Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 484

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 480 ← Archive 482 Archive 483 Archive 484 Archive 485 Archive 486 → Archive 490

How to upload

HOW TO UPLOAD IMAGE TO WIKIPEDIA?HELP ------ BITTER ANSWER=NO NEEDED--Yes ji (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Yes ji. If you took the photo yourself and are willing to license it for free use by anyone for any purpose, then please go to Wikimedia Commons, and upload it there. Your photo cannot be of an item which is itself copyrighted. You cannot upload random images you find on the internet, unless you can provide written evidence that the image is copyright free, or that the use of the image is in full compliance with our policy on use of non-free images. It is your responsibility to ensure that any image you add is in full compliance with copyright law. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328:I,m asking about How to upload image, thanks for telling me copyright law but i want to know how to upload???

--Yes ji (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

How can I possibly answer your question properly,Yes ji, when you have told us nothing whatsoever about the image you want to upload, even information as fundamental as whether or not you are the copyright holder? Image uploading is very complicated. Your current question is way too vague to answer properly. A detailed question will get a detailed answer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Find

Where we find all new created pages at wikipedia?09:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes ji (talk • contribs)

Hi Yes ji. The "Recent changes and logs" sectionm of the "Special pages" link in the left pane has a link to Special:NewPages. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hoax in User space?

I came across what appears to be a very elaborate hoax under (slow) construction in a user sandbox here. Not sure what the right process is for dealing with it, or even which is the right noticeboard to report it too (if reporting it at all is the right action). Guessing it may breach BLP given that it mentions loads of living people. Guidance please... Cheeers Gricehead (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest first adding a comment either on the draft talk page or via the AFC comment mechanism (if you have the AFC Helper Script) saying that this looks like crystal ball. They, after a day or two, either nominate it for speedy deletion as a hoax or nominate it for Miscellany for Deletion as a hoax. That is my thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made an AFC comment to that effect. The purpose of the AFC comment or draft comment is so that, if it is tagged for speedy deletion, which doesn't have a comment field, it will be clear to the reviewing admin what the problem is. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the draft for Miscellany for Deletion. Two editors said Delete. An IP, presumably the author, removed the MFD template. I restored the template and warned the IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing Lists

I have a question about how to properly source a long list of information. Here is the situation. I am improving the article Woman's Home Companion. I've added a list of stats about the magazine including a list of editors, publishers, presidents, etc. which I found in a good source, A History of American Magazines by Frank Luther Mott. I don't want to add a source to each entry--what is the best way to apply a blanket source on a list? Jaldous1 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations: date retrieved

I've done a major rewrite/revision of an article, including the reformatting of all citations. But what do I do about the dates the online sources were retrieved? And do we only note when a source was retrieved if it is a strictly online source, or also for a print source that also has a web version of the source?

Thank You! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WikiEditorial101. If you have looked at a source, and checked that it hasn't changed, and is still an appropriate source, then you can update the access-date to today. If you haven't examined the source, you can leave the date as it was. Sources do not have to be online, and if they are a URL is a convenience, not a requirement: the important part of the citation is the bibliographic information, so that any reader can in principle obtain a copy of the source, eg through a major library. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you. Well, none of the citations have access dates at all, so I guess I should just check them all and add today's access date to all sources that are still good like you said? But as for real print newspaper sources for which there are also web versions...if the link is included, is it still necessary to provide an access date even though its primary medium is print? Thank you! —WikiEditorial101 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the documentation at Template:Cite news and other citation templates says about access dates: "Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium)". I provide access dates for online versions of newspaper articles, because they might change even if the hard copy can't (unless we are talking about an archive of scanned articles or something like Nexis). Cordless Larry (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you!WikiEditorial101 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

weird deletion policy ?

(I wrote an article about an education model which is linked to a community yet it is deemed as promotion of that community by wikipedia admins, which is mind boggling. nowhere have i lionized advertised or celebrated that community?

i have only given information regarding their history and the schools, colleges and special institutes that run under their domain.

need valuable input? Mysticrecluse (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

First, if you wish to discuss an article, please provide a link to it. In this case, it seems to be Nazarat Taleem (Directorate of education) Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya Pakistan. If you wish to contest the nomination for speedy deletion, you may click on the link to do so, which will enter your comments on the talk page. However, the article is confusing. Is the article about an agency in the Pakistani government, or about a school? In any case, my advice is to move to article to draft space and submit it via the Articles for Creation process. I know that if I were reviewing that article, I would decline it (but not delete it) and ask what its scope is. Move it to draft space and use AFC and discuss with the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

where

Where we find deleted articles?____Yes ji (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If they are articles that you created that were deleted, you can find them if you kept the original on your computer. If they are articles that someone else created that were then deleted via one of the various deletion processes, then you can't find them unless you made a copy of the article. The whole point of deletion is to get rid of articles that are deemed unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Administrators can view and retrieve deleted articles, for various reasons, such as to explain why the article was deleted, or to check whether a newly submitted article is a copy of the deleted article, in which case it will be deleted also. If you created an article that was deleted and you want to try to fix it, you may request that it be moved to your user space via a Request for Undeletion. Does that answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it spamming to...

