Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 481

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 475 ← Archive 479 Archive 480 Archive 481 Archive 482 Archive 483 → Archive 485

Need help about reference section in Utkarsh Rai draft

I had submitted my first article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Utkarsh_Rai and it got rejected due to references. Please guide me how to add references and aldo let me know if any changes is needed in any other part of the article.

~~VtradefairVtradefair (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the feedback box at the top of your draft, and on your user talk page, there are a number of useful links, including WP:Referencing for beginners. Note also that if you want to link to a Wikipedia page as you tried to do in your question it is more readable to use a wikilink like Draft:Utkarsh Rai (coded as [[Draft:Utkarsh Rai]]), rather than a URL like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Utkarsh_Rai . --David Biddulph (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Remember that the main points which were made in the feedback were about demonstrating notability using reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Online Age Verification - a new article

I am thinking about creating a Wikipedia page on the topic of Online Age Verification (OAV). Currently, this term leads to several historical and specialist players rather than proper explanations concerning the issues. The UK Government is going to be bringing in legislation to mandate OAV in mobile web services as part of its child protection initiatives and there will shortly be a new British Standard to be published by BSI that could be implemented in the legislation. There are also issues regarding OAV and the European Audio-Visual Directive which will need to be presented with a neutral point of view. Are there any experienced Wikipedia editors and contributors who would be interested in assisting me in creating this topic over the next few months? AlistairKelman (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it is easier to find collaborators if you post a notice like this on the talk page of a related WikiProject where you will encounter editors who are interested in the same subjects. This is a very specific topic but you might try posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business although they don't seem particularly active right now. Liz Read! Talk! 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you - I will do just as you suggest AlistairKelman (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Help

Sir how can I check that how many Thanks I have received . Is there any page to check my position among all editor? Is there any standard to measure/check the ability of users. Wseef (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You can see the Thanks you have received here. There is no ranking or standard for receiving thanks among editors. You'd have to check the logs of each editor to see how many Thanks they have given or received. Giving Thanks to another editor is not a competition. Liz Read! Talk! 11:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Wseef. Editors who have thanked you with the Thanks feature can be seen at [1]. At Special:Notifications you can also see which edit they thanked you for but the list is mixed with other notifications. There are no statistics about the number of thanks different editors have received. I'm not sure what you mean by the ability of users. There is no standard to measure the quality of their work. The bottom of user contributions pages has a "User rights" link which shows the ability of their account to perform certain restricted actions. See Wikipedia:User access levels for the different possibilities. Some user pages have user boxes the user themselves added to say something about their experience and skills. It's voluntary to do this. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

New article idea: Wrisha Dutta

Hi,

I would like to create a new article about a singer Wrisha Dutta, who has sung on the soundtrack of many Indian films as well as lent her voice to advertising jingles. Please let me know if it meets the notability and other applicable criteria.

Thanks.Ganeshenoy (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, for us to know if she meets the notability criteria, you need to present professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not affiliated with her but specifically about her. More information can be found at WP:42. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I Get Award on Wikipedia?

Sir, I'm only an active member of WP:birthday committee . How can I get award or something that on Wikipedia. Wseef (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia:Birthday Committee has its own service awards, Wseef, but I'm sure that if you continue making constructive contributions to Wikipedia, that will be recognised in time. Personally, I find the satisfaction of contributing enough to keep me coming back, regardless of recognition through awards. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on Paid Services on Wikipedia

Hi All, If i am trying to create a wikipage with the Name "INDIA JURIS" an introduction to the law firm, I understand that it is a paid service, otherwise it is constantly being flagged as a advertisement. Therefore i would seek clarification on the payment process and the payment details on the subject.

Thank You. My Proposed page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INDIA_JURIS SrastogiIJ (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A summary of the relevant policies and guidelines, with links to them:
In other words, Wikipedia does not host articles in exchange for payment, paid editors are not especially welcome, and advertising is absolutely unwelcome. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The advert tag that was placed on the article was not a request for payment, SrastogiIJ. It was a notice that the article needed to be re-written in a neutral, non-promotional tone. As Ian outlines, Wikipedia does not take payment for hosting adverts. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
And the paid editing note I left on your talk page, which you have not complied with, was to inform you of our mandatory disclosure requirements by you that you are a paid editor being compensated, directly or indirectly for your edits. I will update that notice now with a next level, which contains instructions for compliance, as did the first one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that SrastogiIJ has already been informed about attempting to create an advert for INDIA JURIS. See Query on deletion of Proposed webpage below. Emeraude (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

How to change username in wikipedia?

I wanted to change my username in wikipedia. Please helpSree Krishna Govindha (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sree Krishna Govindha - If you go to WP:RENAME, it will explain the procedure on how to request changing your username. Good luck. Onel5969 TT me 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
You can click in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameRequest.... Lhealt (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I need link , that where I put my request for Wikipedia in new language --Yes ji (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yes ji. Please see Meta:Requests for new languages, Meta:Language proposal policy and Meta:Language committee/Handbook (requesters). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm back with another question about the proper way to proceed as a new editor with some of the various things I'm encountering along the way.

