Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 599

This is an current talk page .

Greetings, I am trying to create a Wikipedia profile for an entertainer that already has a profile in Wikipedia France and in Wikipedia Arabic, could you tell me how to go about it? Do I create the article as if it was new or is there another procedure I must follow? Thanks, Anna PoliAnna Poli (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

new article. If you translate, you must provide attribution to the editors who wrote the French and/or Arabic articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Anna Poli. Please keep in mind that each language Wikipedia has its own standards for notability and qualifying for an article on other Wikipedia projects does not mean the individual will qualify here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Anna Poli, I wish to raise a small but vital point that I fear you might miss. Wikipedia projects are organized by language, not country. This one is the English Wikipedia, it has no specific connection to the US, Britain, or any other English-speaking countries. Similarly the French Wikipedia is not about or connected to France. Each Wikipedia is managed and organized independently, while the entire Wikipedia project (along with other related projects) are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

HI! I own a wiki over on Wikia (littleshop.wikia.com) for Little Shop Of Horrors, right now I run AWB to operate my Bot, but I'd like it to be automatic and always checking for Typos and Vandals...does anyone know some software for that, thats preferably a .jar file or in a .zip folder? I currently run Windows 10. Thanks!FiveCraft (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi FiveCraft. As far as I am aware, Wikia.com & Wikipedia are not the same wiki, so they do not use the same bots & software. Though I am skilled in technology & such, I'm not sure if I'm the right person to ask. Cypher7850 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FiveCraft. The Teahouse a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia - and more specifically than that, the English-language Wikipedia - so I'm afraid we're not well placed to help with technical questions about Wikia, which is an entirely separate website. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the word "ultramicroscope" from the lead of the Microscope article. It is not verifiable, lacks references, and is not mentioned anywhere else in the Microscope article, or even in its own article. I got reverted multiple times and called a liar for saying it's not anywhere else in the article (it isn't) and told it's being discussed on the talk page (it wasn't being).

So, as a courtesy to other editors I opened an RFC on an article that isn't being edited about whether or not we should keep an unsourced statement that isn't covered anywhere else in the article or on Wikipedia, or anywhere besides the places that have copied it from Wikipedia, in the lead of the article.

How long does one usually discuss something like this, keeping a random, unverifiable statement in a science article?

With so many articles needing work, including worse in this article, why are editors fighting to keep random unsourced statements in articles? I usually add sources with everything I add, is that a waste of time? I edit on a cell phone and could clean up 50 articles in the time it has taken to try to remove one unsourced statement. Although I got very irritated, I don't understand why my original edit edit request was drive-by rejected. Are the any science editors on Wikipedia?

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The word "ultramicroscope" no longer appears in the lead of

assume good faith of your fellow editors and do your very best to resolve disputes. The purpose of an RFC is to seek input from other editors, so I suggest patience and a collaborative attitude. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

02:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding to my answer above, it is never a waste of time to add references to articles. It is an improvement to the encyclopedia and I commend you for that practice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In 2007, a book was published named One hundred years of nanoscience with the ultramicroscope. Perhaps that can be added to the article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a technology, rather than a microscope, and it's interesting because it was very advanced for its time. The book might be useful for its article or for Microscopy, but I bet I could find a source that defines it today as a method rather than a microscope. This article is in bad shape, I argue it needs other work on the basic article before adding a now obscure technique. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think when the response to a polite and correct request for edit is, "Not done: The Ultramicroscope text appears to be on topic and adequately placed in this article. -- Dane talk 20:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)" indicating Dane didn't even look at the article or my edit request followed by my other edit requests being denied without reason, ignored, and reverted off the page, to put the burden on me to be polite in the face of such overt hostility is not reasonable. The article is in bad shape, unsourced throughout and contradicts Wikipedia's other articles that it links to in almost every other sentence. It shouldn't take 12 hours over 6 days to remove one statement that has no sources or even any support anywhere else in the article or on Wikipedia. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have been mentioned here I will respond with my rationale. I denied the edit request based on the context of it's usage in the article and "An ultramicroscope is a microscope" from the

assume good faith policy. You accused me of not looking at the article or your edit request. I would have had to look at your edit request to process it. Just because it wasn't processed in your favor does not mean that I did not review it, as I had. -- Dane ^talk

03:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, there is no "overt hostility" in Dane's response, except possibly in your imagination. If the article is in as bad condition as you say, then continue making general overall improvements rather than arguing at length about a single point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? He keeps adding unsupported information. His source does not call it a major tyoe of microscope, it calls it a microscope arrangement, what I suggested above. Is there a list of improvements I'm not allowed to make? I should allow inaccuracies by editors with accounts? This is the lead of a major article. Everyone else should be more concerned about it's accuracy than scoring points against me. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please cultivate a collaborative attitude and refrain from false accusations of "overt hostility". You are allowed to make improvements when you gain consensus from other editors for such improvements. Get to work building consensus, and abandon accusing other people of things that no one else can see. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Should I do this to make my points on Wikipedia, purposefully trash a high profile article to get a dog IP editor to play fetch? When you treat people this badly when they start by innocently trying to improve the encyclopedia, what I thought Wikipedia was about, you wind up with people having bad attitudes. Humans aren't trained by being treated like shit. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You cannot correct another editor's bad behavior by behaving badly yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We agree on something! --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

But you also can't correct someone else's behaviour by vandalizing a Wikipedia article, as City claims he routinely does. --04:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk)

How long should the RFC run? It takes about ten seconds on Google to show that light, electron, and scanning probe microscopes are major types. It's been a week to find what should be readily available information, if it true. This is in the lead of a major article, with probably 1000s of readers since it was inserted. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

According to

WP:RFC, "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached or it is apparent it won't be. Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What are the rules of editing if the citied post has alleged defamation for a brand or an individual and no legal venue to prove it? Is it fair to post the allegation even without proof? Reason I ask is, I came across a few pages where the content is written one sided. Any edits made are immediately reverted by handful of repeat editors, perhaps watching the page. I have randomly noticed across on a few popular pages. I am new to editing community. Any insights on keeping the forum unbiased is welcomed guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jui89 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jui89 and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first step is to post your objections on the Talk page of the article. If there is no resolution to be found there, you can take the violations of

WP:OWNERSHIP through the WP:Dispute resolution process, but if you feel the violations are sufficiently egregious and the other parties are unresponsive, you may need to go to one of the noticeboards, in this case, probably WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

.

If we are talking about the reversions and restorations occurring on the

Gravity4 page, which has not - as far as I can see - been discussed on the article's talk page, then you should be aware that properly sourced information about a company cannot be removed merely because it reflects negatively on the company. You can argue that the issue is not notable, that it merely contains allegations in an ongoing legal dispute, and that presenting just one side of the dispute is non-neutral - but negative information about a company is certainly allowed by WP. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}

04:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oywl (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not the number of sources that matters, it's whether they are reliable, independent of the subject, and discuss the topic in depth (not just a mention). See WP:Reliable sources and WP:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (people) for guidance. My personal opinion is that you are not far off establishing notability, but some of your references are just mentions. Try replacing those with ones that discuss in depth. Dbfirs 07:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

WP:GNG for more information on the requirements. Cordless Larry (talk

) 07:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oywl (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIVX

I've done everything right!

Thank you.

Alibyte (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alibyte. PIVX has been nominated for deletion but no final decision has yet been made. The issue is whether or not there is enough significant coverage of PIVX in independent, reliable sources to establish that this company is notable. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You are free to argue in favor of keeping the article in the deletion debate, but it would be a good idea to mention that you wrote the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Alibyte: you have not "done everything right". For an article to be accepted, it needs to cite several reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. None of the sources currently cited is independent. For the article to avoid deletion, someone will have to find and cite some independent sources. Maproom (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

hi there. got your email, so would you be able to help us with getting a couple of names onto wikipedia? Geofftsui (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geofftsui. By e-mail, are you referring to an e-mail notification about the Teahouse invite on your talk page? I'm just checking as there have been instances of users being e-mailed with offers of help to get articles on to Wikipedia, which have turned out to be scams. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geofftsui. Is it your custom to refer to yourself in the plural, or do you represent some organisation? Wikipedia allows only personal accounts. If that is your personal account, please see WP:Autobiography. Dbfirs 07:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