I sell statistical software. If a statistical article contains a list of statistical packages the performs the particular analysis, is it spamming if I add my product to the list? Jerry5000 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Jerry Hintze Yes it is considered spamming, please see WP:LINKSPAM I have removed about 30 of your links. Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi

I don't want to sound argumentative, but I would like to understand the rules. I have read the links you asked me to and I am still confused. So, could we talk about the article "Robust Regression"? This article has a section called "Software" and list several software packages that perform robust regression, so I added ours to the list since some of the packages listed are our direct competitors. Are you saying that I should not have done this but it is okay for the other products listed to be there? I love Wikipedia and use it all the time. I want to obey the rules. Thanks, Jerry5000 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The software list you added at Robust regression has several problems, Jerry Hintze. Most of the items on the list consists of inappropriate external links to the websites of the software vendors. This simply isn't allowed since it is inherently promotional. If an independent reliable source lists and compares software packages used for robust regression, then the article can mention them, and wikilink to those with Wikipedia articles. This needs an inline reference to the reliable source. On the broader point, editors who persist in spamming behavior are routinely blocked, so please don't go there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
This is my point. I didn't add the list. I found the existing list there and added an entry for NCSS. The other entries have been there for quite some time and were added by others.
But I think I get the message: I shouldn't add my software to an article even if the reader might appreciate knowing about it. I should let google do that. Have I got it? Jerry5000 (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I suggest consulting Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Jerry Hintze, and following the advice there about using the {{request edit}} template to request edits on article talk pages if you think there is value in adding an external link to your company's website. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The edit history indicates that you restored that non-compliant software list even if you did not start it originally. I am completely bewildered by your mention of Google in this context, Jerry Hintze, since Google does not edit Wikipedia articles. What you should do is edit Wikipedia to improve our general coverage of statistics, since you say you are an expert in that field. What you should not do is engage in a pattern of editing behavior that uninvolved editors see as an attempt to promote your own business ventures. We oppose that kind of behavior quite forcefully, even as it crops up repeatedly in countless articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You, and other Wikipedia editors, need to be aware that Wikipedia has an entirely different concept of "what the reader would appreciate knowing" than a corporate editor does. Corporate editors very very often are sure that other readers will appreciate seeing links to commercial products. However, many readers, especially readers who understand and appreciate Wikipedia because it has a neutral point of view, doesn't want to see links to commercial products except in lists that have been carefully edited to provide Wikipedia's neutral point of view. It is often very hard for commercial editors to understand that Wikipedia has a different idea of what readers "will appreciate" than they do, but accepting that neutral viewpoint, even if they disagree, is essential to their continued privilege of editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Green and red numbers in my contributions

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I have a question about the numbers in my contributions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peterye2005 There are red numbers and there are green numbers. What are the red and green numbers for?

Peterye2005 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The green and the red have the same meanings as the signs in front of the numbers. A green number with a plus sign means that you increased the number of letters in the article by N. A red number with a minus sign means that you decreased the number of letters in the article by N. Providing the color as well as the sign is a convenience. (Providing the sign is necessary for the benefit of those with limited color vision.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Peterye2005. See more at Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Core contest

Hi folks, The Core Contest is on again, running from May 15 to June 30. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Cheers! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Can anything be done about clearly unsatisfactory articles?

