because the articles you write in Wikipedia are not yours (see Wikipedia:Ownership of content), so you can not guarantee any specific contents of the article (anybody can change them, both adding, removing and re-organizing their contents), hence you can't make any 'offer of a service'.
For more help you may want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help and Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay).
Also, some of the pages at special:allpages/Wikipedia:Paid edit index may be of some use for you. --CiaPan (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abanda bride If you charge a fee for editing Wikipedia, or do it as part of your job, you must disclose as described in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. But since, as CiaPan very correctly points out, anything you post can be changed or deleted at any point, your client can't count on getting what s/he paid for. Also, many editors are very hostile to paid editors, even when they disclose properly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when I tried to mention myself from my second account @Shorouq2911:, I didn't recieve any notification, although I signed my edit! Same happened when I tried to mention my seconed account from this account! What is problem?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Super ninja2. A signed edit means an edit containing ~~~~. I found no signed edits with mentions. [1] was unsigned. The account Super ninja2 has no recent edits before your question. If you think an edit should have caused a notification then plese post a diff to the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrimeHunter I mean an edit I made on Arabic Wikipedia, you can see it here. I tried to ask help from Arabic Wikipedians but no one helped. And notice that I recieve no ntifications from a lot of mentions to me that other Wikipedians do.

How do I post a diff to the edit? Thanks--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide:

Find the page which contains the edit you want to refer to. Click on its history tab. Find the edit in the history list. (If that's a problem, clicking on the word prev in the list will let you read the edit.) Right-click on its "prev" button and select "Copy link location" or "Copy Shortcut". The diff you want is now in your clipboard.

Is that helpful, Super ninja2? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Super ninja2: This page is for the English Wikipedia. Always say if your post concerns an edit or page at another wiki. You already posted a diff on "here". mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details says:

• The diff chunk must be recognised as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines.

It looks like the edit didn't satisfy that. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

excuse my wording

Like when a parent conversation has too many children, I see people using an arrow to reset it or something The Verified Cactus 100% 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is places a line all the way to the beginning

like this, by using an {{od}} code.

(←) Another option is to use an arrow, as you mention above, which is {{od2}}. These are called "outdents". Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VerifiedCactus: - I guess it might help if I do this... lol - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you browser is like mine, it will try to autocorrect {{od}} to {{of}}, so watch out for that! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling it out—{{outdent}}—works fine. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I entered my references and they show up fine, but I keep seeing "1,2,3" with "link text" in addition to the reference links I input -- how do I get rid of those that automatically appear?? When I go to edit, they don't appear in the edit box?

Judithmunson (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

notable in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 06:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Convenience link: Draft:Factumsoft, LLC. --CiaPan (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CiaPan, thank you for correcting the other two references and for inserting "cite web".

Judithmunson, you just have to click the edit at the top (to the left of the "Search Wikipedia box) so that you edit the whole page instead of just editing a section. Have a look at the references now. You do need some better references. I have not been able to find any mention of the subject in the second or third references. Has the content changed since you looked at them, or do they serve different content to different countries? Dbfirs 19:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judithmunson, thank you for pointing out that the two references are about the founder. I see that now, but they do nothing to establish the notability of the subject of the article, or to establish that he founded the company. You really do need to find some better references. By the way, you can reply here so that others can see both parts of our conversation. Dbfirs 06:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, working on that right now. Thank you!

Judithmunson (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse

I have uploaded an image file of my own with a map showing the Indian territories as described in the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851). There is an error on the map, and that is not good at all. Please help me delete that file. File name "Fort Laramie Treaty (1851), Indian territories JPEG". I have already uploaded a new file with the Northern line of the Crow Indian territory right. Thanks and enjoy your cup of tea. Naawada2016 (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naawada2016. Because File:Fort Laramie Treaty (1851), Indian territories JPEG.jpg was uploaded by you more than seven days ago, AFAIK you have to request deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests (if it was under seven days old you could have used Commons:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion# 7. Author or uploader request deletion instead). You can automate placing such a request a bit by clicking on the "Nominate for deletion" link from the bottom of the menu on the left hand side of the file page. (Make sure you're actually at the file page at the Commons, and not just viewing the image locally, e.g., if local, you'll see "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below" with "description page" a link to the actual file. This has fooled many a user.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think my article might be rejected due to lack of references. The article is about a not-much-studied species of cactus and references are available, but obscure.