Yesterday, I came across this article on the Buddhist Goddess Nairatmya. I thought it was troublesome, from a copyright perspective, and left the following message on the article's talk page.

"Copyright issues?[edit]
In the references of this article, it states: "This entry is a slightly edited version of the introduction to Nairatmya in Miranda Eberle Shaw's Buddhist Goddesses of India. Princeton University Press. 2006. p. 387. ISBN 978-0-691-12758-3." I checked the book Buddhist Goddesses of India, pp. 387-402, and this appears to be true.
For example, the first sentence of the third paragraph of this article, starting with "Nairātmyā's body is blue . . ." is word for word identical to the book (p. 387) without quotation marks or a reference. The rest of this article's third paragraph are indeed almost word for word lifted from the book without quotation marks or proper referencing, even though there is a note of this at the bottom of the page in the reference section.
My sense is that this is a copyright issue. And as a result, the entry needs to be rewritten. Since I'm so new to editing, I don't know how to handle this, or what the process is. Any comments, thoughts, suggestions? Thanks folks. Best, AD64 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)"

Today, though, I am considering that while this might be a decent way to deal with this, that in fact it isn't the best way. Yet, while I seem to be a bold editor for existing articles, I'm not so bold when it comes to things like reporting copyright. I also can't seem to find a clear page on what to do, and so was hoping for consensus from more senior editors before escalating, since I'm not 100% clear that this is copyright infringement; perhaps it's just that quotation marks and citation need to be added? So, my question is, what should I do now? Wait for a senior editor to take care of it? Edit it as if it were a minor mistake and just needs referencing? Report it myself as a copyright problem? If I do report it myself, how do I do this?

Thanks again for your ongoing support with the learning curve for a new editor. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello AD64, welcome back to the Teahouse. I agree with you that almost the entire article is a word for word copy. Guidance on how to handle this can be found in Copyright problems. One approach is to rewrite the material so it is no longer a violation. That might be difficult in this case. It's possible the content, although copied, is in the public domain. It's possible to blank the portion that may be a violation using {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}} and let others look into it. There are detailed instruction within Copyright problems. It's a bit intimidating the first time or two. Gab4gab (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Your entry on the article talk page can be a good option too. If there's no response then you can escalate. Gab4gab (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Gab4gab: Did you intend to refer to WP:Copyright problems, rather than to Copyright problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2016‎ (UTC)
David Biddulph, did you intend to sign your post? ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I did. Thanks for the reminder. End of a long day! Interesting that Sinebot sometimes tidies up after me when I forget, but this time didn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I often wonder why it sometimes misses unsigned posts too. In any case, your ping wouldn't have worked without you signing, which is why I didn't manually add the unsigned post template myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for catching my incorrect referring. Gab4gab (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your support here. Now, another question. I'm over on WP:Copyright problems and it's clear that I don't actually have enough experience to make a call on this and would indeed like to have specialist help. What I don't see is a link or section to list the potentially problematic article. Does it indeed go on WP:Copyright problems (and I just can't find the right place), or is there another place for me to submit this to be looked at? Again, thanks to everyone, AD64 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, AD64, and for coming here to ask for advice (your post on the talk page there might have gone unnoticed for some time). Unfortunately our procedures for flagging and dealing with copyright problems are not as plain and simple as one might hope. But in general, unless you are sure that you know how to fix a suspected copyvio yourself, the best thing is to blank the page (or suspect section) by adding {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}}, as Gab4gab has suggested; you can limit the extent of the blanking with a </div>. That will replace the page with a large template; at the lower right of that is code for you to copy to the daily copyright problems listing (today's is Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 May 5 – you should not try to edit WP:Copyright problems itself), and more code for you to copy to the talk page of the editor you think added the "bad" content (in this case, that is User talk:Kosigrim). I've done these steps for Nairatmya for you to see if you like. An advantage of listing the page at WP:CP rather than fixing it yourself is that someone will then look at other contributions by the same editor; unfortunately, an editor who copied once is often found to have done so often, especially in the early days of Wikipedia when less care was taken to avoid copyright problems. If you have more questions please ask them, here or on my talk page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: and thanks for picking up on the follow up question that seemed to be going unnoticed. I have followed your tracks to see what you did and I feel better informed about the entire process. It's good to see the results and what that looks like. I've taken notes on it all and hope to be able to do this myself going forward. This is both supportive and useful. Again, thanks for taking this on and for taking the time to make more of the process transparent to me. Best, AD64 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A pleasure, AD64. I remember feeling pretty much like Laocoön and his sons when trying to learn to deploy that template. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan "Busshist" teacher

Hello Teahouse. Thanks for being your helpful selves in service to a better Wikipedia. I'm back with another request for help.