As an L. Frank Baum biographer and enthusiast, I am really upset about the Wikipedia articles on "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and the succeeding Oz books. Not only do they contain inaccuracies, but they focus on unhelpful information (detailed plot summary in several cases, far-fetched political allegory in "The Wizard") and omit what readers should see -- the insights and values of Baum's fairy stories. Editing them sufficiently would mean completely rewriting them. I'd like to go ahead with this -- but not, of course, if it would be against Wikipedia's rules and my work might be discarded as inappropriate.2601:147:8000:37F0:9DB:4DA:12E8:7B8E (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally speaking, we trust in the slow evolution of articles. But there is nothing that prevents major overhauls even by a single editor. The most relevant policy here is WP:CONSENSUS: changes are acceptable so long as other editors do not oppose them. In practice, this means that if you want to rewrite an article, you should ask other editors' opinion about it on the article's talk page first. If your plan is unopposed, you can go ahead and make the changes. But be prepared to address other editors' concerns as you write; consensus evolves with time and initial lack of objections isn't a free pass.
As much as Wikipedia values collaborative effort, it's a fact that some of the best work (on the article level) is achieved by qualified individuals. I'd encourage you to read this article on two editors who practically rewrote the article on Charlie Chaplin to make it a Featured article on Wikipedia: "These editors spent one year writing Charlie Chaplin’s Wikipedia article". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I basically agree with User:Finnusertop, but will add. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but, in your case, I would strongly suggest that you create an account before attempting significant rework on the article. I would also suggest that you discuss heavily on the article talk page, first, before you start rewriting, and, second, as you are rewriting. I would also advise you to start on correcting inaccuracies, and to avoid removing what you consider unhelpful information. Many readers may consider it helpful. As to plot descriptions, in particular, see the policy that there are no spoilers. That is, the highest priority should be correcting any inaccuracies, and the lowest priority should be removing "unhelpful" information. Other than that, as noted, work collaboratively with other editors. If you and they disagree, you can move on to areas where you agree. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the go-ahead advice is contingent on the fact that what you have identified as problems are problems under our understanding of what an encyclopedia article should and should not contain. Inaccuracies are inaccuracies alright (provided that you have reliable sources). For plot summaries, see Writing about fiction and How to write a plot summary. I don't know specifics about the political allegories and the value of fairy stories, but their inclusion ultimately depends on whether and how much reliable sources discuss them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
In my view, the most interesting part of the article about a rather trite children's story is the posited political motivation for it, as an allegory about the gold standard. I suspect that if you try to censor out the interesting bit, you will meet with resistance. Maproom (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I had never been aware of the political interpretations. That does not surprise me, because when I read the story, it had no political interpretations. I do think that the section about the political interpretations is much too long. However, I would suggest that future discussion go to the article talk page, Talk:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I take issue with the 1939 film also, but that is because it invalidates the fairy tale with the dream device. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References?

I had a tag saying that an article I wrote did not refer to enough external references Stochocratie. I refer to two wikipedia articles that contain external references. Should I include them in my article? Even too common is taken (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If other Wikipedia articles contain references to reliable sources that are applicable to the article in question, yes, you may copy them into the article in question, and doing so will be appreciated. However, be sure that the references are applicable to the article in question. References need to be applicable to the article, and to the part of the article where they are included. As it is, the article is likely to be nominated for deletion unless reliable sources can be found that describe the game or procedure (or whatever you want to call it). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Even too common is taken
What the tag actually said was "This article does not cite any sources".
Since that tag was added you have added a lot things to the "references" section, but these are not very helpful, as they do not support any specific part of the article. I have changed the tag to "No footnotes"
Please read Help:Referencing for beginners and add citations in the text to explain where each piece of information has come from. - Arjayay (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Even too common is taken. The article you wrote has been deleted under WP:A11 as something made up. Please read about the things that Wikipedia does not include. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328.In WP:A11 it written that "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance". It seems to me that citing references demonstrate the significance of this article, no? You do think that Solar Lottery, Philip K. Dick, 1955 and The Dice Man, George Cockcroft, 1971 are unimportant?. Even too common is taken (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean Stochocracy? Ian.thomson (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Even too common is taken. I hope that you are not trolling though your most recent comment gives me doubts. Why the hell would the existence of an article about a Philip K. Dick novel justify keeping an article about an utterly non-notable game that you and your buddies made up? Dick and his novels are obviously notable. Your made-up games aren't. Get over it and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, PKD's Solar Lottery does not contain the words "Stochocracy" or "Stochocratie" or variants thereof, so it is no more a source for that article than the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. Does Cockcroft's Dice Man actually mention Stochocracy? Because Wikipedia does not use the personal interpretations and original research of its users -- it only summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am going to stop using wikipedia to discuss about politic so no worry. My future wife (more than wikipedia moderators that suppress page at sight (even dangerous user page) :) convinced me to stop using wikipedia to talk about the game. About Solar Lottery, true he does not talk about "Stochocratie" but can't you see the parallel between "Assasin" and "Thrower" and "Leader" and "Moderator". Best, Even too common is taken (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Senior Members Sincere request to kindly guide me on this thread