Should I include the old references (100 years old).

JoeSatxjoe (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, it is because you copied it from somewhere without permission. Dolberty (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is fine to use 100-year-old documents as references, but you must not copy from them directly without attribution. Even if you are absolutely certain that the publications are out of copyright, it is still much better to give the information in your own words. If not much has been written about the species, then it might not be sufficiently notable to deserve its own article, but try to add more information and lay out the article with a lead section like other fuller articles, and try to find somewhere else that the species has been written about so that you have two references. Dbfirs 19:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article is better suited for Wikispecies. Isn't their goal to have articles on all accepted species? I have created two Wikipedia plant articles with limited references, they were for a new genus and species. I do believe the references were of high quality.User-duck (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody explain a user here why I was trying to remove the extraneous images on the article

It appears to be a situation where involved parties need to take a step back for awhile, or even move on to different areas. There is much usage of the word "friend", however nothing in the behavior seems friendly. This is a losing battle, which has the potential to lead to further situations down the line. Furthermore, I would suggest keeping article discussions on the Talk page of the relevant article, instead of sitting on another user's talk page. As it currently stands, the talk page is basically empty, so another editor could come along and have no clue what they're stepping in. (*just my personal, unbiased opinion*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sadly I can't read the citation for the phrase in question ("You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book"), however the sentence as it currently stands is poorly constructed. If it's truly a direct citation, then I surely can't fault you for that, however I certainly wouldn't want my daughters coming across that sentence. :D - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read his talk page, you would notice that I was consistently friendly while he was continuing to attack me. I explained him so many times that it makes no sense to be frustrated on Wikipedia, and that everybody on here are friends. Apparently, he has deleted all of that, so you can check the history for that. Also, the sentence written by him is completely different than what I had written, and also present in the citation (though rephrased due to copyvio). The citation does open for me. Could you click the link directly and check? https://books.google.co.in/books?id=L1qYYLeTx58C&pg=PT13 Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the conversation, hence my first comment. I've also been able to track down the page that the citation was pulled from, and unfortunately both of you were partially correct. While his sentence was grammatically correct, it didn't fully convey the idea that the writer was trying to send. While you included a touch more accuracy to the statement, the grammar was way off. (*hence my statement about the poorly constructed sentence*). Again, I think this is a situation that could have been handled more reasonably on the talk page for the article instead of having a back and forth on their talk page. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so I did explain a lot of times and without attacking even for once. However, he did not keep his calm, and instead of correcting the sentence structure, he was just putting his sentence. If you read this conversation, you would understand. (Just check his English too, you will see many more flaws despite which I never attacked him in any way) Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In either case, I've started the discussion at the article talk page. Personal back and forth between editors will not get the article to the place that it ultimately needs to be. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. You are right buddy. However, he needs to understand my point of removing the extraneous images, which he might revert again. It is just like he changed my image repositioning earlier. He does not seem to understand the point I made on commons being for all the extra images, and not wikipedia articles. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time, and again -- on the article talk page. Discussions need to be based on the article, not anything to do with "he" or "I". - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Gotcha. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source for a scientific article on a mammal species. Please reassure me that you do understand the difference. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not a self-published source, and Marshall Cavendish is a very big publishing company. Also, on verifying with other sources such as this and this, the information does look correct. It is also an independent source, and not a web citation (so increases the likelihood of being reliable). Also, please correct me if I miss out anything so that it would be useful in the future. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences)#Choosing sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. It does make sense. Also, one small question, that is it to be identified by the look of the book? (like cover page, and all) or is there any other way to know if it is a children's book? Yup, the previous two books in Just's comment are children's books (can be said by the looks of it), however, just so that I do not miss any in the future, could you say if I am correct, or there are other ways too? Fuhghettaboutit Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adityavagarwal, with a couple of simple Google searches, I easily found many sources, including academic sources, that indicate that the Desert Cottontail freezes when it sees a predator, and runs in a zigzag pattern if it thinks an attack is imminent. Simply select a better source and add it to the article. As for determining whether this book is a children's book, Google Books categorizes it as "juvenile nonfiction". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adityavagarwal, apart from the Google Books category which Cullen328 rightly points out, the main and obvious indicators that that book is for children are: the title; the cover; the page layout; the language of the text; and the limited amount of actual content in the text – all those things would be quite different if the book were intended for adults, still more so if it were intended for scientists. It's also published by a publisher of children's books, but I didn't know that and had to look it up. Fuhghettaboutit has given an excellent explanation of why a children's book is not a good source even if it has the facts right. If you have more questions, please ask away! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understood where I went wrong. Thanks a bunch buddies to give such a nice explanation, and how could I have any questions after such a wonderful explanation? As always, questions asked in the teahouse (actually, not only teahouse but also in most user's talk pages too) are explained really nice. I will take care of it in the future. Thanks again. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wrote an article under 'Shiba San' and cannot find the content any longer. Even though it was removed from wikipedia, I would like to at least find the actual article, as it took hours and hours to compile. ShibaSan (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the deleted contents to you. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: thank you!

