Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 597

This is an current talk page .

Hi, I'd really appreciate some advice regarding a discussion on the John Fleming (American politician) talk page I'm involved in. I have three questions:

1. Am I understanding policy, particularly notability and undue weight? 2. At what point is it appropriate to add the two scholarly references I mention to the article itself, given that there's a discussion ongoing on the talk page? 3. Is this interaction in line with community norms?

Thanks! Shelfpea (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Shelfpea. So that's a pretty involved conversation, but we'll give it a go.

undue weight is primarily a concern where there are minority and majority perspectives on a subject So, the answer here is not necessarily. This is the way I like to think about DUE: Imagine that you had the perfect search engine and you could pick a topic, like coverage of this guy's gaffe, and get 1) every article, book, literally everything that has ever been published on this person in the history of the world, and 2) be able to sort those by every piece that mentions this Onion gaffe and every piece that doesn't. If 4% of these mention it, and 96% don't, then in a perfect world you would commit about 4% of the article to the information.

Having said that, in my hypothetical there is also some theoretical threshold of "outright insignificance" and at some point you wouldn't try to commit 0.08% of an article to a subject; you would simply ignore the information as not being important at all.

Of course in the real world we don't have this, but what we try to do is approximate what it would be like if we did. So this is both important when deciding how much weight to give "support and oppose" viewpoints (e.g., the vast and overwhelming majority of research supports the fact of human contribution to climate change), but it is also useful in trying to judge whether content should be included at all, or simply ignored.

That's a bit of a convoluted answer I know, but hopefully it helps illustrate the point.

TimothyJosephWood

13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. But we need to integrate the differences among sources into your hypothetical, no? So reliable sources would be valued more highly over unreliable, regardless of numerical spread. And reliable tertiary sources, which suggest the material in question is likely to pass the ten-year test, should similarly have different weight. Right?

Could you (or someone else) also weigh in on my second and third questions here? I should add that with regard to the third question, this interaction on the talk page follows an all caps shouting at me in edit comment boxes for the article (which led to a warning from an admin) and a request for mediation (which was denied), both from the same user. Is this considered normal community behavior here? It is...not welcoming. Thanks. Shelfpea (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey

Timothyjosephwood (or others) I'd really appreciate it if you could advise me further, particularly on the last two questions. Thanks Shelfpea (talk

) 11:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Shelfpea. Thanks for the ping. I'm afraid I spent most of the afternoon over at commons and didn't follow up here. Hmm...so here we go. (Sorry for the wall of text response.)

• As to my hypothetical, basically yes. If we were building our "ultimate due weight calculator" we would "weight" (in the statistical sense of Weighting) sources according to their type, primary > secondary > tertiary. Not only that, but we would judge their importance not only by the raw number of publications, but also by the actual word count dealing with the topic specifically and what proportion of the whole that represented.

So in your book (I don't remember which one I looked at yesterday) it would get a "bump" for being...lets say 75% secondary, but 25% tertiary (overall more like a tertiary source than a news article although still arguably very secondary). But it would also get a "downgrade" because such a very small portion of the book actually deals with our topic. In comparison, a news story would get a downgrade for being 100% secondary, but it may get a bump for being 100% about the main topic.

• When to add the sources? Well we have to deal with
  WP:BRD
  , and you would need to get consensus if the change was controversial.
• Finally, about norms. Yes and no.
  TimothyJosephWood
  12:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

who created the main page? The garmine ^(talk) 00:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

or does anybody even know? The garmine ^(talk) 00:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi The garmine. Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles has some information about "HomePage". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It was found there by the first Wikipedians. There is footage of the event. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks, Primehunter The garmine ^(talk) 13:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to invite another wiki user to my sandbox so that they can make edits to it as well?Kcling3 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can send them a message on their user talk page, with a

wikilink to User:Kcling3/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk

) 18:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kcling3 if you wish to invite "interested editors" rather than a specific individual, you could post an invitation to WT:WikiProject Microbiology, which is where editors interested in bacteria (and other microscopic life) can be found. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kcling3: In case it isn't clear, all users can see and edit your sandbox. There are no private pages in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

here. Everyone else can see and edit your sandbox; however, it would usually be impolite to do so without an invitation (explicit or implicit), so it is a good idea to place one. Also, few people (if any) go around looking at sandboxes for article drafts they can improve, so if you want some help it is better to ask. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

16:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

what is machine translation? (Abasule (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)) what is the importance of machine translation?(Abasule (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)) what is the objectives of machine traslation?(Abasule (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)) what is the advantages and disadvantages of machine translation?Abasule (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find useful information in Wikipedia's article at

WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. --David Biddulph (talk

) 16:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

TheSimorgh (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @

WP:POLITICIAN (as well as general content guidelines like neutrality and verifiability). Our personal opinion about a topic's importance doesn't matter in that regard, independent published reliable sources (either in English or any foreign language is OK) are required. Hope that helps a bit, I'll also post some basic links for new editors on your user talkpage. GermanJoe (talk

) 17:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @GermanJoe:

Thanks for all informations you've sent. At the instant sadly the administrator that deleted the article gave confusing informations. Here is the link of the deleted article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Homayoun_Fard

Now I wrote from you and other users to understand the situation.

I respected all terms of use especially the question about neutrality. You can see the biography I wrote on the official website of the candidate www.homayounfard.com . The picture I've uploaded is under Antoine Homayounfard Copyright, the son of Mr Hossein Homayounfard who I'm creating article, so I did have authorization to use the picture. I hope this article can be restored. Thanks as advance.

--TheSimorgh (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @

WP:Your first article. But please make sure to collect enough reliable sources and to disclose an eventual "conflict of interest", before you continue to create a new draft version. GermanJoe (talk

) 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

suitable, free copyright license. That is, but for short, transparently marked and cited quotations, we would need an irrevocable release of the copyright to the world in order to use the content – not the owner's permission for us to use his/her-its non-free content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 21:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Fuhghettaboutit:. I have read your answer. Thank you for your informations but in reply of your explanation, I do have all authorizations from Ayyaran group and Dr Homayoun Fard, (who's website is propriety and copyright propriety) to use every elements useful of the website in the process of creating an article about this politician. Preventively, you could ask and demand me to modify the page and explain me how to modify text to be in the best form before deleting it without any explanation. I mean we're an open source system of information, and users are seemed to be consider as equal by each others like our five main rules are written. So where your right to delete my article is larger than my right to write it and have the right to see your prevention about copyright and form of the content and time to modify my article in consideration of your indications before my work being erased ? I'm absolutely ready to rewrite it according to the indications you will have given to me, even from the form than from the way to use rights and copyrights for uploading a picture. Explain me how to prove that I have those authorizations. Thanks as advance and also best regards. Sincerely. --TheSimorgh (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:Draft space or in a sandbox page so that there is time for advice and improvements. Dbfirs

11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again.

primary sources like the one you copied from, can also be used for limited purposes to verify straightforward facts, but do nothing to demonstrate notability.

So, the way to write an article is to gather those sources first, then determine if an article is warranted by their existence, and if so, write the article only including information they verify (writing in your own words; source are used to verify the information, not the sentences; as you do so, pretend you know nothing about the subject, and write in a just-the-facts style.

Nevertheless, if you still want to try to use some portion of the previously written content from the website (even though much of it cannot be used as written anyway, as promotional, evaluative, self-serving prose), then ways to provide a verifiable release of the copyright are set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials – such as changing the posted copyright notice at the website to properly release the content under a suitably-free copyright license or into the public domain. (You can archive such a release at the talk page using {{Text release}}.)

Meanwhile please note that if you work for the subject, or are receiving any compensation for trying to write this article here, you must disclose your paid contributor status. You can do so by posting to your user page the filled out template {{Paid}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 17:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I've tried to add a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RimWorld#Plot_Update, but I appear to be unable to. The link in question is the following: https://ludeon.com/rimworld/RimWorldGitLogA13toA14.txt AWearerOfScarves (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I think I have provided insufficient information. Here it is:

I want to add a reference with the aforementioned link. When I try to add it via the visual editor, it creates an error message. I would like to know how I can circumvent this issue so that the reference can work. Thank you for your patience.AWearerOfScarves (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello AWearerOfScarves. I am not sure what problem you encountered; I was able to insert that reference, though not by Visual Editor. Can you give us the exact content of the error message?