Regarding rejection of Draft:Purplehed Records My reviewer has tagged my draft with Wikipedia:Too soon with a reason that "One song/video does not a notable record company make . I completely disagree with it . First of all its an independent record label not just a record lablel there is lot of difference. Secondly where is this rule or guideline mentioned, I want to read about it then only I can accept it. I have read all rules and guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and I find it completely notable subject. I don't understand how does it matter whether their first single is more notable or second. I am clearly supporting each and every statement of my article with independent notable reliable sources then how come notability is an issue ? Some one kindly guide me on this thread because this whole AFC submission process seems like a scam to me now every time I get some new irrelevant rules without any significance. Catrat999 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catrat999. If you want your article to be accepted, I think that your strategy of denouncing the AFC process as a "scam" is ill-advised. AFC is an optional process intended to help you create an article that will have a good chance of surviving a deletion debate. If you want to take your chances with AfD, which can much more hostile, then you can move the draft to main space. But I do not recommend that as I suspect you may not like the outcome. When I take a look at your draft article, several issues immediately come to mind. What is the topic? Your draft purports to be about a record label. But when I read it, the draft seems to be more about a performer or a recording. The draft is lacking the sort of information that we would expect about a record label and instead strays off into other topics. New editors seem to think that more references are better, and your draft has 23. Instead, it is far better to build a draft article on a smaller number of indisputably excellent reliable independent sources. In the case of an article about a record label, these would be sources that devote significant coverage to the record label as a business venture, as opposed to sources which mention the label in passing while discussing a recording or a recording artist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328 I appreciate your feedback. And I agree with your feedback to some extent. And thats why I have opted for AFC submission process but my expectation was learning and not wasting lot of time. Here is my next question to you, dont you think if AFC process is really about improvement then all these issues that you pointed out should have been discussed much earlier ? Do you really think after 2 months of hard work reviewer suggests that subject is not notable is appropriate? Is this the way you want new editors to learn ? How efficient is this process? I would have not wasted my 2 months right? This is not the first time this subject is getting discussed at tea house :) Now lets talk about improvements because thats what should be main concern here, Regarding your question about what is the topic here , I have included every thing in single page because I believe Recording page and Artist page need not be separate article at this stage, but after reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means#Diagram, I concluded that instead of making multiple separate stub articles I can make one good article based on following points :- 1) Subject is notable for two singles/music videos 2) what Independent sources are talking about it (I am talking about facts and not any rules here) 3) Subject is notable under what name Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming ? Now naming was the most challenging part here for me so I asked myself What is fact here ? " Purplehed is also stage name of founder and as an independent artists the duo brother started their own record label named Purplehed Records now if you think article Tittle is inappropriate please suggest me how to improve on that  :) Also I really dont think more references are better as a new editor please dont be judgemental here lets talk about facts https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/purplehed/press , I have given inline reference to support statements where ever possible, unfortunately that number is coming to 23 but actually if you think more references was idea it could have gone to 42  :) Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I will try to comment. I see that you are frustrated with not getting your submission approved, through a process which is optional and is meant to help new editors. I would comment that two related limitations on the process is that it, in itself, doesn't provide much information to the editor and doesn't provide discussion or back-and-forth, and, second, it is backlogged. The workaround for those limitations as to use other means of discussion with the reviewer or other editors, such as on the reviewer's talk page, or at the AFC discussion page (and there is a button on the decline to ask a question there), or here. You are here, so we can discuss. I will also note that some reviewers provide more guidance than others in a decline. Some just choose a decline reason; others provide comments in addition to a decline reason. So if you don't think that the comments are sufficient, ask, which you are now doing.
I haven't read all or most of the references and so don't know to what extent they establish notability of the label. Many editors provide large numbers of references that are only marginal. In your case, a review of a record produced under the label is marginal to the label. (Some references are completely irrelevant. In a draft about a high-tech company, a reference to a textbook or paper describing a high-tech process in detail is irrelevant if it doesn't mention the company. Examples can apply anywhere.) There are at least two essays about adding large numbers of marginal references, WP:BOMBARD and WP:CITEKILL. Basically, a few good references are far better than a large number of marginal references.
I do have a thought that I haven't seen expressed elsewhere. If you have a large number of references, and you think that two or three of them are the most important, you can use an AFC comment to point out to reviewers which ones you think establish notability. (AFC comments come out when a draft is accepted.) Don't WP:BOMBARD or WP:CITEKILL if you don't have a few solid references to establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon Thanks for the Help :) Your guidance completely make sense to me and I agree with all of your points, however I request you to kindly have a look on other side of the coin or my perceptive so that together we can solve this issue because after all that is the mission. So first thing I haven't done any thing like WP:BOMBARD and WP:CITEKILL . Both the essays you have refered also says purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing. I have even used ref name to keep article neat and clean and even provided further notes. So I am sure that shouldn't be a problem and no one ever pointed out that to me. Secondly which is the most important point to fix this issue, the reason for which article was declined as per the comment " The only thing Purplehed seems to be known for is making a song commemorating Kalam. One song/video does not a notable record company make. It's possible it's TOOSOON, but if not a few more reliable sources that talk about Purplehed in a context other than Burn Like the Sun would be beneficial. " Now as per your analogy, I made an article on Hitech company = Purplehed Records and mentioned about their products not process product 1= 'Feel the passion' Single/ Music video and Product 2= 'Burn Like the Sun ' Single/Music video. If talking about process of Hitech in founding and history is a problem as pointed that process is irrelevant to company I will happily delete that section. But how come Hi tech product is irrelevant to Hitech company? If including them in a same article is a problem then I am even ready to make a seperate page for products. But I concluded based on Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Diagram that instead of making multiple separate stub articles I can make one good article by applying common sense and providing facts. I m sure your must agree to me after reading below links that they are notable for their products even reviewer mentioned about Burn Like the sun and I do understand that Purplehed Records is not exclusively mentioned in each and every article but isn't it will be a common sense to conclude that all accomplishments were made under the umbrella of Purplehed Records. Here are few notable media which clearly uses Purplehed Record term also :1) http://www.india.com/stream/tribute-to-dr-apj-abdul-kalam-iitian-group-honours-late-president-with-this-musical-video-1019210/ 2) http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/National/2016-02-27/Young-siblings-create-a-modern-art-music-video-a-tribute-to-Dr-APJ-Abdul-Kalam/210210 3) http://jamsphere.com/reviews/purplehed-burn-like-the-sun-has-an-infectious-sound-and-spark-to-the-music Here are few who used Purpehed Productions refering to music video department :- 4) http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/purplehed-productions-pays-a-musical-tribute-to-apj-abdul-kalam/article8399454.ece 5) http://www.afternoondc.in/city-news/city-based-band-releases-inspirational-music-video-tribute-to-dr-apj-abdul-kalam/article_161335 I see tittle of the article might be a problem Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming . Just Search for Purplehed on google news tab , you will get enough article to prove notability of Purpehed word itself . Now I haven't used tittle as Purplehed because it is also stage name of Songwriter/Singer and I believe In future that will be a separate page ( In your language about notable resources who made that notable Hitech Company) ? What do you suggest how to solve this complexity ? Catrat999 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Why some Russian pages are not allowed to edit??

