Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 354

Archive 350

←

Archive 352

Archive 353

Archive 354

Archive 355

Archive 356

→

Archive 360

WB and WP

Can anyone please tell me what is the relation of Wikiboks and Wikipedia? Like if the contents are just copied from Wikipedia? Or we can have a personal book? Or it must not have links et cetera. Please provide me some basic knowledge of copyediting from WP to WB. Thank you!
117.207.31.137 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Wikibooks is a separate project from Wikipedia. Both are managed and provided by the Wikimedia foundation, but have very different purposes. Wikibooks is for creating original free textbooks. It is possible that content may be copied from Wikipedia (with suitable attribution), but generally the writing style of an encyclopaedia is different from that of a textbook. (It is unlikely that much will get copied the other way, both for reasons of style and for reasons of verifiability).

If you are creating a textbook in Wikibooks, and think some content in Wikipedia is appropriate, you may copy and paste it, but you must attribute it, usually by giving a link to the source Wikipedia page in the edit summary. This applies even if you are then going to go on to edit the text in Wikibooks, as it will then be a derivative work (which is permitted, but must be attributed).

If you just want to put together a personal book of certain Wikipedia articles, you may be interested in Books within Wikipedia, which are quite a different thing from Wikibooks. --ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding images

I would like to add some images from the Bertha von Suttner project to Wikipedia. These images are all 19th century; are there any potential copyright problems ?

Additionally, how would I actually go about doing this ? The embed file option doesn't seem to have an option to go from an external site.

Also, I tried asking this question several times via the "ask a question" form and it did not work for some reason. Thank you, Stan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.32 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Stan. Images from the 19th century are probably public domain. I've had a quick look at http://www.berthavonsuttner.com to see if it claimed copyright on anything, but it doesn't as far as I can see. (For more recent images, the default assumption is that material is copyright, but for pre-1923, the default is that it is not).

The Mediawiki software will never display images from an external site: they must always be uploaded first, to Wikipedia, or preferably to Wikimedia commons. Please see WP:UPLOAD. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have the same question, I have already uploaded to wikimedia and gotten my permission/copyright clearance, I replaced the article with an updated one and then forgot how the bring in the photo. Can you help please. Omogbe (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the link is File:Tony ezekiel.jpeg I know it more than that, but can't remember what else. Omogbe (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Omogbe. The picture is File:Tony Ezekiel.jpg (case is significant). However, it says that the permission has not been received, and it will be deleted on 24th. You say "The copyright holder sent me the photo and the right to use", but this is not enough: you need to get the copyright holder to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, I have sent the permission from the owner through the ticket number that was issued. If it was not received I can send it again. Thanks.Omogbe (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, I have sent the permission given to me by the owner through the ticket number that was issued to me. If it was not received I can send it again. thanks. Omogbe (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine. I have already requested permission through this ticket number [Ticket#2015061710008341] Permission/Copyright that was issued to me. Righ now I am confused. Omogbe (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Omogbe. The trouble is that almost all the people who look at and edit Wikipedia (and even most administrators) do not see those tickets, and have no way of knowing that you have submitted one. What you need to do, as it says on the page I linked to above, is to edit the Commons description page and insert the template {{OTRS pending}}, which gives people notice that you have submitted a request. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I need help

I need your help I want to delete a page I made but I don't know how. Please help. 11:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)11:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeahv (talk • contribs)

@Romeahv: I could not find which page you have created, but here, WP:DELETE you can find criteria. And at WP:SPEEDY you can the suitable template for speedy deletion.
117.207.24.146 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The page was Romeah, and has already been deleted. Please don't do that again. You can find out how to create constructive articles on Wikipedia by taking the tutorial. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

my article

Can someone have a look at my article for me ....Exec2Music Exec2music (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Exec2music. I guess you are asking about Draft:Aoife Scott. Unfortunately, that has been deleted as a copyright violation. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

what do you do when a page is a trainwreck

I've been working on cleaning up pages about gangs & organized crime in canada. I ran into this page, and have no idea what to do...the sources aren't reliable (or are non-existent) and the whole thing doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I don't know where to start or what approach to take?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Canadian_organized_crime

Cycloth (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cycloth You have two choices, If there are sufficient acceptable sources for an article about the topic (even if it won't look anything like the current one) you blow it up with WP:TNT and start over. The other choice applies if there simply aren't adequate sources to support even a brief stub article, then you nominate it for deletion. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, why is this article seemingly duplicated? If it is (a simple and exact dupe), just delete the duplication - the longer it's left, the harder it gets to clean up.

There's an essay WP:JUNK which says that in such a case, sometimes the best thing is to delete the lot and start again. It doesn't get much support and in a case of pathological listcruft (which is what seems like the problem here) then I wouldn't go that way either.

Are you connected with 64.180.223.203 (talk · contribs) who has already deleted bunches of this (and been reverted)?