I am not sure what you want to use that link for (and to me it just looks like a giant dump of bugs/features/fixes), so I reverted my inclusion, but you can copy-paste the syntax for non-VE edition if you want to. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Tried it again using the Automatic reference generator, didn't work. But, I don't think I need to add it, since another reference leads almost directly to the log (yes, it is a dump; it is an update change-log for the game on that (Wikipedia) page. Sorry for wasting your time.AWearerOfScarves (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've searched everywhere and cannot find an answer to this question. Am I able or allowed to replace an old photo of, say the River Len in Maidstone, with a newer photo, showcased on my userpage that I've taken myself? The quality is greater in my photo as it is newer, but I don't want to infringe on the author of the first photo. Any advice? JoshTilley (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Josh. The short answer is, yes.

Go right ahead

.

The slightly longer answer is yes, but in the event that your change is reverted, be prepared to discuss the merits of your image on the talkpage rather than simply

putting it back in. But do feel free to update the article with your image if it's of better quality. Yunshui ^雲_水

15:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• @JoshTilley:: I just did it, since I agree the image is better in all respects (maybe contrast is a bit too high, but the previous one was much too gray). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you, that helps a lot! JoshTilley (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Just my 2c but that image is beautiful so thank you JoshTilley for taking it and uploading it here :), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate that Davey, thank you! JoshTilley (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The picture looks beautiful! Hbran21 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I note that the previous image, File:MaidstoneLen0169.JPG, is being used in the articles Medway watermills (lower tributaries) and River Len. It might be appropriate to change those too, JoshTilley. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, that's done, thank you for bringing it to my attention. JoshTilley (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hbran21, thank you, I really do appreciate that :) JoshTilley (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to create a new article. How can i do that ? Thanks ! ShefaliTomar (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello ShefaliTomar and welcome to the Teahouse.

Creating a whole new article is quite difficult. The recommendation from Teahouse responders is that you spend some time, even months, working on improving other articles and learning the ropes before you try to create a new article from scratch. You should, at a minimum, read

WP:Your first article and Help:referencing for beginners. These should help you avoid the pitfalls that many new editors fall into. Having your first contribution declined can be pretty frustrating and having some experience under your belt can help you avoid the rejection. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}

08:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the good advice above, if my guess is correct, you might also need to read WP:conflict of interest, WP:autobiography or WP:biographies of living persons. Apologies if my guess is wrong. Dbfirs 08:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to know if you can only create an article only on your talk page, or can I do it somewhere else too? Need help on this question ASAP!! (Thanks) Typicalfrances (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

My Wikipedia experience is long but narrow: What I usually do is search for the desired article; if it is not found,you are prompted: 'You may create the page "Foobarque".' If you get this prompt, Foobarque is a link, you have the privilege to create the article just by clicking it. First make sure if you can the article doesn't exist under another name; if so, see

sandbox first to avoid a bunch of initial edits. There may be other ways to create an article. - D Anthony Patriarche (talk

)

Also check out several references to Notability below, or your article may be rejected. - D Anthony Patriarche (talk)

Another alternative, if you want to spend time working on an article to get it ready to be published, and want other people to help you, is to use

WP:Draft space. Dbfirs

09:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Create article above. - D Anthony Patriarche (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia experts,

Please help me to fix my signature hyperlink. If i use four tildes with any message that doesn't reflect in to a hyperlink. Wikibaji 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs)

Look at Special:Preferences. In the signature section is the "Treat the above as wiki markup." checked? If it is does the box right above have a link wikilink to your usertalk or user page? If you check that box you have to put the code exactly how you want your signature to appear including any wikilinks. If you uncheck that box then the software creates the wikilinks. ~ GB fan 12:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems resolved – see the user's sandbox page Special:Diff/771242628. --CiaPan (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much User:GB fan, my issue is fixed now.Wikibaji (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Marked as resolved, based on the OP's statement above. --CiaPan (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