Hi. I would love it if you'd send me an email so I can send you what changes I want to be made on protected pages for media companies. If you have an email address, can you please send it to my username on this page? Thanks! NS4545678 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NS4545678, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that isn't quite how things work here. Instead, go to the talk page of that article(s) you want changed, and describe your requested changes there, with reasons. Don't forget to provide sources that can be checked. Then place {{Request edit}} on the page. You can find more detailed instructions at Template:Request edit. Do that and an admin or experienced editor will look over your request and respond, possibly making the changes you request. We don't normally handle editing via email. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did post edit requests on the talk pages, but people kept removing them for no reason at all. That's why I asked you guys to email me. NS4545678 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NS4545678 You have made only 4 edits under this username, all of them versions of this request or followups to it. Perhaps they were made under a different username, or while not logged in?

Anyway, Even if i got your suggestions by email, the content and source would still be posted on the talk page of the relevant articles. You might as well post the article names, at least. That will be enough to find the issue in the page history or talk page history, probably. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse Host. I am currently seeking an AFC review for my draft, and before the review starts, I would like some advice regarding sources for the draft. I could not find a lot of third-party sources to back up the draft through Google search alone. What other methods could I use to locate sources?

Draft:Biggest Little Fur Con

Thanks!

Hello,

reliable source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I updated the alt-right and MLB postseason templates. However, even though on some pages it is updated, on others it isn't. Can you please help? thanks.Vinnylospo (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @

purge the page's content. More details and a better technical explanation are available in the linked info. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm trying to help a new user clean up an article he created Draft:Nenad Vasilic about a Serbian guy. The article has multiple issues, the main one being was no secondary sources for the non-NPOV claims being made. He's gone through and added a number, mostly in a Baltic language I assume is Serbian. I have no idea if they support the text of the article. - Is this okay? - Any other suggestions? Ta, AntiVan (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources are allowed. See

WP:NOENG. TranquilHope (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello

WP:RSN can help with that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks DESiegel & TranquilHope - AntiVan (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia is quite some way from the Baltic, AntiVan! ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm well out of my depth here Cordless Larry do I mean Slavic? AntiVan (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might perhaps have meant Balkan, AntiVan. People get those two confused. Serbian is indeed a Slavic language, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My current Username is

Hi

Nazim hussain Pak. See Wikipedia:Changing username. You can use the link on "Simple" under Wikipedia:Changing username#Venues:. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

What i have to do to inprove my page about "Fractal Rainbow"? Sure it is a good concept.... and WIKI will help to know it and to be improved by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved this question out of the section for another question, above. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse,