One more point,

promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia, and if you come here with that purpose, you are likely to have a rough ride. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which have already been written about in depth in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk

) 09:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we please play volleyball? ChristopherGozling (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello
  vandal" game played by administrators. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}
  10:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to create a sub-category in the Wikiproject/mammals for bats, like the one already existing for Primates, Rodents, etc. Can I just edit the page of the Wiki project and add the section on bats? Or should I contact a specific person part of the Wikiproject Mammals? I had a look to the Wikiproject Council, but I could not find the solution about my question. I mainly would like to avoid to not respect the rules of the wikiproject/mammals, as I am hoping to have some members to support my sub-group. Thanks in advance! Fulup56 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fulup56. The talk page for the mammals project is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The page

It's intended (I assume) for people who are searching for information on the New Zealand news aggregator website Noted, which is owned by BMG. Not very obvious, since Noted isn't mentioned in the BMG article at all... Yunshui ^雲_水 14:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :) MrBrug (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

To add from my above subject, there are actually 2 languages linked to "article A" and 2 other languages linked to "article B". However, all languages should be linked, preferably to "article A" (with the Enligsh one and more expanded references). Here, I will link to the Wikidata pages, to emphasize that there are 2 languages for each article. But I don't know how to link/merge all to the same one.

Article A: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5129641 Article B: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1942928

Please, if someone could supply a link to information on how to proceed with this, I would be very grateful. Hope you understand my concern. Thank you! Treetear (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Treetear:, if you think the two Wikidata items are duplicates of each other you can merge them. Open the page you want to merge into the other (i.e. the one you don't want to keep) and in the toolbar at the top click on "merge with ...". This should open the merge wizard for you which is fairly easy to go through, just list the other page and why you think they should be merged. That should then list all the various Wikipedia articles on the same Wikidata item. Nthep (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep:, thank you! Brought me in the right direction, I found https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Merge where it was stated that I should go to Preferences -> Gadgets to enable Merge. This made it possible for me to find the Merge button up top next to the search bar. And thus my problem was solved -- thanks for resolving this for me! Treetear (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I"m Otto. I would like you to tell me how can I get the contents box to appear automatically when I am creating a new article, cause it doesn't show up with me no matter how many titles there are. Thank you in advance. Otto Sheva2 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey

TimothyJosephWood

16:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I'd like to ask about how I can get rid of the redirect page that has taken place of my Sandbox. Note that the original article has been created. The article in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaharituber_pfeilii. AWearerOfScarves (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:U1). To access a page that is a redirect, one way is to navigate to that title, then when you are redirected, you will see at the top of the page you arrive on, just below the title: (Redirected from NAME) Click on the link and you will acess the redirect. By the way, there's no actual need to use that sandbox. You can simply create a sandbox at a dedicated User space draft in your user or user talk namespace at an intuitive name for the topic you are writing about. For example, if you wanted to write about "Widgets", you can create a draft at User:AWearerOfScarves/Widgets. (You can also create drafts in the draft namespace.). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 19:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!AWearerOfScarves (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I just created my first wikipedia.org article - for "Memoriad". The article had already existed but had been previously been deleted for being like an advert (and I agree).

The new page I made is 100% original wikipedia content, cited extensively, and definitely not like the original content. The only problem I see is that it is short (I only worked on it for 1-2 hours) but of course can be expanded by anyone.

However, it was deleted immediately under G4 (replacing a deleted page with very similar content or content that has the same problems as the deleted page) with the comment "this has even less substantial content than the previous version".

I don't see why this is a G4 deletion, and I don't see why the correct procedure here is not to continue adding content and improving the style, like surely every other Wikipedia page.

If anyone has any thoughts on this, or can offer advice, I'd appreciate it, otherwise it feels like 2 hours wasted! Daniel16056049 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would have G4'd it but I do see why one might tag it for that.