I was having a similar problem, signed comments (4 tildes) were being re-signed by sinebot. After sandbox experimenting, I found a likely cause: If there is an accidental CR/LF (i.e. <Enter>), or probably space or any other invisible charcter after the tildes, SineBot adds another signature. Makes sense, actually, although I suppose SineBot could be refined to ignore white space after the tildes. D Anthony Patriarche 18:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche (talk • contribs)

I've never found that to be a problem myself,

WP:SIGLINK. Cordless Larry (talk

) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and as mentioned above you can do that by removing the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkmark at Special:Preferences. Then your signature will say "D Anthony Patriarche (talk)" and Sinebot will be happy. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll try that, thanks. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Changed UserPage signature as suggested by PrimeHunter above; now there is no date/time and sinebot adds those! See 30 Mar 2017: mb 03:09 Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ (diff | hist) . . (+174)‎ . . SineBot (talk | contribs) (Dating comment by D A Patriarche - "→‎Create and Article: See also")

Which is "best" practice, User Page "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkmark at Special:Preferences or unchecked??  I just want to cut down on the minor changes by sinebot! BTW, is there any difference between 3 tildes and 4? D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Leave it unchecked, D A Patriarche. Signing with three tildes will add your name but not the time and date. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please sign with four ~~~~ to include time stamp. Three ~~~ will omit it. If you only want to change the displayed name from the username to something else then leave "Treat the above as wiki markup" unchecked. It's a setting for more personalized signatures like changing color, font and "(talk)". See more at Wikipedia:Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I've got it now, thanks especially for the clarification of 3 vs. 4 tildes. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

I am new to wikipedia. I just today listened to a great video about "wiring up the brain", and so looked at the "axon guidance" article to see if I could add a link to the video, which I did. At that time, I saw that the "Further reading" section of "Axon guidance" has a link that has a superscripted "permanent dead link" after it. What should be done about that? JeanOhm (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey

TimothyJosephWood

00:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. I found collections from the Royal Society, but none seems to be the one that was in the original "further reading", so I will delete it. Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood

12:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I am looking for any Indian actor-related article rated as stub-class.The garmine ^(talk) 00:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey

TimothyJosephWood

00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks. The garmine ^(talk) 13:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatwa (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't the place for a draft article, so I have suppressed its display. Please read the advice at

WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk

) 13:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have tried twice to get my article accepted and it keeps getting declined! And I was told I could come here for help with my article! Any advice can help! I really want to get this page out there and started! Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostalgic 8907 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nostalgic 8907 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I assume we're talking about the article you've been working on at

WP:ILC

. The purpose of this citation style is to make it easy for the reader to identify what the source is for each fact or claim made in your article. In practice, this means sentence-by-sentence referencing, it's not sufficient to do it by paragraph or by section.

The other problem that you're going to run into is that the references you've provided will likely be deemed insufficient to establish the subject's

notability

. What Wikipedia would like to see is that the subject has been covered by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Newspaper or magazine movie reviews might help establish notability, but you really need more in-depth coverage to meet this standard.

One thing you might do is spend some time improving other articles on Wikipedia and thereby "learn the ropes". Creating an article on WP is pretty hard, since there are increasingly stringent requirements on what you have to do to establish notability and the kinds of sources that are acceptable. Have you looked at

WP:Your first article? That might help you understand why it may feel like you are swimming upstream. Having your first article rejected can be discouraging, but the Teahouse is here to help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}

06:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nostalgic 8907. I endorse jmcgnh's comments above, but can I also add that you shouldn't deleted previous review comments, as you did with this edit? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the information, and I don't recall deleting any edits at all, but I may have I am a little confused with everything I'm doing on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostalgic 8907 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm trying to improve a band page. What information should be included in the most top section of the page. I think it might be called the summary part of the page.

Also, I'm trying to figure out which categories would be most appropriate to include under this section, e.g., history, influences, etc.