Like most things on WP, it's mostly about tribal politics - I mean WP tribes, not article subjects. How did this article get to be how it is and who is interested in either fixing it or keeping it how it is? You may need to get agreement through the talk: page before anything useful happens to the article, otherwise it's just going to be edit-war tennis.

Is this article topic notable? For this "notable topic", define that topic and its scope. How does that compare to the scope of this article?

At present, I'm seeing this as a notable topic that's probably easily sourced at the top level. Breaking it down by cities, business sectors and notable gangs is useful, but harder to source. The list of deaths though is not part of "an encyclopedia article" on the topic. If it was to become List of deaths related to Indo-Canadian organized crime that should be a separate article AND SOURCED. So one easy edit ASAP would be to delete all those sections and make a visible note of that on the talk: page, with a linked diff. If anyone wants to recover it for a list article later on, that's easy.

I don't think this is too hard to "fix" and fix quickly. But that quick fix is a much smaller article, and I think that's an OK place to be. Then don't let it expand again unless everything added is sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Couple of style points too. Proper nouns should probably be linked. So names of major people in the body text, cities and regions, terms like "Jatt community". If they're important enough to list, they're important enough to explain. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I think you're right about it leading to edit-war tennis if I just try to edit it, because I've seen this user revert my changes (by adding back unverifiable content) before, on a different pages about gangs. I'll try to get agreement through the talk page. incidentally, how do I "ping" this user if I need to, so that they notice I'm trying to talk to them? (I haven't seen them use a talk page before.) Cycloth (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(oh, I should add that I'm not connected with 64.180.223.203 (talk · contribs).) Cycloth (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• The easiest thing is to not get reverted in the first place. If you explain what you're doing, there's far less chance of this. In particular around admins like MaterialScientist (who reverted the IP) and who is a busy admin / editor at reverting simple vandalism. They're also one of the better admins for judging content issues. Yet if you pop up as an IP with no past editing history and perform a number of multi-k deletions with no explanation, that's going to look too much like vandalism and will get reverted, even if it's what the article most needed. So raise it at talk: first and use edit summaries to explain, especially when pointing at the talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, not being reverted is the best path so make a change that cannot without doubt be acceptable and then in the edit sum include that the article needs extensive rewrite/verification and also apply, if it is absent, the WP template appropriate for what needs to be done with that article. If that gets reverted then ask a question of the person that reverted since some seem to be more trigger happy than others and you just might get another senior editor that can by returning the edit(s) and thus giving your efforts some credibility especially with use of an IP. Do not let the "IP scrutiny" get you down. Just use the system of developing credibility a bit at a time at the start then it will be less likely your IP edits are reverted by those editors that concentrate on IP edits.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Joseph, could you please tell me how to link to the Autoblog Wikipedia page from the following sentence within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL#Content "The separate AOL Brand Group, led by Luke Beatty, is a diverse network of sites including Moviefone, Engadget, Autoblog, TechCrunch, Cambio" The moment the user clicks on Moviefone, Engadget, TechCrunch, or Cambio, they are brought to the associated Wikipedia page, but because the way the Autoblog Wikipedia page is currently configured, they are not brought to the Autoblog Wikipedia page. Would it be possible for the user to click on Autoblog within the sentence and be brought to the Autoblog Wikipedia page? Our hope for the Autoblog Wikipedia page is that it will link the same way that Moviefone, Engadget, TechCrunch, and Cambio do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto Aficionado 15 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Auto Aficionado 15 that has been fixed. This is a common problem because some words have multiple meanings. In this case the word is a disambiguation page, so we have to use a piped link for the article. This looks like [[User:Auto Aficionado 15|Auto Aficionado 15]].— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wikipedia Page Title

Hello Joseph, could you please tell me how to link to the Autoblog Wikipedia page from the following sentence within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL#Content "The separate AOL Brand Group, led by Luke Beatty, is a diverse network of sites including Moviefone, Engadget, Autoblog, TechCrunch, Cambio" The moment the user clicks on Moviefone, Engadget, TechCrunch, or Cambio, they are brought to the associated Wikipedia page, but because the way the Autoblog Wikipedia page is currently configured, they are not brought to the Autoblog Wikipedia page. Would it be possible for the user to click on Autoblog within the sentence and be brought to the Autoblog Wikipedia page? Our hope for the Autoblog Wikipedia page is that it will link the same way that Moviefone, Engadget, TechCrunch, and Cambio do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto Aficionado 15 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the Editor in Chief at Autoblog.com, Michael Austin, has asked that the Wikipedia Page Title be changed to Autoblog from Autoblog.com. Could someone please tell me the proper way to change the title? When I used the Move function I was told I am not authorized. Thank you. Auto Aficionado 15 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Auto Aficionado 15: The correct way would be to move the page,see Wikipedia:Moving a page. However, thispage already exists (wrongly according to Wikipedia standards) at Autoblog.com. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As a result, I've moved the page to Autoblog (website), which is the correct name under Wikipedia standards. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joseph, thank you for the edit, but would it be possible for the URL to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoblog ? For example, other websites under AOL read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechCrunch and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engadget If possible, we would like the title of the page to be Autoblog and not Autoblog (website) Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto Aficionado 15 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, because Autoblog, which has the address "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoblog" is a disambiguation page, see WP:DISAMBIGUATION- it links to all the pages on Wikipedia about topics involving autoblogs, and Talk:Autoblog suggests there's already been multiple discussions about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Auto Aficionado 15, I'm surprised no one told you or did this, but the problem was just solved a different way. See the above question.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with references