My advice for writing any article is to:

• Gather as many
  professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources
  as you can find.
• Narrow the sources down to just the ones that are specifically about the subject (e.g. an article in a newspaper specifically about it) or provide in-depth coverage (a whole chapter in a book) -- but have no direct connection to the topic (so not the Memoriad website)
• Summarize and paraphrase those sources in a simple text editor that removes all formatting (I use
  Microsoft Notepad
  ).
• Rearrange those summaries into a paragraph or paragraphs. If you can't make a paragraph out of all of it, the subject might not be notable.
• Start the article with just that paragraph or paragraphs, then pad it with additional sources that don't have a connection but aren't as in-depth. Only add sources connected to the subject last, and try to never let them take up more than a quarter of the references.

It's generally best to ignore previous versions of any article except to gather any sources that were used (and only if they're high-quality). It takes a bit more work before hand but the first version you put onto the site will clearly establish undeniable

notability and so make it very hard to delete. Ian.thomson (talk

) 00:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Daniel16056049. De728631 is the best person to explain the situation in detail, since they deleted the article.

In my opinion, the three most important elements needed for creating a Wikipedia article that will be kept are:

1. References to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and
2. References to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and
3. References to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

Everything else is secondary and can easily be corrected if the references are rock solid. And no amount of sophisticated editing can make up for weaknesses in the references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am new as an editor to Wikipedia. I wanted to add someone to the article "Loara High School" section "Notable alumni" but when I do the entry ends up in black font. I would like it to look like all the others (which are in blue font). How do I do this? Thank you!!!! David H. Davidhhelman (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The blue font shows that we have an article on that person (linked like

WP:Notable. Dbfirs

20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Presuming that this was your attempt to add the name, Davidhhelman, then it did show up as a link in blue. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Davidhhelman, if you had already visited the page you were trying to add, Terri H. Finkel, it would have shown up in a deeper shade of blue, which you may have mistaken for black. Rojomoke (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to know if there is any section where I can consult about the validity (or not) of a source as a reference, for different topics of specific items (for example, websites valid as a source for articles on software). I ask that because sometimes we want to edit articles on specific topics (science, technology), which will not appear in the mass media, but in specialized webs of the sector, which we may not know and do not know if they are renowned, or if they are respected within of that specific area of knowledge.(I think I have seen a section where some media were discussed and listed as reliable, I do not remember where) Thanks!Ane wiki (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Aloha and welcome to the Tea House. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can ask the community at large about reference issues. Happy Editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Ane wiki (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I need a button like the one some users have on their talk pages to skip you to the bottom of the page. Please? The garmine ^(talk) 03:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:Help desk/header before I found it). --ColinFine (talk

) 10:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks. The garmine ^(talk) 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi friends just now I have receive a massage in the massage written "mr.jorj man you have a mistake you are invited tea house" whts mean. Jorjman (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That message was written in the wrong place, by an unregistered user, and gave no indication of what mistake he thought you had made. You should ignore it, and maybe delete it. Maproom (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't find a draft of an article I was working on yesterday - where should I look?SDAcord (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SDAcord, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a list of all pages you have edited here: your contributions. Perhaps this is the draft you are looking for: User:SDAcord/How to create a wikipedia article – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

its about "mozavi technologies" page that i created just now but it is showing "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic."

what can i do to resolve this??

Mozavi (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably nothing as there are no references.... see

WP:SPAMMER for some suggestions. Regards, Ariconte (talk

) 22:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope this will help you. Please let us know if you have any question. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Can you create an article about a specific person? i.e. their lives journey success etc?

talk

) 19:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

by the way, you might want to

talk

) 19:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I change the info box to the right side of the page?Aashmalipatel (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

User:2001:569:7829:CE00:54FC:80EC:7FF1:F97F/sandbox

– is that you've made a table that sort of looks like an infobox but isn't exactly one. The proper way is much easier. Simply copy the text below and add it to your article and fill in the relevant fields:

{{Infobox park
| name           = 
| alt_name       = 
| image          = 
| image_size     = 
| image_alt      = 
| image_caption  = 
| map            = 
| map_width      = 
| type           = 
| location       = 
| nearest_city   = 
| coordinates    = 
| area           = 
| created        = 
| operator       = 
| visitation_num = 
| status         = 
| designation    = 
| open           = 
| owner          = 
}}

For more information, see {{Infobox park}} – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! Aashmalipatel (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Long standing tradition says that the Clement Weaver House, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Weaver>, was built in 1679. I have new dendrochronology evidence that shows the house could not have been built before 1707.