Thanks!Radditor (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What type of band page are you talking about? The music type of band or the gangster band? Typicalfrances (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The "lead" (topmost section) should be a general introduction that presents basic facts that are a summary of the detail given in later sections. Are you asking about an

infobox? Have a look at some articles about similar bands for ideas on layout. Dbfirs

09:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, band as in music. Radditor (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Radditor - it seemed pretty clear to me what you were referring to. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both Radditor (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

BOLD editing is always encouraged, but a word to the wise. ..changing the "genre" field in a music article infobox is always contentious, so go to the article talk page first and start a discussion if that is one of the changes you want to make. John from Idegon (talk

) 15:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia my sporting activities regarding 0.303 rifle shooting may be considered enough to be included in the title above, how do I proceed?. Thank you. 86.137.193.213 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If your achievments are actually big and are covered in reliable sources widespread enough, they certainly will find their way to Wikipedia!
Meanwhile I suggest to see

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --CiaPan (talk

) 14:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 86 etc. It's never a good idea to write about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will write about you. It is very hard to be neutral about yourself. John from Idegon (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And as for inclusion in the Notable Residents section of our Belper article, that should come after someone has created an article about you. Rojomoke (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Good morning Teahouse -

I have an article in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CelluloidJam/sandbox and would much appreciate some feedback on it. The new article is for Djanet Sears' 1997 play Harlem Duet - Sears herself has a page and there are several (unlinked) references to the play around the site, so I hope it has grounds for notability.

This is my first article - I've used a template and sourced external references, but I would love advice on other ways I can improve the odds of the draft being acceptable so I'm not submitting in vain. The article is current incomplete, I need to finish the plot summary and a brief 'themes and references' section, but I would love to know if I am headed in the correct direction.

Thank you in advance, Julia

CelluloidJam (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Articles for Creation for review prior to publication. Note that it is reviewed there. If it were to fail, you will be able to work on it more and resubmit. You've done a good job so far. John from Idegon (talk

) 15:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CelluloidJam. I agree that the play is notable. The review in the New York Times and the Stage Door reviews for the performance at the Stratford Festival are solid. I suggest you try to find reviews in Toronto publications going back to the time the play was first performed. You also need references for the awards that the play won. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. I have a question about citing old Toronto article reviews - there are some that I can access but might be behind a paywall for people without a college database subscription (specifically JSTOR or Proquest archives). Are these acceptable references, or am I hooped?

An example: ^[1] CelluloidJam (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources behind paywalls are perfectly acceptable,

WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Many of the best sources, such as scholarly journal articles, are not freely available, but that doesn't stop us using or even favouring them. Cordless Larry (talk

) 18:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Although you should try to avoid linking to a specific institution's access page for the source, as you've done with UBC there, and instead try to provide a direct link. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've been editing a page that's been flagged for notability and want to check that it's now considered notable enough to have the flag removed. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_McGinnis_(author). The addition I just added was that he's credited by a magazine as coining a popular phrase. I want to check if that combined with the existing sources is enough to establish notability. I would flag the account that originally added the flag, but it's a bot!19:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naspirta (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Naspirta. For your info, it was Mike Rosoft who added the notability tag, with this edit. The bot just added a date to the tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry! I'll reach out to Mike Rosoft to see if I can get it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naspirta (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Any other editor can remove the template if they believe that the issue has been resolved, but I will leave this one for others to judge. My point about Mike was really just a clarification. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I create articles? Last Dinosaurs (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Your first article and study the links to better understand the challenges of writing a new article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

21:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to ask for some help to help improve my draft as it was rejected Batozsu89 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume that you mean the article Draft:Protestant church in Sajóvelezd. As explained there, you need to find some WP:Reliable sources that discuss the church in detail. Dbfirs 21:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Batozsu89. As well as finding more references, you need to cite the sources you already list in the text of the article, following the material that they support. Help:Referencing for beginners tells you how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I wish to create a serious article but once I type the word I get redirected to a page that clearly has no links to said word.

Thanks in advance.