The preview for the Machig Labdrön article has a misspelling in it. I'm referring to the box that has small photo and a one line description of the article that can be seen at the bottom of some articles as a recommended next article to read. This little preview also shows up when one begins to write the name in the search box. The preview reads "Tibetan Busshist Teacher." I don't know where this content is stored and I've looked around a few times on the article page (in 'edit' mode) and can't find this code (is it code?). I also don't know what this preview item is properly called, yet I'd like to correct the spelling on this. I posted this question in the article's talk page, yet haven't had a response yet. Can anyone help with this or point me to the place where I can make the change myself?

Thanks, AD64 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: this is the preview you see in the Wikipedia app? If so the preview pulls data from Wikidata and the description there was misspelt. It's now corrected so try again and let us know what you see now. Nthep (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Nthep: and thank you for this quick response. I was seeing it when online using Safari on my laptop. I have also seen it using the Wikiapp on my iPhone. I just tried it again and it's fixed! Thank you for taking the time to take care of this. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm scared

I'm kinda afraid of being called a vandal. I know I should be bold, but I can't. Please guide me in the right direction. Tessaract2 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The only reason anyone would ever call you a vandal is if you acted in bad faith. Just go ahead and improve articles in good faith, and you'll be fine. --Jayron32 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Having looked at your edit history, it appears that you have made three edits to article space, all of which were valid minor edits. The only criticism is that you didn't use an edit summary, and there are edit summaries for edits that correct typos. Continue to correct typos. Please use edit summaries in that case. Don't be afraid to improve articles. If you want to be safe, you may discuss edits to articles before making them. Also, be aware that many experienced editors will react strongly with hostility to unwarranted allegations of vandalism by inexperienced good-faith editors. So go ahead and edit. It is even better to discuss and edit, using edit summaries when you do edit. If someone calls you a vandal, and you aren't, they may be called out for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tessaract2. One more thing. Not that anyone would properly call any good faith edit "vandalism" – doing so would be quite improper – but if you are going to make substantive edits, such as adding new, relevant and balanced content, and want to do so in the "most proper" way, every such edit should be accompanied by citation to a reliable source that verifies the addition. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

expanding an article

Hi there,

I'm currently writing a page on deepin OS. (link) as I'm busy, I would love someone's help on this. Please tell me where to post it. You can put it on my talk page.

Prajwalmr62 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Prajwalmr62. I'm afraid that, like most inexperienced people who try the difficult task of creating a new Wikipedia article, you have gone about it the wrong way. The very first thing you need to do, before you write a word, is to find your sources: several in-depth pieces about the subject, written by people who have no connection with the subject, and published in reliable places. If you cannot find these sources, give up, as no article about the subject will be accepted. If you have found sources, you can start writing: forget everything you know about the subject and write it only from what the sources say, and cite the sources as you go along. If a piece of information is not published, don't put it in the article. If it is published only in non-independent sources (such as the subject's website), put it in the article only if it is uncontroversial factual data: still cite the source.
Please look at your first article for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine, I would send it to review once I finish the article. I'm finding it difficult to write an article all alone as i don't have enough free time. And others can't contribute to the pages which are in my sandbox. All I wanted to know was, a portal/page where I can ask people to contribute to such sandbox pages. Prajwalmr62 (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Prajwalmr62. You have moved the page from your sandbox to Draft:Linux Deepin. Anybody may contribute to this, though the convention is that people won't do so unless you invite them to. WP:WikiProject Linux is probably a good place to ask for collaborators (post on WT:WikiProject Linux). --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

how do i get my article published. i keep searching and it does not come up in your search box):

how do i get my article published. i keep searching and it does not come up in your search box. The Wikipedia page is entitled: Dr. Linda F. Williams*CBrinkley911 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi CBrinkley911 The search engine attempts to update in near real time, but sometimes there's a lag. However, I have deleted the article (and your sandbox) as blatant copyright violations of the subject's LinkedIn page so they will not be found now at all. If the subject is notable and warrants an article, then that would need to be demonstrated by citations to reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail; the article would need to be written in a very different, non-promotional manner than it was; and of course, would need to not violate copyright. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Trying to add information with appropriate citation

Hello,

I would like to add a list of "Works" to a wikipedia page I am working on for designer Philippe Maidenberg, however I do not know how to cite it appropriately. Where should I place the internal citation and what kind of citation do I need? I tried to add this information and cite it with Philippe Maidenberg's website, however it was deleted.

Best wishes, Ashley

AshleyHowie2 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AshleyHowie2. You put the citation (which consists of appropriate bibliographic information such as title, date, authors, publisher etc, and if possible a URL as well but not instead) between <ref> and </ref> immediately after the statement that the citation is to support (and after any punctuation such as a period). The information goes between the <ref> and the </ref>: you may if you wish put a "name=something" inside the initial <ref>, but if you do so that is not part of the information, but just a name that you are giving to that reference so that you can use the same reference again elsewhere in the article. Please see referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, AshleyHowie2. There are a couple of messages on your talk page asking you to make the required mandatory disclosure if you have a financial conflict of interest. Please reply. An article about an artist, architect or designer should not include a list of works cited only to the creative professional's website. That is promotionalism. Each item on such a list should either be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, or be referenced to coverage in an independent reliable source. Your draft article has many external links in the body of the article, contrary to our content guidelines on external links. Please remove all promotional language from your draft. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Why are you working on a new draft article when we already have an article Philippe Maidenberg? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Query on deletion of Proposed webpage

Hi all, I have been trying to create the page " INDIA JURIS" which is a wikipage about our law firm and a basic introduction about the firm. The Article has been deleted thrice. Any help regarding how i can rectify my draft page is appreciated.