Check please this page. It consists lot of unverified and false information. But page says its protected from future changes.. What does it mean? https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B1%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8B ZviadPochkhua (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zviadpochkhua and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately the Teahouse can only help with editing English language Wikipedia, whereas your query appears to be about Russian language Wikipedia, over which we have no control. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there a Help Desk on the Russian Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
ZviadPochkhua the Russian Help Desk is at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Can user page be deleted without reason?

A user is repeatedly deleting my French user page (HeyCat) without reason https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Even_too_common_is_taken. Is there a way to protect this page against trolling? Even too common is taken (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the English Wikipedia does not have authority over the French Wikipedia, but your English user page does go against WP:UPNOT. Wikipedia is not the place to promote any game or cause. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you did not answer my specific question and I am not talking about an encyclopedic article but a user page describing a very personal experience. Even too common is taken (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your user page went against WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTPROMO. Sorry about the personal experience, but user pages are not blogs, nor are they there to promote games, political systems, or causes.
In other words, HeyCat is probably perfectly right to delete your user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

My English userpage and its history was deleted too. Is it now a common wikipedia practise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Even too common is taken (talk • contribs) 07:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a blog, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote any games, political systems, or causes. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW we are talking about a user page not a wikipedia article here, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Even too common is taken (talk • contribs) 07:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your question needs to be asked at the appropriate place, which is on the French Wikipedia, a separate project with its own rules. I suppose there might be someone here who is fully conversant with French procedures and rules, but you are more likely to get an accurate answer if you ask at the appropriate project. It looks to me as if HeyCat's deletion of the page is appropriate because Wikipedia is not the place for your own projects or announcements. Who's the troll? Dbfirs 07:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So my question now applies for the English wikipedia as Ian.thomson deleted my English user page and its history. Even too common is taken (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your question has been answered. Repeatedly. If you are not here to build the encyclopedia, you should find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Also my userpage was three paragraphs long, not really a blog, no?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Even too common is taken (talk • contribs)

This isn't Facebook. All pages belong to the project, they are not your personal space. Dbfirs 07:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I understand your arguments. Yet a warning before deleting my userpage and its history would have been nice. Sorry for disturbing wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Even too common is taken (talk • contribs) 08:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In the detail as to the user page, it does appear, if I read correctly, that the note about the user page being problematic was made a few seconds after it was speedied, without the usual previous warning that it had been tagged for speedy deletion. That isn't the usual rule, which is to give the author some warning, or at least a chance to contest the deletion. However, it does appear that the author is using Wikipedia to popularize their own game, and that isn't what Wikipedia is for. To answer the initial question, a user page is not deleted without reason, but there can be reasons for deleting user pages. As mentioned, we have no control over the French Wikipedia, but both the French Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia have rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Having seen the discussion below, unfortunately, you do appear to have been trolling. (One of the disadvantages of the way that the Teahouse works is that sometimes a commenter misses previous context. I think that the structure of the Teahouse is wrong, but there is very little that I can do about it.) You say that you won't waste our time any further. If so, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Now that this is archived, the discussion is above.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

how to find references if they perosn didnt have media attention

we are writing an article about someone who worked on the ground with people in remotest parts of rajasthan , he never got much media attention therefore has no online links for his work. we have several photographs of his work proving his credibility. how do we use that in references so that it can be considered for the publishing? KUNALJ73 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, KUNALJ73, and welcome to the Teahouse. We do not operate with "credibility" about a topic. We focus on notability, which we take to mean significant coverage in reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Any medium will do; these sources need not be online: they can be books, magazines, newspaper articles, videotapes, etc. - but in essences all sources come about by media (or scholarly) attention. If you can not locate such sources, then the person is not notable on Wikipedia's standards and we may not have an article about him. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

How can i get my article get accepted ?