As a first edit to a Wiki page, I added a section to the page on this study and its results, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Weaver%E2%80%93Daniel_Howland_House#Dendrochronology_Results_Dating_House_to_1707>.

Because this is a controversial finding, I did not change the main page, but rather added these new findings at the end.

My question to the experts is whether this is a reasonable method, or should I do this in another way.

Thanks! Cottonwood125 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

sources to be considered reliable (being posted to Google Drive doesn't really count). Could you confirm the status of the report, and whether it has been covered in secondary sources (which we might be able to cite instead)? Cordless Larry (talk

) 20:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Aloha and welcome to the Tea House.

Adding referenced scientific sources and their conclusions is one thing, but changing long standing academic consensus is not what a Wikipedia article is for. You cannot supersede the other sourced conclusions and claims unless it is the academic consensus in general.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I got a map from OpenStreetMaps.com which is copyright free, and they have clearly stated I can use their maps. However I'm not sure how I can upload a picture that is not my work? I have a screenshot saved on my computer, and would want to add it to my infobox. Can you please tell me how I can do that?Aashmalipatel (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Aloha and welcome to the Tea House. Simply answer the upload question that the image is of a free license. You should also consider creating a Wikimedia Commons account to upload images there. Here is an example of a OpenStreetMaps upload I did a few years back; OpenStreet Maps map.

If you have further questions, feel free to ask.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a conflict of interest and have extensive changes to submit on a wiki page and am unsure of how to make this clear when the edits are on a talk page.

Most of the text is new text. There is also a lot of text that I would like to propose to be deleted, either because it is obsolete, irrelevant or has been re-written and some current text that has been moved.

Because the changes are extensive, I don't know how to submit this information on a talk page without making it too confusing.

My proposed changes are in a new section on the talk page. Should I:

1. cut and paste a clean version of the text with footnotes. 2. somehow show the new text with the old by perhaps italicize the current text and marking the current text for deletion with brackets? The new text would be in regular font.

I have a legal black line copy which clearly shows text added, deleted, moved from and moved to. Ideally, it would be very helpful if I was able to make this document available to the reviewers and simply post new text as a clean copy.

Any suggestions?BluebirdHill5 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi BluebirdHill5 - Firstly, thank you for not editing the page where you have a conflict of interest.
I have reviewed a number of such "re-writes" and the difficulties of the neutral reviewer when faced with large scale alterations are:-

1. Assessing whether there is a change of emphasis, or an attempt to "skew" the article
2. Coping with a large number of changes, when multiple references may need to be read, in order to verify that the references used support the proposed changes

We are all volunteers and, as someone who may be called away at any time, I cannot dedicate myself to a long, intricate, review, and I am sure many other editors are the same.
IMHO it may be better to concentrate on the main problems with the article initially, and then deal with minor items as several separate requests. The problem with extensive changes is that, if the reviewing editor disagrees with any part of the proposal, the whole may be rejected. Furthermore, understanding the major amendments, allows the minor amendments to follow on logically, whereas, if the first amendments are minor, and appear to conflict with the rest of the article (as the major changes have not been implemented) they may be rejected as illogical. Good luck - Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjayay.

Even if I break down the edits to smaller sections, how would you suggest that I note the language to be deleted and why? If this were done on the actual page, you could delete, provide a note for the deletion, and insert new language.

What about moving text from one part of the page to another?