Hello, can someone please help me with my article? Looks like I need references, but I am not sure how to get them. Thank you. Emilia12 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emelia, welcome to Wikipedia. I assume you are talking about Evans Waterless Coolant.

Yes you need some references and unfortunately a fair bit more. But start with references. They can be a little tricky but we have a good resource at: Help:Referencing for beginners. That should help you see how to create references. It is understandable that you will have a reference to the site associated with the subject of the article but you will need some references from independent sources as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion

How can i delete the previous(s) revision of some file? Do i have to be an Administrator (I'm not an Administrator)?Keroncongan (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Keroncongan: Welcome to the Teahouse! Just like pages, only administrators may delete files and previous versions of files. You're correct that you're not an administrator - administrators are nominated and approved through a strenuous process (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship), and there are currently 855 admins on the English Wikipedia.

Is there a particular reason you'd like the previous version of a file deleted? It's not too commonly done. One of the most common reasons to delete previous versions of files on the English Wikipedia is to rid of orphaned fair use images (in other words, copyrighted versions of files that are no longer used). If the file is hosted Commons, they have their own deletion processes. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keroncongan, welcome to the Teahouse. Old file versions can only be deleted by administrators. For files hosted at Commons it has to be a Commons administrator. Do you have a specific file in mind? Please remove Category: Wikipedia administrators from User:Keroncongan. It misrepresents your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As others have noted, deleting old versions doesn't happen all that often, (but probably should happen more often than it does). It does require an administrator. If you identify the file and the reason I may be able to help.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! everyone, thanks for the answers and i guess this is really help me. Thanks again!. Mr. Sphilbrick, i have a few page/file that have given the tag Orphaned non-free revision, but there are no Administrator delete the previous revision(s) of the file (for example: File:Yanniincelebrationoflifefront.jpg). Would you like to help fixing this problem? Thanks a lot. (Sorry for the wrong words, i'm Indonesian).

find articles that need to be created?

Is there a way to search for articles that need to be created (the red link titles)? I created an article and it was already accepted and I would enjoy writing more. I simply happened upon the red link. I would like to know if there is a way to search for these in a specific category that matches my interests? Thank you Wikipeople! Alec Station (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I recommend trawling the list of requested articles - it's organised by topic, so you can easily find what's missing from your own area of interest. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Alec Station. In addition to the good advice given above, I trust you notice that several teammates of Lisa Casagrande are also red links, that so that's a good place to start.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a better tag than {{inuse}} for stubs created for classroom exercise?

I am running two Wikipedia edit training sessions this week and early next week. As part of that I am creating stubs for needed articles for Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. I have put the inuse tag on them to try to prevent other people from developing the article. However, an editor is busy tagging them as having multiple problems and speedy deleting them. I am sure there used to be a tag specifically for this training purpose but I can no longer find it . What do I need to do to protect these stubs from interference before the class? I thought inuse would work but evidently not (yes, I have written on the user's talk page to ask them to stop this behaviour and it has now stopped) but there must be a better way to flag such stubs. Kerry (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kerry. I'm sure there must be guidance for this somewhere in WP:school and university projects, but my suggestion would be to get the students to work in draft space rather than article space (so the article is Draft:Fred Bloggs rather than Fred Bloggs). It is unlikely that anybody will interfere with it there (unless it is a copyright violation) and they can develop it in peace. When you think it is complete, you can either move it to article space, or request a review by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top: if the review is successful, the reviewer will move it to article space. --ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kerry, I'd like to strongly echo the advice given above. The in use template is intended more for an established article that already meets notability guidelines but needs to go through some significant editing that may not easily be done in a single edit. That template also refers to another template "under construction" but I do not recommend that in your circumstance. There was a time when it was considered acceptable to put up a half written article and expect some time to get it up to snuff, but that is no longer viewed as acceptable. Especially, now that we have the draft workspace there is no reason to create stubs in progress in article space.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Evans Waterless Coolant

I just added two references to my article. Could you please let me know if those are good enough? Thank you. Emilia12 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emilia12, I'll check soon and I'll let you know if there is a problem, please keep in mind though the article isn't yours, although you can list it somewhere as an article you created, it isn't your article, as per WP:OWN. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed your references, but whilst on your talkpage, notifying you that your question at the Teahouse had been answered, you had a message saying the article had been reviewed at Articles for Creation, but wasn't accepted because This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Try looking for reliable sources then submit your article for review again, the more reliable sources the more credible the article will be. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I format things correctly?