They have declined my articled and gave me this reason : This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Can anyone please help me, I am newbie. Sash1612 (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Note – I moved this question to the TH top. — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I assume this is about Draft:Pranjal Singh - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I've just corrected several of the references in that draft: there was a duplicate http:// in the URL. I haven't actually looked at the references to see if they are acceptable (but I wonder how the reviewer Onel5969 reviewed it with them as they were). --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you're insinuating, but how did you correct them? By removing the dupe http at the beginning? Perhaps someone else could figure that and check out that 2 blogs and a shaky RS don't establish notability. Onel5969 TT me 19:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Within the past 24 hours we have had two questions that asked about foreign language Wikipedias. We of course told them that we have no control over foreign language Wikipedias. My questions are, first, whether a banner would be useful to the effect that questions about foreign language Wikipedias should not be asked here but there, and, second, (a question I have mentioned before) whether there should be a list of foreign language Help Desks for Wikipedias? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Help desk has (several dozen) inter-language links in the left margin, as does the Teahouse, but only one - German, as the Teahouse concept has not yet propagated further. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd assume in many Wikipedias the functions of the Teahouse and Wikipedia:Help desk are not sufficiently differentiated. The Finnish Wikipedia, for instance, has fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone (Coffee house), but Wikidata links its subfora to Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia:Village pump. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there isn't always a one-to-one relationship between different Wikipedias. It's a weakness of Wikidata that it doesn't handle such links. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

How do I become a member of a project?

Do I need to do anything special?*Treker (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

HI *Treker, all you need is an interest in the subject... Simply add your signature to the projects's members list and start watching the page(s). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Than I guess I just need to add my name to some projects then. Thanks a lot. :) *Treker (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Insertion of photo

I want to insert a photo in the page of Taraak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Please guide me.Aaditya Rangan R (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aaditya Rangan R. The article in question is about a Hindi language TV show. In such articles we can use an official logo for the show or a screenshot from the opening sequence. Please read our policy on use of non-free images. The image should be uploaded here to English Wikipedia and used only in that article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help to improve the article