notability criteria by demonstrating that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the concept's creator. The best sources here would be articles in scientific journals. At present, you're citing a self-published book, which isn't a good source at all for this kind of topic, and doesn't contribute to establishing the concept's notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I have deleted this draft as a blatant copyright violation of content from this site. Dapifo, see the message I left you about this at your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What i have to do to inprove my page about "Fractal Rainbow"? Sure it is a good concept.... and WIKI will help to know it and to be improved by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dapifo please stop asking questions in threads (sections) on other topics. Also, please do not simply repeat a question. Fuhghettaboutit has told you that the article was delted because it was copied from an outside web site. The firat thing you cna do is to write future content for Wikipedia in your own words, not copied from elsewhere. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources, not just in one self-published book. I'm not convinced that either the concept or the book is notable in the Wikipedia sense, but you are welcome to prove me wrong if you can. Dbfirs 21:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi I am new to Wikipedia and I have edited a page about a Dutch basketball player called Devon van Oostrum. He is listed as "British-Dutch" even though he is Dutch (born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents), but he has just played basketball in England. There is no source or reference whatsoever confirming if he has dual nationality, yet another editor on his page has insisted that he should be listed as "British-Dutch" since he "plays for a British basketball team" and thus automatically has the British nationality because of that. There is no way this is possible according to British Nationality Law, but this other editor has threatened to "block" me if I revert his nationality back to list him only as Dutch. Could an experienced editor please intervene in this situation? This other editor (his Wikipedia name is Bozalegenda) is not willing to discuss this with me at all (I either have to accept his way to list this person as 'British-Dutch' or I will get blocked according to him as he says that he believes that my edits are 'vandalism'.....). I have looked into British Nationality Law and there is no way that his explanation/logic to list this basketball player as "British-Dutch' because "he played for a British team" makes sense at all.--Danteday (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

third opinion. No edit honestly intended to improve the encyclopedia is "vandalism" even if it is incorrect or misguided. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you! I hope he is willing to discuss this with me--Danteday (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c [followed by loss of internet connection].) Hi Danteday. I'm not sure about the underlying content dispute. I do have some comments though:

• No one has posted to the article's talk page (
  ping
  there upon your post to the other person involved in the issue, just as I've pinged you to this response by linking your username and signing this post.
• If that is not fruitful (but remember Wikipedia is slow motion in many ways; don't expect a response will come within five minutes or even five hours, this issue is not one in my view that requires quick action) you can seek a third opinion, or maybe start an entry at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more about these and others.
• I am not saying anyone has violated it. Just a heads up to avoid trouble. You and
  three-revert rule
  , and our policy on edit warring in general, which the rule is a section of.
• vandalism
  . That is a violation of community norms. Vandalism is about clear intent to harm. Even if you think an edit is terrible, and needs to be reverted, it is not "vandalism", and should not be labeled as such, unless it is quite clear that it was intended by the person to harm Wikipedia.
• Be aware of the
  inline citation
  .
• There may see some guidance for the underlying issue at Wikipedia's
  Manual of Style
  . I have not tracked down which section though (if any).

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the advice given above, but just a correction to your characterisation of part of the dispute, Danteday: Bozalegenda did not write that van Oostrum played for a British team, but the British national team (see the edit summary here). Playing for a British club would be a strange reason to describe someone as British, but playing for the national team is a much stronger basis for such a claim. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that note, Cordless Larry, it may be relevant. There have now been several posts to Talk:Devon van Oostrum, where I am trying to get a proper content discussion started. I have linked to and quoted relevant MOS guidance (from MOS:PLBLEAD). I have strongly urged the end of further edit-warring, and informed both parties that it can lead to a block. Thanks for your comments, Fuhghettaboutit, I fully agree with them. Additional eyes might be helpful, but this is a fairly ordinary content dispute, and can be settled like many others have been and will be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've written an article on the International Bond & Share Society. I would like your opinion on whether it will be suitable for Wikipedia. What's the best way to share the text that I've written?

Thanks, SteveSjmaier (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Join WP Japan! 17:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't find any article, draft, or userspace draft with a title at all close to "International Bond & Share Society", or mentioning that phrase on this Wikipedia edition, Sjmaier. Is it possible that it was on another edition of Wikipedia, that is, the Wikipedia for a different language? In any case, please do provide a link. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply; I've put a draft copy in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sjmaier/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload

Will that work for you?Sjmaier (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Join WP Japan! 21:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sjmaier/sandbox&action=submit Sjmaier (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the article - and learning as I go along. I hope that you can see this draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjmaier/sandbox/International_Bond_%26_Share_Society Sjmaier (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that are required to show notability.
Until you have added such references, it is difficult/impossible for other editors to assess whether the subject is notable, or not. Please see WP:Notability and Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on what is required and how to add it. - Arjayay (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Arjayay - thanks for the prompt reply and advice. I'll work on the references.Sjmaier (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me how an edit can appear under my name without me having made it. I refer to this edit which I did not do, the   appeared as soon as I opened the edit window. This kind of thing should just not happen. Jodosma (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Join WP Japan! 17:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I suspect the fact that the article is Witch-hunt may be relevant? ;-} - Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jodosma, are you using any tools to semi-automate your edits, like AWB? A few times I've seen tools like this make automatic suggestions based on rules they follow, that have left users wondering how some part of an edit they made got added. (But AFAIK you still need to click save or the equivalent in the programs, even if inadvertent). Other sources are things like Twinkle that will automatically make certain other edits if set to, based on one you invoke, like notifying the user based on a tagging you've done to an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't explain the edit summary "somebody is trying to make it look lie I did this but I didn't", though, Fuhghettaboutit. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the edit but tried three times to stop it after previewing to prevent it appearing, without success, so just left it there so I could show what I was talking about. I have very few tools and in any case this has never happened before. @Nihonjoe: How does anyone know that Wikipedia can't be hacked, and @Arjayay: Witch-hunt? Give me a break! And I don't think this warrants a smiley. Jodosma (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) @Cordless Larry: You're right, and given it, that edit raises a specter of account compromise doesn't it? Jodosma, I don't know what is going on, but assuming you didn't do this, is it possible you stepped away from a public computer somewhere; do you have a little brother who might be messing with you that you might interrogate? etc.? I suggest changing your password immediately, to something strong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(

Join WP Japan! 18:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you clarify the steps here, Jodosma? When you say you "tried three times to stop it after previewing to prevent it appearing", do you mean that you changed the text and previewed the change, but didn't save it? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(

Join WP Japan! 18:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

(e/c) @Jodosma: Your post above confuses me. It implies something else going on. I was under the impression you were saying you did not make the edit, entire, period, including the edit summary. Based on your post above, are you saying that: you wrote the edit summary; the issue is that when you clicked edit the   was automatically inserted, and you could not get rid of it, so you wrote the edit summary to flag the issue and then saved?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After I had done my edit and noticed the intrusive one I started from scratch without saving anything, then clicked "edit" again and saw that the &.nbsp; appeared without me touching any key, I just scrolled to check it, then made my summary so that I could explain what had happened. Jodosma (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodosma: are you using AWB or WikEd? Both have these have known issues/settings where sometimes non-breaking spaces are introduced without the editor doing anything. As others have said it's no big deal if this is the case. Nthep (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using WikEd for a long time but this has never happened before. Could this happen randomly? Jodosma (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's happened to me before. Nthep (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:NBSP: "Always insert hard/thin spaces symbolically ({{nbsp}}, {{thinsp}},  ,  ), never by entering them as literal Unicode characters entered directly from the keyboard." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you all, I think I get it now. Jodosma (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article on a musician under the broader page I call the Music Scene in Berkeley California. The article was reviewed and denied inclusion. How can I go about understanding the problem(s) and fixing them?

I also see a reference to the article possibly having been or soon to be deleted. How do I determine if it has been deleted?

Thanks, Steve Dowler Sdowler (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft

reliable sources. Google doesn't find anything about T.A. Talbott for me. Dbfirs 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sdowler Sdowler (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in July 2016, Sdowler. You can see that information if you click on this link: Draft:T.A. Talbott. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it back, you just have to ask.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now back in draft space, but does not have even a single reference. Dbfirs 07:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article (WILLIAM AV CLARK Geographer Demographer) it was sent back for revision I did the revisions but I cannot find the article. How do I find the text and upload. Please help WilliamAVClark (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamAVClark: Hello and welcome. It appears that you did not create the page while logged into the username that you are using now. I could not get any results while searching for the name of the article you gave. Did you create it in a Sandbox under a different username? 331dot (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article was William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer)