I read that this is "a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." Great!

In my "EditWikiJapan/sandbox", I have put the rough working version of my first article. The article title is "Japan Chernobyl Foundation". I have references, but I'm not sure that I'm entering things properly, so the citations are only half completed.

I'd appreciate some constructive feedback.

EditWikiJapan (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, EditWikiJapan, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are actually not doing badly. Here are some things you should change:

• First of all, your draft is now at User talk:EditWikiJapan/sandbox, but it should be at User:EditWikiJapan/sandbox. I will move it for you after I finish this post.
• Secondly, citations (uses of the <ref> tag) should be on the same line as the facts they support, not on a separate line

  Like this

  Smith was known to sleep late on Mondays.

  Not like this

  Smith was known to sleep late on Mondays.

• Thirdly, you should have a Notes or References section, near the bottom, and in it place {{reflist}}. This will properly display the citatiosn created with the ref tags.
• Fourthly, section headers should be surrounded by paired equals signs (==History and activities==). They should be on separate lines, and should use sentance case, not title case (only the first word and any proper names should have capital letters).
• Fifthly an article, even a draft article, should not be signed. The edit history shows who wrote what.

I hope those suggestions help. DES ^(talk) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Help creating a sports kit

I am needing help creating my teams kit on our wiki page. Can you help? I have searched and just can't seem to understand how to do it.

There is a 'CorenSearchBot has performed a web search...' message saying this page needs checked. What I done was I created a new page SOUTH SHIELDS RFC as I could not find how to delete our old page SOUTH TYNESIDE COLLEGE RUFC. Our club was recently had the name change. How do I get this message off?

Thanks Dan SOUTH SHIELDS RFC (was SOUTH TYNESIDE COLLEGE RUFC) Team Manager87.83.10.243 (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dan. What you should have done to change the name was to have logged in and moved South Tyneside College RUFC to South Shields RFC. Since you did a copy and paste move, an admin needs to move the history from the old article to the new, which is much more difficult. —teb728 t c 09:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that what you were asking about, or did you mean something different when you ask about a "kit"? —teb728 t c 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dan. I've done the history merge that your copy and paste move required. As teb728 indicated, please don't move a page like that again in the future. It looks to me like you've successfully changed the colours in the article's Infobox to show a new first and second kit. If you're still having a problem, please describe specifically what it is you want to do and have tried. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Article marked as promotional

Hi, recently i did a research for my college assignment where i had to survey some big companies in Indian used vehicle segment. I did research on Shriram Automall and would like to submit this research on wiki, but, unfortunately Wikipedia is consider it as promotional article what to do? here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shriram_Automall_India_Limited_%28SAMIL%29&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyotiwalia83 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jyotiwalia83, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry to have to tell you that the article you drafted was deleted as promotional because, by Wikipedia's standars, it was promotional. For example, a sentance such as "Slowly but steadily, SAMIL has removed every layer of this opaque system & presented industry with a process that is 100% transparent with its roots grounded to our core values & authenticity." conveys a clear value judgement (a positive one) about the subject. Wikipedia articles should be neutral. Any value judgements or opnions must be attributed to a named person or organization, and must be supported by citations that show that that person has expressed that view. The article should be directly based on what has been published by reliable sources and most of these should be independant of the subject. Also the articvle should clearly establish the notability of the subject. See our guideline on notability of companies. DES ^(talk) 13:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Correcting negative and incorrect information on a living person

I am a web developer and I check wikipedia pages about various clients as I post information to websites. I noticed that Peter Schiff's content seems to be dominated by contributors who seem to have a negative personal agenda (they do not like Mr Schiff) and are either not representing the facts accurately or are narrowly slanting the truth to push a negative impression of this person. I just want to fix the errors, correctly cited, so that the fixes will stick. I am new at Wikipedia editing, so I would appreciate someone to suggest a workflow (first do this, then to this) that will allow me to accomplish these fixes without getting into a content war with those who are promoting an agenda rather than expressing facts. Again, Mr. Schiff is a living person and I believe the practice of some of these contributors to be against the stated rules of Wikipedia:

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard..." Conservativeacct (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Conservativeacct and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Peter Schiff seems to be well cited to reliable sources, on a very quick glance. If you think that unsupported negative content is present, or that even suported neagative content is being given an undue weight, you should post at Talk:Peter Schiff, describing in detail the issues as you see them, and citing sources. Other editors should react to your comments, and consensus should emerge. (It may not, but it should.) DES ^(talk) 13:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also you mention that you "check wikipedia pages about various clients". If you are making Wikipedia edits for pay, or as part of a paid job, you have a Conflict of interest. You need to disclose this openly, See WP:PAY. In particlular the terms of use here require that " ... you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Please be careful about this, Conservativeacct. I hope that helps. DES ^(talk) 13:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Conservativeacct I haven't checked the whole article to see if there are any dubious unsourced items, but I did look at the edits you were making to see if you were running into "contributors who seem to have a negative personal agenda" or other issues. Your first edit here was to remove something that I agree many would consider negative about him, but it is sourced and with a quick google I found the audio clip of the actual interview, and you gave no reason for the removal. Your next set of edits re-removed this again plus changed a section changing numbers without a source and swapping the reference to one that only had 3 views when I hit it. Also note that apart from when adding his mothers name you left no edit summaries to explain your edits. As to your question on "workflow" help, making sure you have good edit summaries and your sources meet Wikipedia:Verifiability helps a lot. Uninvolved editors who do not know the subject will use these to determine what looks correct. Removing cited material without a stated reason will likely always be reverted, not because the other editors "are promoting an agenda" but because it would look like you have the agenda. Also try discussing on the article talk page and/or directly with the user that reverts. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Review my first article please?

I just finished drafting my first wikipedia article and I'd appreciate it if someone could check it out and give me some pointers before I try to create it. The page is about a fairly well known Catholic girls club called Little Flowers' Girls Club. I think I've done a good job of keeping my language neutral butI do have a conflict of interest (I work for the publisher of the program, though I'm writing this page on my own time) and have established this on my profile page so any and all help is appreciated. The page is in User:CharlotteWatk/sandbox CharlotteWatk (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CharlotteWatk. I haven't done a full review of your sandbox, but on a quick look, the writing seems reasonable (though ideally there would be more about the organisation, how it is run, how it came to be, and so on, than about the internal details of what the girls do). You do have plenty of citations in the text: but most of these are to non-independent sources, which is a problem. There's nothing wrong with using the Little Flowers' own publications as references for uncontroversial factual data like dates and places; but they should not be used to support anything with an even slightly evaluative or speculative nature - and an article which has more non-independent than independent sources will always be suspect. You need more sources like the Catholic Courier (though some might feel that even that is not independent, and prefer some sources which are not explicitly catholic). The Sunday Dispatch link doesn't work for me.

The most glaring problem is the sentence "Following controversies surrounding Girl Scouts of the United States of America[5], many Catholic families and dioceses see Little Flowers as a conservative alternative." Please note that Wikipedia may not be used as a reference, since it is inherently not a reliable source - "Girl Scouts of the USA" should be linked as a wikilink (the way you have linked to some named people), but nothing anywhere in Wikipedia should ever refer to "controversies" without citing an independent reliable source that these controversies even exist. Then the second half of the sentence is completely unreferenced. No Wikipedia article should ever make a claim about what "many people see" something as unless it is quoting an independent reliable source. When I search for "Little Flowers Girls Club" on Google news, there seem to be quite a few articles about the controversies and the fact that LF have picked up support because of it, so I don't think you'll find it hard to locate suitable sources; but you must be careful to stick to what the sources say. If you can't find a published source for some information, don't put it in the article. Period.

Finally, the references should go in a "References" section: the "External links" section is for something different (which could include a link to the Flowers' website, if they have one). --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine, thanks for the pointers! I'll be sure to work on those adjustments CharlotteWatk (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem with new article

I wrote a new article about Morris Brown, an early African American bishop. I tried to move it from my sandbox into article space, but could not, because the name redirected to an article about a college named after him. I eliminated the redirect, but still apparently lack permission to move the new article into article space. Is it a matter of time? Or can you help?Jweaver28 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jweaver28: Welcome to the Teahouse! You never actually removed the redirect, by the looks of it. To edit a redirect page, go to the redirect page (Morris Brown), which should redirect you to the target page. At the top of the target page, below the title, you should see "(Redirected from Morris Brown)". Clicking that link should take you back to the redirect, without redirecting you again (alternatively, just click here). You can then edit the page as you normally would, and clear the redirect. You've got two options now:

• Even if you blank the redirect, the page technically still exists. If you want to move a page to the title, you can request the redirect be deleted by an administrator with Template:Db-move. Place {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} at the top of the page, filling in the fields.
• Since you're the only editor to work on the draft, you can simply copy-and-paste your article when you edit the redirect. Note that the draft's history won't be preserved, but since you're the only editor it's not mandatory for attribution purposes. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's live and working. I only hope I filled out the media form correctly (the picture's long out of copyright).Jweaver28 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How can I get involved?

How can I meet fellow wikipedians so that we can discuss and help contribute to articles together, with a common goal? Coderenius (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Coderenius and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to meet other Wikipedians in the flesh, have a look at WP:meetup and see if there is anything organised in your area. I have only been to a social meetup, but there are certainly editathons, where people work together on particular areas. If you're not so concerned about physically meeting people, but you want to discuss, then I suggest you find a WikiProject or two that interests you, and sign up to them. --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine! Coderenius (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Coderenius: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! There are tons of ways you can work with other Wikipedians to improve the project, I'm going to list a few of my personal favorites and others can add to this list if they want.