When you provide a citation on the talk page, is a citation number assigned to the reference once it is accepted?BluebirdHill5 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

BluebirdHill5: I see that you have already added a long section, in a mixture of roman and italic type, to the talk page. However, its is not at all clear, at least to me, which is the text you want removed, which is the text you want it replaced by, and which is the text explaining your reasons. I suggest that you make things easier for other editors by trying to deal with your proposed changes one small thing at a time. Maproom (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

... and, in answer to your last question above: when you provide a citation on the talk page, a citation number is assigned automatically. All such citations are, by default, then listed at the foot of the talk page. This may be confusing if there are other later threads, so it is best to add {{reflist|talkpage}} to the foot of that thread: this will cause all sources cited above it to be listed at that point. Maproom (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! i just uploaded this phorograph here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Captain_Hollywood_Project_(Official_Photo).jpg

the photographer wants to know what needs to be done to keep the picture in the wikipedia database.

we plan to upload it as a profile image. what must i do to submit it properly?

does photographer need to email [email protected] in order to verify that he wants this picture on wikipedia?

Sorry

talk

) 19:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Maxxmusicfan is the photographer, Lil Johnny, judging by the wording of the question ("photographer...he"). I note that that permissions e-mail address is for Wikimedia Commons, whereas you have uploaded the image to Wikipedia, Maxxmusicfan, but I'm not an expert with image licencing so I will leave it for others who know more about that comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

talk

) 20:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Aloha and welcome to Wikipedia Tea House Maxxmusicfan.

Your question regards the "Fair use" of images and how to follow all pertinent policy and guidelines in order to keep the image for use on the article. First, please remember that limited release to Wikipedia by the author is not actually possible. But in order to use the image for an article, all points of the "Fair Use" rationale must be completed or the image can be deleted as a copy right concern. A "Fair use image must be of a reduced size and should be no larger than 500px wide. The rational must include the copyright owner, and all "na" replaced with full explanations.Mark Miller (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

After further review, the image does not pass criteria for use on Wikipedia as there are free works readily available to represent the subject. It is likely the image will be deleted. The author could release the image on Wikimedia Commons in an acceptable free license but that would still not guarantee a consensus for use in the info box. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the information. so i need to get the photographer to submit a 'photo' instead? as opposed to a branded photo image to wikipedia? i have actually just put the photo into wikipedia commons now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Captain_Hollywood_Project_Photo.jpg so once i put this into an actual acticle it 'could' be deleted? why would that be the case. what's the rationale behind this? Maxxmusicfan

Hello Maxxmusicfan. You earlier indicated that you are not the photographer yet you uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons as the work of Tony Dawson-Harrison. If that is accurate, then the only person who can freely license that image is Tony Dawson-Harrison himself. You do not have the power to license that image based on a verbal conversation. We need a legally binding license in writing. Please make sure that Tony Dawson-Harrison knows that such a license allows anyone to use that image for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without permission or payment.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Friends,

Good news! I have successfully made the changes to the history of Eugene, Oregon, that I have been working on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silver_Water/sandbox Thanks to @Cullen: for pointing out that my initial error was not copying and pasting the source editor with its wikicodes!

Footnotes automatically renumbered and populated themselves. Hooray!

(2) Apparently, I may have used external links for the wikipedia pages that I refer people to in these short paragraphs. Thanks to @DashyGames: for this information. Could someone please check if I have done the links correctly? Should they be re-done?

Thank you all for your kind help.Silver Water (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Template:RP may be used). Other than those things, the formatting of your draft seems OK. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 04:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

My first draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Videoart_at_Midnight was declined with the following reason: This draft reads more like an advertisement for the art exhibition than like a neutral Wikipedia article.

So I deleted two sentences "The entrance is free. Everybody is welcome" and paragraph "Edition" which sounds probably most like an advertisement. Now it's actually just the translation of the German Wikipedia version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoart_at_Midnight.

I resubmitted the new draft.

If it still sounds like an advertisement, please let me know. Or please don't hesitate to make corrections. I'm not a native English speaker and certainly need help for a serious wikipedia article.

Two third of the visitor of the platform and also of the web site are english speaking. A lot from US. I think it is relevant and worth to be mentioned also on en.wikipedia

Looking forward to getting your comments.

Best Bueschinger Bueschinger (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Bueschinger, It looks pretty good to me, except the German article has more references. I think you've got it neutral and it doesn't read like a commercial now. By the way, if you have a source for the "it's free and everybody is welcome" it wouldn't be advertising if you phrased it in a neutral way like, "no admission fee is charged." White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you for the positiv feedback. I added: Admission is free and open to the public. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bueschinger (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That sentence should probably be accompanied by a reference to a reliable source, Bueschinger, as White Arabian Filly suggested. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, when you translate an article from one language variant of Wikipedia to another, you need to acknowledge the original article in an edit summary, as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. I will edit the article now and make a note of the translation for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you all for your response and comments.