My proposed webpage can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INDIA_JURIS SrastogiIJ (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi SrastogiIJ - Wikipedia isn't for advertising. To get an article on the site, the subject first must meet certain notability guidelines. Those can be found at WP:GNG, and since yours is a business, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH would also apply. If it meets those guidelines, then it has to be written from a factual POV, without any promotion. In addition, you have a conflict of interest, which needs to be disclosed. COI editors often have a difficult time writing articles without promotional tones. Onel5969 TT me 12:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, SrastogiIJ. Writing about your own company is strongly discouraged. Persisting in trying to create an article makes it look as if you are here to promote your company, which (like all promotion) is absolutely forbidden.
If your company is Notable, in Wikipedia's special sense - i.e. several people who have no connection with the company have published substantial writing about it - then Wikipedia may have an article about it. The article should be based nearly 100% on what these unconnected people have published about it - Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a company says about itself, or even about what it does unless independent people have described that. The article is required to be neutral in tone, which may be hard for you to do because of your Conflict of interest.
If despite this discouragement, you are determined to try and create the article again, you need to read all the links I have provided above, and also your first article; and if you are employed by the company or are otherwise recieving remuneration for editing the article, you must disclose your status as a paid contributor. --ColinFine (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The page has been deleted six times, including three times today and once yesterday, and a draft article has also been deleted today. The title has now been "salted", so it cannot be recreated, and a request for undeletion has been refused.
If you really want to try again, you can still use the Articles for creation wizard, although there is currently a 2-3 week delay in reviewing completed submissions, so you need to be sure that you have read and understood the links above, and your article complies with our requirements, or it will be refused. - Arjayay (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I will only comment on two things. First, using Articles for creation will not get your ad into article space, for several reasons. It is rare for draft articles to be deleted. They are usually declined. However, the fact that yours was deleted suggests that it was so promotional that both a reviewer and an administrator thought that it wasn't worth saving even as a draft. Even if the draft isn't tagged for speedy deletion, it will be declined. Also, even if the reviewer were to try to accept it, it can't be accepted, because it has been salted (in my opinion, appropriately salted). Second, you have been warned about repeated submission. Don't keep on doing it, or you will be blocked. There are five million articles in the English Wikipedia that you can edit constructively. You just may not promote your law firm. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I thank you for the patient advice that you have given in this matter and as such i understand the consequences of my actions, Therefore i shall not proceed further unless all such formalities have been carried out as per Wikipedia policy.

SrastogiIJ (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Shyamw1/sandbox and Draft:G. Parthasarathy

I reviewed User:Shyamw1/sandbox and declined it as duplicated by Draft:G. Parthasarathy. I then received the following on my talk page from its author:

All of the information I have in the article has been taken from reliable sources and as far as I can tell, I have cited the information appropriately. If something is not right, can you please give me the specifics instead of a general comment like "This article contains copyrighted material" which is not very helprul. I would appreciate it if I knew what line or paragraph contained "copyrighted material" so I can edit that section. Thanks.

Since I never referred to copyrighted material, which had nothing to do with my decline, this appears to be a canned inquiry ready for any decline. What I do notice is that two users, User:Shyamw1 and User:Wshyam, have submitted very similar drafts on the same Indian diplomat. Is this a coincidence, or is one person using multiple accounts, possibly due to a misunderstanding of how accounts are used in Wikipedia?

Why are you asking about copyrighted material, when I said nothing about copyright issues?

Do other experienced editors want to comment?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is an agency for creating articles. And one of its employees, on getting a rejection, used a template to create a response, but chose the wrong template. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was a good-faith explanation, but occasionally a bad-faith explanation fits the facts better. If so, they are doing a bad thing poorly, and that doesn't earn sympathy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Wanting to be given very specific instructions, such as what one peacock statement to delete in order to get a promotional article accepted, is characteristic of conflict of interest editors. Thank you for a cynical explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert,

I just read your comments. When I logged on to my sandbox page the day before there was a highlighted section on top that said "this article contains copyrighted material". I can't seem to find the comment any more. Shyamw1 and Wshyam are the same user. I may have created the Wshyam account long ago in an attempt to experiment with writing for Wikipedia but didn't get a chance to do it. I'm not very good with using the sandbox page and I tried my best to follow the guidelines for beginning users and would appreciate any help you can give me about editing the article I submitted. I am not a fake person - I genuinely am interested in writing this article for Wikipedia since the subject deserves an entry. Thanks. shyamw1Shyamw1 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