• WP:Wikiprojects - A great way to collaborate on topics editors have similar interest in.
• Today's article for improvement - A place to work together on a wide array of articles that need improvement
• WP:Meetup - Ways to meet local Wikipedians in your area.
• Just start editing! - People come and go, just pick topics you are interested in and write or improve an article, other people will come along and help you.

Happy editing! Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I'm not really interested in meeting people person to person, but the other 3 options seem great! Thanks! Coderenius (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I edit a semi-locked page?

The LA Galaxy Wikipedia page includes FALSE information about them being the most decorated club in MLS history, since they are clearly second in overall trophies. I apparently can't edit it because it's semi-locked, but others can and have, since this error was fixed by someone yesterday and is now back to its original form of a LIE. PLEASE FIX THIS! MatiGOL85 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To edit a semi-protected page, you need to be an autoconfirmed User, which means you're account is over 4 days old, and you've made 10 edits. Until then, I'd recommend mentioning it at the article talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@MatiGOL85: In particular, you can place a comment on the talk page specifying exactly what you want changed, and place Template:Edit semi-protected ({{edit semi-protected}}) by your comment to indicate to other editors that you're a new user requesting the change to a protected page. Note, however, that if your request isn't backed by reliable sources, or if there is controversy or a lack of consensus for the change, it may not be implemented. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MatiGOLO85. The claim, in the lead of LA Galaxy, is uncited, and therefore anybody is entitled to remove it. I have not removed it, because I don't know anything about football, still less US soccer, but I have marked it {{citation needed}}. You are welcome to recommend (on the talk page) that it gets removed. Note that it shouldn't be replaced by any other claim (eg second most) unless that specific claim is cited to a reliable published source. --ColinFine (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Article draft rejected, need help with editing before re-submission

Regarding — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cónal_Creedon — The comment that reviewer Elee posted was marked "reads more like an advertisement" and "Please either remove the external links or turn them into references." I have removed all external links, and need to know if that is sufficient to resubmit? Adrienne Asher (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adrienne Asher and welcome to the Teahouse. No, just removing the links isn't enough. The article reads like an artist's promotional profile rather than a Wikipedia article about a person. For example, the article follows the structure of Creedon's website. Write it in chronological order, putting in what he has done where it fits in with the chronology of his life. Leave out the long quotes praising his work. You aren't trying to "sell" him as a writer here. The introductory paragraphs should be a summary of the article, not things that aren't mentioned in the rest of the article. Find sources that tell more about him than just listing what he has written. This could be a very good article about a very interesting person. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help by providing feedback on my wiki page ahead of submitting for review?

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Warnholz/sandbox/drtabori

Thanks Again Trecia Warnholz (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Trecia. I'm afraid that at present the article will not be accepted. There are only two references, and only one independent one; and most of the article is unreferenced. If you start from the working assumption that every single piece of information in the article should be individually cited to a reliable published source independent of the subject, you might end up being over-referenced - but probably not. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Help updating an article

Want to update the wealth figure referenced on the Alfred Taubman page. Have cited the current Forbes figure of $3.1 billion. Can you help?

TennysoncjTennysoncj (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings and thank you for coming to the Teahouse, Tennysoncj. I took a look at your edits. I can help with referencing your statement if you tell me where you got it. Also I noticed that you have made only two edits with this account. If you have created an account for the reason to update info on this article, that is fine as long as you reveal your association on the article's talk page.

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem when uploading to Wikimedia Commons...

I want to upload this picture (which I found on google images), and it says on the bottom right-hand corner (not on the picture) "Images may be subjected to copyright". I'm still worried that I might violate copyright laws. Is this legitimate, or should I just leave it alone? Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 welcome to the Teahouse. You should leave it strictly alone, and if you don't it would soon enough be discovered and deleted. Images you find on the web, such as via Google search, cannot be used on Wikimedia Commons unless they very explicitly indicate that they are released under a free license, such as CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution). Images published before 1923 are also OK, provided that you know (and say on the upload form) exactly where and when such an image was published. Otherwise, stick to imsages you have taken or created yourself, and you will be safe. (It is possible for whoever took the picture to donate it, but in that case an email must be sent to the permisisons address formally giving permission by the copyright holder, who is normally the photographer or artist.) DES ^(talk) 03:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

editing

why some sites on wikipedia can't be edit?Syed Yasir Ali Naqvi (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia pages are protected from editing. This is usually done to prevent persistent vandalism or edit-warring that cannot be dealt with through other methods. In most cases, protection is only temporary; you can look in the page logs (linked on the article's History page) to find out how long the protection has been applied for. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How close am I now?