Cordless Larry, the German text is also written by myself, so I think it is not just a copying (from another author). Which sentence do you mean? That admission is free? Bueschinger (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence needs a source, Bueschinger, as do some other statements in the article (now marked with citation needed tags). I think it's best to acknowledge the translation even if you wrote the original article, as others have contributed to it at least in part. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you for your assistance, Cordless Larry. I will work on it. Bueschinger (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I access the page where it shows things that might need fixing? I found it once and worked on an article, and now I can't get back.

Thank you!

WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it.

WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, WikiSquirrel42. For the benefit of other new editors, the page that contains links to countless articles needing work is Wikipedia:Community portal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to use personal photos such as from the cell phone & post it onto a related article? What are some examples in which the photo be removed other than through copyright violation or irrelevance to the topic? Thanks in advance. CubeSat4U (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:BRD may be needed to establish a consensus for including the image. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 04:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CubeSat4U. I want to commend you for donating your photos for free use by anyone. Modern cell phones can take very good pictures, and in many cases, those photos can be much better than ten year old amateur photos. On the other hand, higher quality cameras such as DSLRs will produce even better photos. Please continue to contribute your photos of your local historical sites, government buildings, major corporate headquarters, secondary schools, colleges and universities, distinctive local wildlife, landscape scenery, and so on. Many of your photos are likely to be the best freely licensed images of those specific things, and will find their places in the encyclopedia. In any case, they will be available to anyone doing in depth image research on a given topic. That is something to be proud of. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm new here, so sorry if this is something obvious. I don't know where to ask the following question/make the following suggestion, so any help would be much appreciated.

I noticed that the quantity-based categorization of languages on the bottom of the main page contains a one million, a 250 thousand category, and a 50 thousand category.

Since some of the languages categorized as having more than 250 thousand pages have now more than 500 thousand, including Persian, Arabic, and Portuguese (nearing one million), and considering that there is a wide gap between 250 thousand and one million, it would be appropriate to add a 500 thousand category for listing these languages. This would encourage language diversity and add to Wikipedia's common knowledge and neutrality (As an Iranian, it would make me proud too :).

Where can I make this suggestion? Love Alireza1357 (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I suspect that's probably an issue for Meta-Wiki (which is about as far as I can guide you there as I never log in over there). I don't think en-wiki has control over this main page, just this one. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might have more info on what to do over there (or someone over there who is already familiar with Meta-Wiki might want to go there with you), though I'm still pretty sure it'd have to be brought up on Meta eventually. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alireza1357, welcome to the Teahouse. Ian thought you meant https://www.wikipedia.org but you are clearly asking about Main Page#Wikipedia languages. Requests can be posted to Template talk:Wikipedia languages. The limits are sometimes changed. They are chosen to give a reasonable length to each list. meta:List of Wikipedias shows six from 500,000 to 1,000,000. The editors of the template may consider that too little for a separate line. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Ian.thomson & PrimeHunter.
I'll make my suggestion on Template talk:Wikipedia languages as suggested by PrimeHunter. The mood here really feels like a Tea House :).
By the way, this mention and linking thing takes too much time (I've edited the source and made comparisons and all to make sure it works fine). Isn't there any tool that helps in inserting mentions, links to pages and all?
Sorry if I didn't have mentioned you correctly or made any other newbie mistakes.
Love,
Alireza1357 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Template:Yo (a redirect to Template:Reply to). That's the shortest way to produce a mention, but copying [[User:Alireza1357|Alireza1357]] from a signature may be faster. Some websites have @Alireza1357 but not us, and it would sometimes have been ambiguous because usernames can contain spaces. PrimeHunter (talk

) 10:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have created an article on Brian Giffey and would appreciate any guidance as to when and how it might be published. Currently it is in a kind of holding bay where I visit it daily. Tomorrow will be a week since its inception, so maybe you'll tell me I'm just impatient. Or is there anything I can do to speed up its publication?Tinatamman (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:article space

, so it's considered a genuine article. Congratulations! However, new articles by new users will go through a review, and your hasn't been reviewed yet. The most noticeable difference is that articles like this are not indexed by third party search engines (e.g. Google) and you won't find your article by googling it until the review is complete.