The editor of the article asked me to ask the Teahouse to help her to improve the article. You can see the discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toreeva#More_sources There are several questions to be resolved: the editor asked me to give the ISBNs for the books where illustrations were done. I gave the ISBN and the websites where those books, but still editor said, it is hard to look into it. It is possible because some books are written in English, some in Russian. Another question: Do you have someone who knows the structure in USA for the Writers Group, for example, in Illinois, where each town or county could have the official Writers Group, and it does not mean that the website or the group itself is the blog, but the real official group. And another question: do you have someone with the knowledge of the art, specifically the Russian/Soviet art, where the artist is immigrated from USSR to USA, and notability tag was put in the article. Can you help to improve the article so this tag could be removed accordingly. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please move this to the top please? Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I commented on this matter on March 29, 2016, in Teahouse archive 216. The draft article should be built on references to various independent, reliable sources that demonstrate that this person complies with our notability guideline for artists. I find the notion that a county level writer's group is a reliable source for the purpose of establishing the notability of a visual artist to be bizarre. It is extremely unlikely that such a group would have professional editorial control. Another area of concern is the determined and ongoing effort by the subject of the article to push the article onto Wikipedia using some weak and dubious sources. It is far better to rely on solid sources such as museum exhibitions and coverage in books issued by reputable publishers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this the topic, Cullen328?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If you saw the current article, it is written by your editor. It is short, that's why I'm asking for help to extend it. Also I'm the member of DuPage Writers group as the Writer of the "Possibilities" literary magazine (poems most), as the Artist (drawings, computer graphics, etc), and among other artists, also as the Art Consultant in design. It is official writers group. I'm not trying to promote, but trying to help the history of the Soviet art in 1970s-1980s, if you can read the Unofficial Art in Russia, you can see my input there. How I can write there about the art groups and movement at that time, if you are trying to put notability tag on this small article? In Arefiev's Group, for example, where I communicated with all artists, only one artist now still alive. So the art history of that time needs to be written, because you don't have much resources (newspapers, etc) of that time before the falling of Soviet Union in 1991, and I feel that it is my obligation to help with it. If you look into other artists articles who put their art work in museums names, there are no references since museums don't create webs that listing the artists in their collections. The article of those artists just have the list of the museums where their art work was accepted. Why you are asking now reliable sources for museums, that don't exist for the museums application. Should you fix your rules applied to the Russian/Soviet artists? I have the official documents from the museums about my work taking into their permanent collection, and the DuPage Writers Group editors and president saw those docs, that's why they included it into their web for the local authors. I also participated there with our "Honoring Our Veterans" journal, where we included the stories of the veterans of different wars (with design, poems, art work, as Art Consultant). And how everyone can prove you if you don't accept emails to see the docs? And why those articles of another artists, where I followed the structure, were approved by wiki? And if you looked into webs about the exhibitions and books, they are reliable sources. And what about the Publishers web, for example, http://sbpra.com/nataliagtoreeva/ where my children's books are included? They even took my books into the International Book Fairs. Is it NOT reliable source? I believe in April, two of your people from Teahouse mentioned that I have enough notability in the article, as an artist who immigrated from the Soviet Union, I just need to clean up the text. So, the article is cleaned up, but it needs references of which I have enough to be included (museums, exhibitions, books about exhibitions, my own books, ISBNs, filmography, etc). That's why I'm asking someone who knows art to look into the article, with not rejection but helping attitude, and help with it.Toreeva (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Toreeva, first, if the reliable sources are in Russian, you are more likely to have access to this material than the average Wikipedia editor. You could also ask for help at WikiProject Russia or WikiProject Arts and see if you can find a collaborator to work with. Please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because, since you are writing about yourself, you have a clear conflict of interest in this article. Editors are discouraged from attempting to write autobiographies because they have an inherent conflict of interest.
We are all volunteers here and most editors have editing projects that they focus their time on. If you find someone who will take the time to improve your article with you, then you are fortunate indeed. But we all have jobs, families and other pursuits that keep us busy in addition to devoting a few hours to working on the Wikipedia project. There are no paid experts to help you bring your article up to Wikipedia standards of notability, the Teahouse exists to point you in the right direction and give advice, not write or revise your articles for you. I hope that you can find the help you seek at one of the many subject-oriented WikiProjects. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not writing myself, your editor does, and I'm thankful for it. I supply the reliable sources that could be looked by someone with the knowledge, and those references could be used for the article. If you are busy and don't have time for help, then someone who has time, can look into references. The resources are not all in Russian, so it should not be the problem. And since I can read in both in English and Russian, I gave the resources in both languages. But there are enough in English. To reject or put notability tag, just because you don't have enough time to look into, is not an answer. I just need the person who is willing to help to look into the references and to put enough references to satisfy the notability for the article, so I can concentrate on the bigger article about the 1970s-1980s art movement in USSR/Russia.Toreeva (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Toreeva, I don't think you read what I wrote. If you are seeking someone with knowledge, who has free time to work on this article, you could be waiting a long time until some editor comes across this article and wants to work on it. There are over 5 million articles on the English Wikipedia, most of which need additional work to get in better shape. Have you considered working on this article for the Russian Wikipedia?
And besides the editors here at the Teahouse, you had three editors, Lemongirl942, Ymblanter and Huon, try to help you on your talk page without a lot of success or appreciation. As I advised, you might have better luck going to WikiProject Russia or WikiProject Arts and looking for assistance there, and you might find someone who shares your interests. The Teahouse is designed to provide advice for new editors on editing and Wikipedia policies, it's not a place to find someone to check your list of references for you. Liz Read! Talk! 11:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Liz, Ymblanter looks busy doing something else, Huon's msg I just received, so I did not have a chance to answer, but it will not help, because the message is about advice and not as the help what I need. Lemongirl942 was helping but stop, recommending me to send my Q. for help to Teahouse, which I did. Now where am I? You recommending me to use Russian encyclopedia, which I could, since many artists of my circle of 1970s-1980s, including Anatoly Basin, are there, but I don't want to use Russian language encyclopedia, because it would be only for Russian speaking readers. I'm now in USA, and since the falling of USSR, many people outside of Russia, specifically scholars, have interest in Russian art and history related to it, but almost nobody could read Russian language, including Russian encyclopedia. When I received the book "United Artists Rating", which includes Russian Artists and International Artists Ratings, now published only in Russian, and since I'm a Member of Artists Trade Union of Russia, I asked them to publish the book in both languages as they did before, but it cost more money for it, as I was told. But my references to this Art Union website is in English, so why someone can't look into it and includes this reference as I'm the Member of The Artists Trade Union of Russia into the Article? Same with the Member of the DuPage Writers Group.. So, my input into English encyclopedia with my knowledge and experience as the artist on both sides (Russia and USA) would be more appropriate. When I started, it was written that the input of the references could be in both languages, that's why I included as the references some books written in Russian. And I don't think that putting notability tag or rejections of the articles for any reason by the people on your side without willing to invest the time to help, will do the good things for the history, and it is not good face for the popularity of wikipedia. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Toreeva, I have advised you several times that your best bet is to go to a related WikiProject talk page and ask for collaborators there. I have provided you with the link of where to find these WikiProjects, twice. I have also told you that the Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask for advice about editing and Wikipedia policy and you shouldn't expect to find someone here to help you write your article or check your references for you. That's not what we do here.
I have also said to you that we are ALL volunteers. There are no "people on your side", there are just editors, like you and like me, who spend time editing on this project when they are in the mood. There are no experts on staff, there are no paid editors who can be assigned to help you. Most people edit from their home, wherever in the world they live, in their spare time. If you want assistance working on this article, it's best to go where people who have similar interests as you (WikiProjects) visit and maybe someone there will be interested in helping you. As for me, I feel like you are not paying attention to my advice and I feel myself growing impatient so this will be my last response to you. Good luck with your article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz, As the contributor, I was also invited in 2014 to Teahouse, but because I was so busy I could not do it. Thanks and Good luck to you too in your busy time. And I requested for help in WikiProject and I appreciated both editors. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to submit my article