Thank you for the very helpful remarks yesterday. At "User:EditWikiJapan/sandbox" is the current version of my first article, entitled "Japan Chernobyl Foundation". How close am I now? When the article is OK, how do I move it to the "real" Wikipedia site? EditWikiJapan (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks reasonable to me, EditWikiJapan, though I have not looked deeply. The way to move it is by using the "Move" function (probably under "More" at the top of your page) - make sure you move it to '(Article)' space, not to 'Wikipedia' (that is a common error). An alternative is to request a more formal review, by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article. There will be a wait before somebody reviews it, but if they accept it they will move it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion log

Where would I turn should I want some edits on my user page to be struck? I once added some personal information I now realize I don't want there. Any help appreciated, Azealia911 _talk 10:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's identifing personal information, and it's comparatively recent, you want oversight. As an oversighter myself, I can do this for you; please email me (yunshuiwikigmail.com) with the diffs and I'll sort it out. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yunshui, I don't have access to my emails at the current moment, but I'll get on that ASAP, thankyou very much! Azealia911 _talk 10:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Since you've raised it in a fairly public venue here we should probably deal with it ASAP. I've therefore removed all of the revisions which I believe contain the personal data you're referring to. Let me know if I've missed anything. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There's one from May 14, and one from May 3, the two edits just before you started deleting, other than that you got 'em all. Thankyou so much for this, I really appreciate it! Azealia911 _talk 10:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just spotted those two. They have also now been redacted. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Guess we're done, thankyou for the efficiency and helpfulness, this Teahouse is a godsend! Azealia911 _talk 10:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

making links from one paragraph to another.

Could you tell me how I can make links from one paragraph to another which is lower down in the same article?

Thanks Kpobi2 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kpobi2, welcome to the Teahouse. You can for example write [[#making links from one paragraph to another.|this section]] to produce this section. It doesn't matter where on the page the target is. See more at Help:Link#Section linking (anchors). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter

Thanks a lot - works fine. That allows me to link from a word to a Section.

But I've still got one problem left. I can't manage to set up a link from a phrase to a phrase. e.g. "See below" ..... linking to ..... another phrase in the article.

Is there a solution to that?

Kpobi2 (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kpobi2: The above answer said "See more at Help:Link#Section linking (anchors)". It's explained there. You can also click edit to see how I used {{anchor}} to make a target for "above answer". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Review please

Hi - I've just completed this page. Please could you take a look and I'd be grateful for any comments and tips.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumi_Taguchi_(journalist_and_broadcaster)

Thanks

Mazda1973 (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have reviewed your page and it seems okay. I have also tidied it up a bit for you so other users can enjoy reading it as well as myself! Happy editing! Gibboboy 10:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have concerns about notability. There are no reference independent of her employer, her agent or herself. We need independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagged confusing

A page I created M. V. Jindal Kamakshi was tagged as confusing. So I don't know what I am supposed to do. I'd like to add that the page is not ambiguous to any other page.srini (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Srinivasprabhu933: Welcome to the Teahouse! For starters, the article doesn't actually start by identifying the subject. It jumps into a news-like story about how the ship developed a list. The article should start out by identifying the ship, who is was made by, who operated it, etc. - basic information to let the reader know what the article subject is. Then, you may go into discussing events. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidence @SuperHamster:, I will work on the article immediately.srini (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Srinivasprabhu933. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news source. If news stories are big enough that there is a lot of writing about them in different newspapers, that may be enough to ground an article about the news story (see WP:EVENT); but usually not: significant events may be described in articles on the people or places they happen to.

In this case, you have tried to write an article about a news story (that happened to that ship) but have titled the article with the ship's name. I would suggest that the event is not significant enough for an article, but if the article is about the ship, with just a mention of the recent event, that would be acceptable. Remember that every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be individually cited to a reliable published source. --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This Beautiful Fantastic

I am the holder of user Camsmart93 on Wikipedia and I have set up the This Beautiful Fantastic (film) article on behalf of the production company that is creating it. I have seen that you have sent advisory information to delete the article due to a speculation over the reliability of this article. I am emailing to see if this could be removed. Of course, I understand that there is a lack of references however, the reason for this is due to the fact that the film is in its early stages. I have referenced IMDb and the production company website, which should be ample proof of its existence. I can further, assure you that as the film progresses and gets closer to release, the article will continue to be added to and improved. Can you help?