WilliamAVClark (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unreviewed submission is at Draft:William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer). Nthep (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit confict) @WilliamAVClark: It's at Draft:William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer). It was resubmitted 26 May 2017 and is pending review. You are welcome to edit it before the unknown time where it will be reviewed PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OK, I have found the page which is located here. I think you edited it while logged out(which is why it doesn't appear under your username's edit history). It appears that you submitted the draft on May 25th and it is still awaiting review. As articles are reviewed by volunteers, it can take some time. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this page as a copyright violation of this site.

suitably free copyright license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I now see the problem as I used material from a court report. If the page can be undeleted it would be a simple task to edit that text. I would be grateful for an undeletion so that I can edit and have the page reviewed thank you 45.50.161.221 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry William, we cannot undelete copyright violations because they are a violation of law and have the prospect for legal liability. You can't copy and paste previously written material (or in the case, if this was your writing, as I advised above, you would have to go through the formal process to release the copyright). As we often tell people: "You may use external websites or other writings as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." You should also understand (as relevant here) that copyright infringement is not avoided by surface modification of existing content, e.g., changing a word here and a word there, while substantially retaining the wording, structure and creative expression in the original material. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

I don't understand what you mean about a court report, unless the content from the website I linked was reproduced there. To give an example from a larger swath of copied content, the draft said:

• "Clark has participated as analyst and expert witness in the major desegregation court cases which took up the question of how we can understand the patterns of ethnic and racial separation in large US cities..."

and the linked website says:

• "He has participated as analyst and expert witness in the major desegregation court cases which took up the question of how we can understand the patterns of ethnic and racial separation in large US cities..."^[1]

Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Erm, I don't know what I was thinking above, but there's no way you can release the copyright, because, despite your account name, there's no way you are the subject—a college professor would have decades of experience with citing sources, not copying and proper paraphrasing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

What I am not understanding is why we cannot bring up the draft , it was not yet accepted to wikipedia, and I can then work on the draft - what you are requiring by deleting my not yet accepted page is requiring me to redo the total submission which is a lot of work. This does not seem a sensible response. I am not asking that the page be accepted simply that I can work on the draft. Please advise 45.50.161.221 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot host material violating copyright - not in article space, not in Draft space, not in user space, or in any other space. Rmhermen (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have run into several instances were a page for a subject redirects to a related page but should exist on its own. Example(1): "Panax", a plant genus, redirects to "Ginseng" which is the common name for some of the species. The "Ginseng" article says, "This article focuses on the species of the genus Panax, named Panax ginseng and P. quinquefolius." This is a VERY good idea. However, since there is no "Panax" article, a lot of information not related to Panax ginseng and P. quinquefolius, including a list of Panax species, is included. I would create a "Panax" article but I do not know if it would be accepted or implemented. Example(2): A plant species name (Aptenia cordifolia) has been determined to be a synonym for (Mesembryanthemum cordifolium). Wikipedia has an article for Aptenia cordifolia and redirects Mesembryanthemum cordifolium to it. Obviously the article needs to be edited to change the names (and probably more). Again, I would edit the article but how would the redirect and article pages be changed. I can not find a process for this.User-duck (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User-duck. You can change a redirect by following the redirect and then click "(Redirected from ...)" below the title. See more at Help:Redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

articles for creation project. That would mean that an experienced editor would review the draft once you thought it was ready and submitted it for review. When and if the draft is approved, the reviewer will move it to the article mainspace, and handle any issues with the previously existing redirect, or ask an admin to assist if that is needed. This method avoids many problems with articles that are still in the process of preparation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the response, DESiegel. I am familiar with the article wizard, but I thought that was for creating new articles. And I do not remember a way to say that the draft was a rewrite. That is why I mentioned "process". Also, I did not know how to change a "redirect" (very easy and I learned a lot about "disambiguation"). I have already edited the Panax page. It was basically a cut-n-paste of information from the Ginseng article, particularly the List of species. Therefore, I think a review is not needed. Besides the "talk" pages, I do not know how to request a review of an article. This would be helpful for major edits. Also, some articles are so bloated with tidbits, stuff that should not be in an encyclopedic article. The original redirect was appropriate since Panax is the "ginseng" genus. But the article focused on only two of the species. I am a plant enthusiast and when I look up Panax I want to learn about the plant, not the crop. It similar to the difference between Zea (plant) and Corn. Thanks again, I am off to make some Zea edits.User-duck (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, User-duck. Apparently i misunderstood -- i had thought, from the conversation above, that this was to be a new article. No we don't have the same sort of review process set up for major revisions that we do for AfC drafts, or not that I am aware of. Please note, in case you were not aware, then when one does a copy&paste from one Wikipedia artice 9or indeed any page) to another, the source must be attributed for copyright purposes. please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details on how to do this, if you didn't already know.