I went back and re-read all of the comments to anything I submitted and realized that the comment about copyright was from one of my submissions last year. Since it showed up on top when I logged in, I got confused and thought it was from my present submission. Sorry about that. As for multiple reliable sources, I could only find the published book by Prasad and the article from The Hindu. This surprised me as well since he was quite famous in his time. There are some sources written by the diplomat but I don't think I'm allowed to use primary sources. Please advise. Thank you. Shyamw1Shyamw1 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to use sources written by the person himself for some of the article's material, but they won't contribute to establishing notability, Shyamw1. Independent sources are needed for that. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The Cultural Institute platform is open to non-profit institutions, museums, galleries, and archives with copyright-free or copyright-cleared content that they would like to share. Does that mean that I can use some of it's artiles to add some lines or images to wikipedia's articles?? Super ninja2 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Super ninja2. Are you referring to the Google Cultural Institute, or something else? You can upload anything which is known to be copyright-free to Wikimedia Commons. As for "copyright-cleared", I am not sure exactly what that means. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I can see nothing about copyright status on the Google Cultural Institute website. The status of each artwork would have to be determined separately. Rojomoke (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Information from published journals

Hi all,

I'm working on the page for the fitness-density covariance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness-density_covariance). Am I allowed to show the derivation of how it is calculated from population dynamics equations? I have a draft of this in the talk page. The writing is not plagiarized, but it closely follows all of the logic from the journal articles where it was described. If I cite those articles, and make sure the summary is in my own words, then is this okay to add that to Wikipedia? Or, could that break some kind of copyright? (I couldn't find anything specific on the copyright page about what can be used from academic articles)

Thanks! Simonmstump (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Simonmstump. The mathematical formulas in derivations are usually considered to be ideas, since there are only a few ways of deriving them. Copyright covers expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. So you are OK putting in the derivation, but not copying the text. The problem the article may run into is that the only references are to the author of the concept. Does anyone besides Chessen used the term? StarryGrandma (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi StarryGrandma. Thanks, that helps a lot! For the Chesson question, other people have written about it (though much has been him and his students), although he was the original person to derive it. Is that a problem? Is your suggestion just that I should be citing a variety of people in the article? If so, I can work on that. Simonmstump (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Message

Is there a way to send an automatic message to a user if I rollback one of their edits? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This may not have been what you intended by your question but users do automatically get a notification when their edits are reverted, so long as they have "Edit revert" ticked at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. I reverted one of your edits just before starting to compose this post (and then immediately rolled back my undo) just to demonstrate to you the notification message I am writing about now (unless you don't have the preference set). If you mean, however, some type of more specific message: though I don't use Twinkle, I believe it has features that allow you to automatically template a user when doing certain things. I'm sure others can shed more light or tell me that I'm wrong. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I know you can send a notification when nominating an article for deletion, I just don't know about templating when rollbacking. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about automatically posting a notification on someone's talkpage every time you undo any edit they've made, I'd strongly advise against it. That has the potential to get really annoying, really quickly. If you feel a revert warrants discussion, the article's talk page is the best place for that so other people with an interest can express their opinions. ‑ Iridescent 15:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How to resize an image from Wikimedia commons to insert in Wikipedia article

Hello wonderful Teahouse folks,

I found this image (File:Sarva_Buddha_Dakini_01.jpg) on Wikimedia commons that would work well as an example in this article that I've been editing, Kartika_(knife). I hope that I've linked the image file properly.

At the top of the page of the image file, there is a small button that says "use this link" with a nice Wikipedia W on it. When I do that, there is a file name and I tried inserting that in the article. The image appears, but it covers the whole page. How do I reduce the image size so that it fits nicely in the article?

Thank you. AD64 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. The file overwhelms this space too, so I have taken the Wikilink off of it but left the file name in place. I hope this is all intelligible. AD64 (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back to the Teahouse, AD64. At Commons, there are two choices offered for the code to display a picture in a Wikipedia article. The one you used tries to display the image at highest resolution. Instead, select the "thumbnail" option, which resizes the image to the optimal size most of the time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I figured it out!
Perhaps someone would be so kind as to delete this question so it doesn't litter up the Teahouse space unnecessarily? Thank you. AD64 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This is useful information for other new editors, and therefore is not litter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You are correct on both counts, @Cullen:. I appreciate your help, as always. Best, AD64 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


And in response to your second problem, AD64, as a general rule, if a wikilink does something special (like displaying a picture, or placing a page in a category) you can prevent that behaviour and just get the link by starting the link with a colon. So [[:File:Sarva_Buddha_Dakini_01.jpg]] displays as File:Sarva_Buddha_Dakini_01.jpg. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
ColinFine, that small piece of information is somehow extremely helpful. Many thanks, AD64 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Page Protection

why and how should I request for page protection? Pranish.rock (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pranish.rock. Page protection is reserved for pages with a history of chronic vandalism and obvious disruption. File your request at Requests for page protection, but read all the details first. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Drafts for Cambridge Animation Systems and TVPaint