TheContribution3837 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheContribution3837: When you are on the redirected page, you can see a green link describes with "Redirected from ..." below the title.
Click on it – and you'll get to the redirecting page.
Then click "Edit" and voilà! --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is one approach,

your first article. When you submit your draft for review and a reviewer accepts it, they will sort out the redirection issue. --ColinFine (talk

) 21:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I am currently creating an article for someone, with limited references. For instance, the person does not have an official launch of his date of birth online. However, he has that information on his company website and other related platforms. He is highly involved in international works and close partnership with USAID and won the Quality Era Awards, Geneva Switzerland. I want to sure if at least 4 references can make the article breakthrough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excellence360 (talk • contribs)

Hello @

WP:ANYBIO). The absolute amount of necessary published coverage can vary from topic to topic, so it's difficult to give specific advice without knowing the specific case and the currently available sources. I'll also post some additional links on your user talkpage. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk

) 11:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I know that sometimes people (including myself) write articles on scientists, majority of which don't have date of birth. As user GermanJoe said: As long as they meet

WP:GNG you should be fine. If you write an article on a scientist, my advice would be to look for an h-index number, the higher the citation rate the better.--Biografer (talk

) 22:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I am just introducing myself. I have written some work that is currently being drafted and would welcome anyone's input into what I have so far. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:August_Joseph_Faber/sandbox August Joseph Faber (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 02:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

administrator. So, you might want to reassess yours and make sure its appropariate for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not understanding why my short citations are not linking to my full citations at: User:RM2KX/sandbox#References, if someone can explain, please? RM2KX (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(1-15 only) RM2KX (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, RM2KX, and welcome to the Teahouse. Long story short:

For Blackmar 2012, it's because you are using |author=Last, First instead of |last=Last|first=First.

For all others, (i.e. those that use a citation template other than {{Citation}}, like {{Cite book}}): you need to add an extra parameter ref=harv.

Granted, those Harvard references are difficult to understand. I wholeheartedly recommend this tool: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, thank you!! I was almost there, but I didn't create the Blackmar reference so I didn't notice it was a different format. RM2KX (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

cautious. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the great advice, Marchjuly. Fortunately, I've taken on a small article with infrequent edit activity and very few valid sources to begin with. I've now expanded the article and improved references, and changing styles turned out to be pretty easy. RM2KX (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I upload an image. Yeshua Ha'MashiachYeshua Ha'Mashiach (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yeshua Ha'Mashiach, welcome to the Teahouse. Before I get into the specifics of how to upload an image to Wikipedia, I would first like to explain what kinds of images that Wikipedia can accept—it can get complicated. One important thing you should be aware of is that Wikipedia takes copyrights very seriously. In order to upload an image on Wikipedia, you need to ensure that you either

1. are the copyright holder for the image (usually, the person who created an image is that image's copyright holder), or
2. have permission from copyright holder not only to use the image on Wikipedia, but also to release the image under a copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia, or
3. are sure that the image is not protected by copyright, or
4. are sure that the image meets all ten requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, which allow the use of fully copyrighted works in specific situations.

In summary, you can't simply upload any image you find on the Internet. If you are confused or unsure whether your image is okay to upload, feel free to describe it here and we would be happy to help clarify. The image use policy describes in greater detail our policies regarding images. Once you are sure that you have the rights to upload a particular image, head over to the Wikimedia Commons, which is where we host most of our free images; you can log in with your Wikipedia account and click the blue "Upload" button on the Main Page to get started—you should be prompted with on-screen instructions. If you need help, feel free to ask here again. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

WP:NOSHARING. Please comply with this policy by setting up three separate accounts for the three people who wish to edit Wikipedia. Each account should have a password unknown to the others. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

04:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone please check my article? I have edited many times but still not accepted. Thank you. -Anis- Anis2520 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

significant coverage to this person. That coverage must be enough to allow an informative biographical article to be written. Sources which just mention that he reached the summit along with several other people are not sufficient. We call those "passing mentions". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

05:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My articel got deleted because of copyright infringement on one of my links. I thought that if it was linked it was alright. How do I go back to revise and re-submit?Freda120 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Freda120. Wikipedia is very strict about copyright infringement, and it simply is not allowed. You cannot add copyrighted written content except for brief quotations which are properly attributed and referenced. You cannot link to any website which itself violates copyright. You must write original content in your own words, and freely license that work to Wikipedia. This is not negotiable. Read the links on your talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)