Sometimes an editor who wants to do a major revision, say of Ginseng (since you mentioned it) will create a page with a name similar to Ginseng/revision and invites other editors to look at it before copying it into the article proper. But that isn't a formal review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article where there was previously a redirect is sort of writing a new article though, isn't it? I would say that this is a situation where using the article wizard could be appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons are just for educational purpose, then why are so much porn pictures on wikipedia and commons. Most of these pictures do not have any educational purpose, these are just to have a porn website. Only a small number of pictures are enough to cover educational purpose. Why all porn material from wikipedia and Wikimedia commons is not being deleted?

@

this page for instructions on how to suppress them on your computer. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Reading

this page may also help you understand this. While Wikipedia will not remove images just because they might be offensive to someone(which is the case with many types of images, not just images of human anatomy or the human body), if you feel that an image is truly inappropriate for an article, you should bring it up on the article talk page of the article the image is in. I realize this may not be what you want to hear, but I hope this helps you understand how things work here. Please ask any other questions you have. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Wikipedia is not censored. What one person considers porn, another person may consider educational. That being said, I am not aware of indisputably pornographic images here on Wikipedia. We have some explicit photos used to illustrate specific topics. If you can mention a few articles, that that would be helpful. Wikimedia Commons is a free image repository, and it has its own policies and its own administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Minnin (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

this page for a better explanation. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello,

neutrality. 331dot is correct that an article talk page is the place to discuss what does or does not belong in an article. It is also the place where the regular editors of a page are most likely to see and respond to a comment or suggestion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Minnin (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned off pictures from page

@

Nazim Hussain Pak: Perhaps don't go to the page Nudity

if you don't want to see naked pictures? It's pretty easy to avoid pages with possible naked or suggestive pictures if you pay attention to the title of the page.

I've fixed your

Join WP Japan! 03:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Nudity
• Toplessness
• Topfreedom
• Nudity in film
• Nudity in sport
• Pornography
• Naturism

.page-Nudity img {display: none;}
.page-Toplessness img {display: none;}
.page-Topfreedom img {display: none;}
.page-Nudity_in_film img {display: none;}
.page-Nudity_in_sport img {display: none;}
.page-Pornography img {display: none;}
.page-Naturism img {display: none;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask how I can write colorful text in wikipedia?

@

Join WP Japan! 04:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

WP:NOTHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello,

Nazim Hussain Pak. I think that understanding and upholding Wikipedia's five pillars is an important part of being a good editor. Looking at your own contributions, I see that you created the articles Chak Shafi and Chak Choti Shafi. Both of these articles are lacking in references. If you look at the pillars and at Wikipedia:Verifiability, you'll see that readers of articles should be able to check that information has come from reliable, published sources. These two articles will need to have references to such sources added, or otherwise the unsourced information is likely to be removed. I also note that with this edit, you added the comment "The information is based on my approximation" to the Chak Shafi article. You should never add your own approximations to articles - only information that can be verified by checking reliable sources. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello,

WP:CIVIL. S/he finds and cites appropriate sources for statements in articles, both ones that s/he has added, and ones that need citation when s/he starts to work on an article. s/he generally complies with guidelines and policies, except when there is a very good reason not to. Even more, s/he complies with the consensus of other editors. I would also agree with all the comments above. None of us is the ideal "good Wikipedian" at all times, but many strive to achieve that ideal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello again,