Can someone please find more sources for Draft:Cambridge Animation Systems? Also, can Draft:TVPaint be rewritten? 68.2.123.163 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The Teahouse is a place to post questions about editing Wikipedia, rather than somewhere to request that other editors work on drafts that you have started. You might find some willing editors here, but it is not the purpose of this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

dating citations of books

I have new citations and am told my dating is wrongly formatted. I stated year of edition referenced, followed by year of original publication, thus: |date=1978[1922]}}. Thank you for showing me correct formatting.TBR-qed (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TBR-qed. You should cite the date of the edition you actually read yourself. That also includes other information that may have changed since first publication, such as page number, publisher, city of publication, and so on. Sometimes, even titles change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
As for the error messages that you are receiving, you need to use an acceptable date format, as described in the Manual of style. The shortcut is MOS:DATEFORMAT. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that you are using {{Cite book}}, to display the original date of publication use |date=1978|orig-year=1922. This is documented at: Template:Cite book. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How to switch back from Edit Source to visual editor?

Today I logged into Wikipedia and my only option for editing is in "Edit Source" vs the visual editor I typically edit in. I need help getting back to the visual editor. Thank you ! Simonefortiarchive (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind ! I figured it out. Thank you Simonefortiarchive (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How to find sources

Hello, I am a medicine student and I want to contribute some information that i find in my university courses, how can I easily source that? I don't have time to search separated articles for every bit of information. thanks SKPapillon (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SKPapillon. Our standards for referencing medical are stringent and are described in detail at Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Widely accepted medical textbooks are acceptable sources, for example, which may be easiest for you. Please also read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SKPapillon. In my opinion, if you haven't got time to find sources, then you haven't got time to edit articles. Finding and citing sources is the important and valuable part of adding to Wikipedia articles: writing the text is a bit of housekeeping. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

When and how to create a page re-direct.

Hello wonderful Teahouse contributors. I'm grateful you are here helping me as I learn to be an editor.

I've been editing the page on Kartika_(knife), a Buddhist ritual implement. I'd like to create a re-direct page based on the Tibetan term for this knife, either trigug or drigug. The terms trigug and drigug are both mentioned in the article, so in a general search there is a note pointing to the kartika page. Even so, a re-direct would be more direct, or elegant?

My questions are: is this a decent case for a re-direct? If so, how do I do that? I've searched on the help pages and can't seem to find a 'how to' page.

I also posted this on the article's talk page, but I doubt there are many watching the article and no one has responded yet. I will of course, give it more time, in case an editor wants to respond. In the meantime, I thought to ask here for opinions about whether this is a good case for a re-direct and some information on how to go forth.

Thank you, AD64 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again AD64. Yes, redirects are cheap: create any that you think people might be searching on (even, sometimes, mis-spellings!). I suggest creating both Trigug and Drigug, with the content #REDIRECT [[Kartika (knife)]]. That's all. --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine. This is helpful. I appreciate the tags too. Where do I place them? Do I need to first create blank pages for drigug and/or trigug? Or does all this happen on the main article page? Best, AD64 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The easiest way is to copy the redirect code above. Click on the first red link, paste the code into three page and save it with an edit summary. Then click on the second red link and do the same. -- GB fan 23:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
No, AD64 you create the page Trigug and the entire content you put in it is the string I gave you above (without the <code> and <nowiki> tags - they were just to make it appear on this page). --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It worked! Created the two redirects to Kartika. Many thanks for the step by step instructions, ColinFine, they really helped. Best, AD64 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is it still our entry rejected? Need help

We've been rejected several times. I already added third-party sources for this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cris_Albert Earlier today, we received a message about the submission. It said: The article is overpromotional and has peacock terms on it though I already did changes about it. Filaphilippines (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the "Professional Engagements" section reads like a resume, and we do not host resumes. It also has no sources at all. Delete that section entirely. As for the section on iSportslife, is the article about iSport Life, or Cris Albert's work with iSport Life? If the article is about Cris Albert, only discuss her work with iSport Life instead of going on about the company. You cannot take sources that talk only about iSport Life and say "this is her doing," you need sources that specifically credit her for
Also, you don't really see other articles with "Accolades" or "Social activities" sections. I'd trim those (and the "Philanthropic Endeavors" section) down to only the sourced entries, merge them into a single "Other work" section, and rewrite it as a paragraph instead of a list. Right now, those three sections look like they're trying to get her points in some contest or something.
There's also a lot of stuff in here that just does not have a source -- you need to delete that stuff or find a source for it.
Really, if you want an article to get in, start by just gathering professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources about the subject. No blogs, no sites with "Wiki" in the name, no PR sites. Narrow the sources down to ones that are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with the subject. That means that sources like this one. Then, paraphrase those sources, summarize your paraphrases, and write it all in a way that even people who hate the subject would have to agree. After the article is accepted, you can use sources that mention her but are not about her (like this one) to expand the article, but to get the article published, you need to focus only on Cris Albert for now. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