I have an article to submit on a user page and I want to submit it. Does it need to be on a draft page in order to have a submission link? I already moved this page once from my sandbox and I don't think I should move it again

Please help

Thank you

Bajamark013 (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bajamark013, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can submit it from your user page. Simply copy and paste the following code to it: {{subst:submit}} – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, I greatly appreciate it.

Bajamark013 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Dega/Karen Civil and Draft:Karen Civil

I reviewed User:Dega/Karen Civil. I declined it primarily on the grounds that Draft:Karen Civil already existed. However, I also commented: 'Also, this draft contains too much peacock language, beginning with "The name Karen Civil has become synonymous with forward thinking and positive results" and continuing through the rest of the draft. ' The author, User:Dega, then replied on my talk page. I've done new edited as your note:

Contains too much peacock language: done. Please re-review and inform me if there are anything I should made for another editing to this article's completion.

I will comment that it gets frustrating to a reviewer when one gives an example of peacock language and says that that is only an example, and the author addresses only the specific example If the draft in question were the primary draft page about the subject, I would say to review the entire draft for non-neutral language (and would ask whether I hadn’t been clear enough that I was only citing one example of non-neutral language).

However, as I noted, there is also a draft at Draft:Karen Civil. (The author of the draft space version hasn’t been active recently.) It has twice been declined on notability grounds, but it doesn’t appear to be to be promotional or non-neutral. My personal thought is that the references are a mixture of in-depth sources and of passing mentions and press releases, and that perhaps "less is more" might apply that getting rid of the passing mentions might make it easier for to focus on the in-depth coverage.

My advice to User:Dega is to review Draft:Karen Civil and to add any new content to it. Dega’s user page is more detailed than the page in draft space. The two versions can be reasonably consolidated into one, in my opinion. (If two articles in article space are merged, history merge is often needed. Am I correct that history merge is not needed for two drafts both pending acceptance?)

Do other experienced editors have comments on how to improve and combine these two drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness to having review my article. I moved User:Dega/Karen_Civil to the Draft:Karen_Civil. If there is any strong promotional context, please inform me and I will remove them. AD 02:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Public domain text and editing

If a Wikipedia article includes text from a public domain publication, and an editor edits that text, is the notice (about the article including text from a public domain publication) left on the article or removed? Thanks! Chickadee46 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chickadee46, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd say it depends on how profoundly the text is edited. If recognizable traces of it remain, then the underlying PD text is still part of the article. Wikipedia:Multi-licensing stipulates what happens to a text when different edits introduce material that is licensed differently. According to it, it's possible that even single, isolated words retain their original license.
The material that remains doesn't even have to contain any of the original wording: close paraphrasing or even totally original wording but without adding any new information, explanation or analysis, is not enough to surpass the original work and remains just a derivative of it (MOS:FAIR USE). That's why when dealing with copyrighted materials these techniques are a no-no. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Userboxes

In pages of some wiki user-pages they have a marking or a badge that denotes that they are a member of a wiki project. How do I include this badge in my user page?

Some userpages have a column "About Me". How do I insert this column?Aaditya Rangan R (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aaditya Rangan R. As for "badges," you are probably referring to "userboxes." See Wikipedia:Userboxes for info. —teb728 t c 09:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me about the tableAaditya Rangan R (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

My page IBS Business School was deleted.

Hi

I have created page IBS Business School and it was deleted on basis of advertisement though it was complete information and no advertisement as per my understanding. Now I want to create it again with new info. Is it ok? Wikipedia will accept my page if I use same title again?

Thanks and Regards Wikipediaibs Wikipediaibs (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Wikipediaibs. If you actually correct the problem that caused the speedy deletion, there is no problem with reusing the title IBS Business School. But since you say you don’t understand why it was found promotional, you might have trouble correcting the problem. I recommend that you draft the article in draft space using the articles for creation process. That way you can submit a draft for review with less likelihood that it will be deleted. —teb728 t c 10:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_484&oldid=1077822105"