Kind Regards,

Cameron Smart Camsmart93 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Camsmart93. I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. It may not be used for promotion of any kind. It is an encyclopaedia: that is, a summary of what other people (mostly, people unconnected with the subject) have written about subjects and published in reliable places such as major newspapers and books from reputable publishers. Existence is not enough: since almost all of an article must be based on sources independent of the subject, when such sources do not exist it is not possible to write an acceptable article on it (the jargon for this in Wikipedia is that it is not notable). If in the future there is substantial independent material published about This Beautiful Fantastic, then we will probably have an article about it, based almost completely on that independent material. It will not be your article, you will have no control over its content, and you will be strongly discouraged from editing it (though you may make suggestions on its talk page) because of your conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Camsmart93, I have to agree with ColinFine just above. The policy page section Wikipedia is not a crystal ball says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Out film notability guide (linked above) says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Moreover, the current article seems highly promotional. For all these reasons, the article as it stands is not acceptable. DES ^(talk) 16:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Article about a writer

I would like to write an article about a poet who has hundreds of publications in over 50 literary journals, plus a complete collection of poetry and two chapbooks. Is this possible?50.147.125.78 (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. It may or may not be possible. It depends entirely on how much there has been written about the poet, and not at all on how much they have written. Since a Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have published in reliable places, then an article will be acceptable only if there is enough such writing about the poet to make a reasonable article possible (the jargon for this is whether they are notable). If you find enough sources and want to go ahead, I suggest you read Your first article, and then use the article wizard. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Hi: I wondered if you could help. I was working on Jeremy Brecher Wikipedia site and noticed that there are comments from April 2015 re: Notability and citations. The article looks to me as though he meets the criteria (although I am a novice). How to proceed to fix or remove the comments?

Cathy

Cathymaloney (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Cathy all-though there are a lot of 'references' looking at just the first 7 they aren't actual references at all - just links relating to the preceding items. Also it looks like many of the other 'references' are just repeats of the Published Works list. As such the article just looks promotional. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thus a reference list of links that either are items written by the subject, or do not mention the subject do not qualify. I only had a quick look, but couldn't spot a single reliable independent reference on the article. So if Jeremy Brecher is notable you should be able to find some actual references that meet these criteria. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cathy you seem to have a conflict of interest and be using three different accounts User:Cathysanfanandre User:Cathymaloney and User:Cathyjeanmaloney to edit the article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking to an image--need some assistance.

I am new to editing. Sorry if this is a simple question. There is a logo image that has been posted previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dartmouth_Big_Green_logo.png#filelinks

I would like to add this image to a different page that I am editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_Big_Green_men%27s_lacrosse

I can't seem to figure out how to access the "Commons" area where this image resides? It state that 3 other pages are "linked" to this image, so I would like to have the same linkage instructions. How do I accomplish this? JamesRichardFishman (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi JamesRichardFishman images from commons can be used in the same way as local images. In the case of infoboxes and other templates it can vary between each but for most you can use the image just as the name as per my edit here. Outside templates you can use a image format like [[File:Dartmouth Big Green logo.png|thumb|Dartmouth Big Green Logo]]. See Wikipedia:Images for more info. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving article from Sandbox?

Thank you for the advice on moving my draft: [The way to move it is by using the "Move" function (probably under "More" at the top of your page) - make sure you move it to '(Article)' space, not to 'Wikipedia' (that is a common error).] However, I cannot find "Move" or "More" at the top of my page no matter where I look. This is my first article and I'm still a tad confused by the procedure. Q: Are there easy-to-understand, step-by-step instructions on how I can move my article from User:EditWikiJapan/sandbox to the "real" Wikipedia? EditWikiJapan (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, EditWikiJapan. One needs to be an autoconfirmed user before the move function is available. That means having had an account for more than 4 days and made at least 10 edits, as a rule. If you are ready to move your sandbox before you are autoconfirmed, ask here or place {{helpme}} on the page's talk page with a request, and someone should assist you promptly. Instructions for moving can be found at WP:MOVE. DES ^(talk) 00:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, a question about your draft's sources, EditWikiJapan: is "Morning ed." the actual title of the newspaper you are citing? if not what is? If the title is in a non-English language, can you provide a translated title also? DES ^(talk) 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, again. I see that the article has been moved. I appreciate all the advice and assistance. EditWikiJapan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel:, the newspaper is Shinano Mainichi Shinbun (Shinbun just means newspaper, the rest is its name), the "morning ed" is just the edition. I also found an AgoraVox article that discusses them some, which I've linked in the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I lock my user page?

Hello,

I made a userpage but I don't want anyone to vandalise it. Is there a way I can lock the page so only I can edit it? Feedback will be appreciated.

Yours, Gibboboy 09:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You can request protection at WP:RPP, but whether it's granted or not is up to the administrator who reviews your request. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As there has been no vandalism to that page whatsoever, and vandalism is easily reverted, it is unlikely - Arjayay (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually if it's your userpage, some admins just accept it (as long as it's not your tatalkpage). I have all my user subpages indefinitely semi -protected, even though most of them haven't been vandalised. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gibboboy777: Actually what you ask is not possible at all; there is no level of protection that would allow only you to edit it. There is protection that would allow only confirmed users (i.e. not new accounts or not-logged-in editors) to edit a page. (Presumably that is what the other replies have in mind.) Any stronger protection than that would prevent you from editing it. —teb728 t c 10:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@TEB728: Okay thanks for your help! Gibboboy 25, May 2015 10:16 (UTC)