mention somene

I'm trying to mention someone in my talk page but I wanted to test it first, so I mentioned my second acount using these templates >> @Shorouq2911: , shorouq2911 but neither of them appeared in my 2nd account notifications. Did I made any mistake? shorouq★kadair 👱 02:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2, welcome to the Teahouse. In order for those notifications to work, you need to save a signature (by typing ~~~~ after your message) in the same edit you use the {{mention}} template. If you link the username without saving a signature in the same edit, a mention notification will not be sent. Also, just to let you know, creating a second account to test Wikipedia's functions in this manner is okay, but please make sure you read our policy on multiple accounts. In particular, do not use multiple accounts to try to deceive editors by pretending you are multiple people. If at all possible, make it clear that the accounts are connected (e.g. by leaving a note on the user page). Avoid editing the same article or discussion with multiple accounts. Honestly, it's probably best to stick to one account in general. Best, Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ralph Garafola

I reviewed Draft:Ralph Garafola. I declined it and noted that the Awards and Press sections were indiscriminate unformatted run-on lists. I was then asked by User:PaintbrushArt the following:

HI Robert, I am trying to publish this article on Ralph Garafola. I have first hand knowledge that all information is 100% accurate. Now, in this last time submitting with changes, I am not sure i understand your response on Awards & Press section. This section was included in this article from the onset. Although these awards may not help make Garafola notable, they were awarded to him for his work. If I deleted this section, would this article be approved? Please, can you be very specific in your comments. It seems that people reviewing article decline without giving detailed advice on how to get it approved. I see many other unknown artist pages that appear on Wikipedia that have little and in some cases no content. Do they get published because they are not alive? I appreciate whatever help you can provide. Thank you PaintbrushArt

First, I acknowledge that I wasn’t specific about the rest of the draft. The other problem is that the draft doesn’t provide footnotes. These are strongly encouraged in all articles but are especially important in biographies of living persons. You have provided a hodge-podge of general (end-of-the-article) references, which is better than nothing, but not much better than nothing. Although the article can’t possibly be accepted with the current Press and Awards sections, because they aren’t in good paragraph form, deleting them won’t get the article accepted. I would suggest reworking and trimming them, as well as adding better footnotes, rather than deleting the sections.

By the way, some reviewers are very wary of being asked to provide "very specific" comments, for two reasons. First, many contributors want to think that an article is declined only for a very specific reason, when often there is a more general problem. Second, too many editors ask that question because they have a self-serving or conflict of interest agenda, and are interested only in getting their article accepted without regard to Wikipedia in general. You don’t fall into that class, because I see that you are pushing for this article because the subject is a hero of yours (which is not a conflict of interest). However, please try to understand why reviewers are wary of being asked for "very specific" instructions.

Do other experienced editors have other suggestion? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I notice that PaintbrushArt was advised to follow the excellent recommendations at Referencing for beginners in early April, but has not done so. I wonder why? Of course, the fundamental issue here is whether or not this painter is notable. I did a Google search and saw he wrote one book but it seems he has not been the subject of coverage in reliable books by others. I see no evidence that his paintings are in the collections of major museums, or that there have been solo museum exhibitions of his work, or that he is considered the originator of a recognized style or notable school of art. I do not see any significant coverage in art journals, or in major newspapers or magazines. I see no solid evidence of notability. There are countless thousands of wonderful artists who have had great careers but have not broken through to notability as defined here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of every career artist on the planet. It is an encyclopedia containing biographies of notable artists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to create a page about a personality. I have some reliable resources. Please help

Hi I recently created a page of a personality Sanjay Ghodawat, a Business man from a small Indian city Kolhapur and used reliable references yet the page was deleted. Please help me in writing an article. Sameersodaye666 (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Sameersodaye666 (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Sameersodaye666 (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sameersodaye666. The article you wrote was deleted because its text was overtly promotional. Wikipedia articles must be written from the neutral point of view. This is a core content policy, and is non-negotiable. Please read and study Your first article, and follow all of its recommendations carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Article not meeting NPOV Guidelines