You don't have to do anything; just wait. As for the schedule, somebody else might know better than me. P.S.

Do not use "ibid" as that will go haywire as soon as someone enters a different source somewhere there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs

) 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources suggests that our articles should be based on reliable, published sources, and I'm not sure whether university records would be considered published. Is there an alternative source available here (you cite three in that footnote, so perhaps the other two will suffice)? Also, would it be possible for you to provide more details than "The Times, 1.12.1911" and "The Times, 23.12.1931" for those references, such as an article name and page number? Cordless Larry (talk

) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

MarioFan89878 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Notability guidelines. The article has no references at all, a media search found no coverage of it, and it appears to cover a course that is similar to innumerable other courses. If you can offer something to support why the article should be kept, then please do so by adding to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater (course).--Gronk Oz (talk

) 14:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me? Derk van der Wal (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this, your additions are being reverted because you keep adding links to articles that were "deleted some time ago." Although I see that you are working on a draft for an article about openHAB, it currently suffers from some sourcing problems. My recommendation for that is to:

• gather
  professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources
  that are unaffiliated with openHAB.
• narrow it down to the highest-quality ones that are specifically about openHAB. This does not include entries in "lists of (whatever) software," or sources about something else that happen to mention openHAB in passing. Even sources about people affiliated with openHAB do not work.
• summarize those highest-quality sources, then arrange those summaries into paragraph form. If there is not enough material to form at least one paragraph, then the subject may not be
  notable
  .
• post just that version first and wait for that to be approved. After it is approved, then start expanding it with additional and/or affiliated sources (but still excluding ad-like listicles like "best (whatever) software of [year]").

Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Derk,

As you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_home_automation_software&action=history it does accept your changes but MrOllie undoes them. Maybe it is because there doesn't exist any pages for the addition you make. Maybe you should first add a page for your addition and then add it to the list. In any case, it is a good idea to just ask MrOllie why he undoes your changes.

Best Alireza1357 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall start again with the openHAB page.

It's my first wikipedia page ever. Derk van der Wal (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Your first article first. --ColinFine (talk

) 14:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

MarioFan89878 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm uploaded the "Smm underwater".

MarioFan89878 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MarioFan89878. Have you previously edited as Yoshi22222myl, by any chance? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:image use policy so that you better understand what is involved in contributing, beneficially and effectively, to Wikipedia. This will help you as well as everyone else to improve Wikipedia. Nthep (talk

) 15:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Hwdirre (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello
  non-English
  sources. So notability does not seem to be a concern to me.

There are a few possible issues in the article: the image File:Iccard.gif stinks of a copyright violation, and the "card types"/"point system" sections may be unduly detailed. But on the whole, it looks fairly good. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samurais,

I've started to create a few Persian Wikipedia pages base on translations from English ones. They are summary translations and I intend to expand them when I find time.

Am I breaking any rules? Is this a minefield? Am I running on thin ice? When will the hell break loose?

If not, do you have any suggestions for improving/optimizing this procedure?

Thanks in advance, Alireza1357 (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. See detailed instructions: Wikipedia:Translate us and fa:ویکی‌پدیا:خودآموز (ترجمه) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Welcome, Alireza1357. Finnusertop's links are valuable, but here are a few points to emphasize:

1. Do not use unchecked machine translation. Machine translation with today's available technology is generally of a poor quality; you can use it to help you technical terms for instance, but the whole text should have been proofed by a human.
2. Respect copyright. Wikipedia's licensing requires attribution of derivative works, such as a translation. Check the policy at the Persian WP; I guess it is probably similar to en-WP's policy, see the short paragraph Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Translating_from_other_language_Wikimedia_projects.

If you play by the rules, dissemination of Wikipedia's material by any means including translation is encouraged, so go ahead! Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)