Nazim Hussain Pak. I have been searching for possible sources to use in the two village articles, and I'm starting to wonder if they are in fact both the same place. The co-ordinates given in the infobox take me to the same location on a map. Could you clarify, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for Wikipedia and for considering the points offered above. Sustainability1 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sustainability1. I think you might be confusing plagiarism and a copyright violation. If material is published elsewhere and is subject to copyright, then it cannot be posted on Wikipedia because, as it states beneath the edit window, "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", and such a release is incompatible with the text being copyrighted. If you attribute the text to its source, it isn't plagiarism, but it can still be a copyright violation. If Einstein were alive and posted text here that was subject to copyright, then yes, it would have to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote here tells me that the license on the original is incompatible with the requirements of Wikipedia. All content on Wikipedia must be available for any use and you said that the original was licensed for non-commercial use. ~ GB fan 15:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sustainability1: I assume you refer to User:Sustainability1/sandbox. It was deleted by User:RHaworth as a suspected copyright violation of http://en.calameo.com/books/0006765194f4d3958d2c4. It can be viewed and restored by administrators but if it's a copyright violation then it should not be restored. http://en.calameo.com/books/0006765194f4d3958d2c4 is marked with the license terms "Attribution - NoDerivs - NonCommercial" (CC BY-NC-ND) at http://en.calameo.com/read/0000000012ca0ed594e4a?authid=I2gqrk9RAWwc. This is not compatible with Wikipedia which allows derivative works and commercial reuse of our content. We use CC BY-SA ("Attribution - ShareAlike"). See Wikipedia:Copyrights. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Donating copyright materials

, but this is rarely done for text, because it is rare that material written for another purpose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is most often evident when people post promotional material; but it is also the case that much that is suitable for academic publication is not appropriate for Wikipedia: a Wikipedia article should not contain any speculation, argumentation, or conclusions: it should only summarise what the reliable published sources say, and should not go beyond them. I'm not clear whether or not the text of the Calemeo article would be acceptable or not, because I haven't examined its sources, so I don't know whether it synthesises or draws conclusions beyond them or not - if it were to be used as a Wikipedia article (supposing that the copyright issue had been handled) it would be greatly preferably if it were referenced to sources sentence by sentence.

One more point: you repeatedly refer to "we". Please be aware that Wikipedia accounts may not be shared. If there are several of you, then you should create and use individual accounts (you don't have to use your real names: I do, but many people do not) so that edits can be ascribed to individuals. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why some pages have editing locks. On some pages I want to edit something, but it doesn't let me. Some information is not really up to date.

Thank you

WarriorsFan30112335WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been disruptive editing on the page in the past, pages are protected to stop the disruption. ~ GB fan 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

edit war. Protection can be limited to IP and new users, or to all users except administrators in some extreme cases. If you want to edit a page and cannot, you should post on the article's talk page; at the top of every article should be a tab saying "Talk"; if you click that it will take you to the article's talk page where you can then ask someone else to make the edit for you. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

If you click the "View source" tab then you get instructions and a link for submitting an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how do you protect a pageSvgManiac (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

edit war; a page cannot be protected simply to lock a page to a certain version. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

reliable source, their edit can likely go into the article. You can't keep negative information about the person you are writing about out. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Nudity
• Toplessness
• Topfreedom
• Naturism
• Pornography
• Nudity in film
• Nudity in sport
• Female body shape

Is someone on this great encyclopedia to help me???

Rather than starting a new section with the same query, please post in the section about this above,

Nazim Hussain Pak (making sure that you have read the replies you have received there). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dr. Colson is considered noteworthy, but I lack the skills to create an article. I am now familiar with her life and work, so if an interested editor would reword the article, it would provide me a great deal of information on creating an acceptable article in the future. Thank you WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a wikipedia page is missing in English so I thought about translating it. Would be it ok? Thanks! gionogioGionogio (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Welcome @Gionogio: There are certain steps you should follow if you do a translation. See Wikipedia:Translation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell us which article you're thinking of working on, Gionogio? Not every article in it.wp would necessarily be found suitable for this Wikipedia, and it would be a shame if you did a lot of work and then found that it couldn't be kept. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make the most of being part of the welcoming committee for new users beginning to edit the wiki?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was, this is my first edited article when I'll did it.Gregory R (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? HillelFrei^{• talk •} 22:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not figured out how to add a photo or a picture with subtitles (or without, in that case). Please tell me how. I also do not know how to create a new Wikipedia page from scratch.Huygtfrd (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]