Dear Team , I suspect this article Soulmate (band) is not meeting guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Also it might have missed AFC submissions process as inline citations are not supporting individual statements but I also feel they are notable. I might be wrong though since its very old page. Someone have a look Catrat999 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Catrat999. I'm sorry that it's taken so long for you to receive a reply. From the article history, it doesn't look like Soulmate (band) was created via the AfC process, so it wouldn't have been subject to review. If you feel that it is not neutral, one option is to tag it by adding {{POV|date=May 2016}} to the top of the article. You could also outline your concerns on its talk page, or attempt to fix the tone yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry, Thank you sir. I tagged it as per the instruction. Have I done it right ? And no worries about delay in reply , I understand how complex it is to handle several queries every day. Regarding editing any article I think I need some more time to fix issues on any random article because my edit might hurt sentiments of owner of the article . But I do have another question for you, I read there are more than 0.3 million articles who haven't gone though AFC process and many might have such issues. Is there any process or known method where I can help wikipedia by identifying such articles and informing about it to respective team who is skilled to fix such issues? I am not sure how helpful it will be but if I can do something to organise it, I would love to take that job.Thanks and RegardsCatrat999 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles weren't created via AfC, Catrat999, but many of those will be well-written. Having been through AfC is no guarantee either, because it doesn't stop people adding non-neutral material later on. The way to flag these articles is to tag them. You almost got it right, but you included the markup that I used to display the code here without tagging the Teahouse as POV. You can see how I fixed your edit here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok thats interesting :) So I do learnt two things a) how to tag and b) if I need to share those codes at Teahouse how to share it without tagging Teahouse. Thank you so much for correcting my tag Cordless Larry sir. Well one last question please. Have a look on this article Madhura Sreedhar Reddy. Here there are no citations at all along with POV issues, so with the help of some other article I added another tag on it that it needs additional citations but actually I wanted to tag that there are no citations at all. Will it work ? So conclusion is there are many different different issues and I dont know respective code for tagging respective issue. Is there a wiki page where I can read what needs to be tagged depending on situation. I dont want to bother you again and again for such small issues. With time I ll get there (Y) . Sorry for any inconvenience. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There are several pages, Catrat999, indexed at Wikipedia:Template messages. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is particularly helpful for this type of issue. You did a good job tagging that article, although {{unreferenced}} might be a better template to use than {{refimprove}}. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Correction, Catrat999: it should be {{BLP unsourced}}, as the article is about a living person. I see that Theroadislong has proposed it for deletion as an unsourced biography. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok but my intensions were not to delete it, I was just aiming to improve it as per the guidelines, the owner of the article will be so upset with me. I have corrected tag though have a look. And thank you so so much Cordless Larry sir. These templates are great read, I will start my work now :) And thank you for the appreciation sir that give me some confidence to proceed. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no ownership of articles on Wikipedia, Catrat999, and the article will not be deleted immediately. If sources are not added within seven days, though, it will be, because biographies of living people should have sources per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If the article creator is upset, then they should have referenced their sources in the first place. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ya that make sense Cordless Larry Sir. Thank you :) Hope whoever wrote that article is atleast getting some notification about this tag else I am sure no one will correct it. Also I was thinking after applying tags for cleanup, I will share list of those articles here so that you can review if I did any mistake in tagging. Is that ok with you ?Please let me know whenever you think I am wasting your time:) Cheers Catrat999 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Catrat999. Just post on my talk page or if you post here, notify me by including {{u|Cordless Larry}} in your post. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Sir, I got another round of feedback from my reviewer, He says still very POV, I have reworked on my project , I request you also to kindly review it once again, so that I ll consolidate both the reviews and correct it again. Draft:Purplehed Records. And regarding the list of other articles for clean up, I ll send you on your talk page (Y). Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is this new feedback, Catrat999? The template at the top of the draft says that it is still awaiting review. I've never been involved in reviewing drafts, so I will leave this to those who do that regularly and know more about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

New review I got here User_talk:Onel5969#Mentoring_Request :) No Cordless Larry sir I was not asking to review in that sense, just as a mentor I was wondering if you might be able to give me some advice so that I can improve on writing before someone actually reviews it officially, Like last time you expressed your views :) But never mind if you are not comfortable. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you've submitted the draft for review, it's probably best to just wait for the outcome of that. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry - Have a look whether I have applied correct tags on below articles Rohan Shah, Sachida Nagdev, Anurag Singh (cricketer born 1990), Anurag Singh . Best RegardsCatrat999 (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Those all look fine, Catrat999. Good job. I don't have time to look for possible sources now, but the unsourced BLPs are possible candidates for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You Cordless Larry Sir! So shall I Continue clean up in same direction? Or you suggest me to use {{unreferenced}} instead of BLP ?

If the articles are biographies of living people, then you should use the BLP-specific tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
One clarification, Catrat999: if a BLP article was created after 18 March 2010, you should use the deletion tag instead. This is explained in the documentation at Template:BLP unsourced and Template:Prod blp. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi, i wrote an article, and it was declined due to not enough notable sources. How can i fix this? Arcmind (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Arc. This is re. Vex? It's likely to be hard, as your current single source (needs more than 1 source to establish notability) is (a) a wiki (not usually reliable) and (b) presumably owned by the company involved (not useful in establishing notability and of questionably reliability when it comes to promotional statements).
You need to find reliable 3rd party sources. Books, news articles; that sort of thing. Once you have a number of those supporting statements made in the article, that will establish notability.
Also, sources used to support points need to be verifiable. So a ref like "Vex wiki" isn't very useful; in that case, you'd be best off linking directly to the relevant page.
If you want to read more, it was linked in the notice on the draft, but have a look at this: Wikipedia:Notability. Bromley86 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I get it now, my article cannot be from the company, or it is a self promotion. And it has to have one or more sources from verifiable third party users right? thank you so much for your advice. I will see if any of third party sources exist. :) Arcmind (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC) 

Arcmind (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. Good luck! Bromley86 (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks off to war i go! Arcmind (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_481&oldid=1138689560"