Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 542

Archive 535

←

Archive 540

Archive 541

Archive 542

Archive 543

Archive 544

Archive 545

Add Copyright image

File:Wikipedia File - Boxed Gold and Silver Engineer Badges.jpeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Being rather new to writing for Wikipedia, I just finished writing a paragraph with image to an existing article. The automatic editor check flagged my image saying I needed a copyright tag. I have the permission of the owner to use the image, but I cannot figure out how to indicate this on the image. Can you give me step by step directions on how to indicate that the image is OK to be used in Wikipedia?

Thanks, RA18594873 (user name). RA18594873 (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello RA18594873, and welcome to the Teahouse! As a free-content encyclopedia, images uploaded to Wikipedia should be licensed so that anyone can use them, for any purpose. Only the copyright holder (usually the author) can licence them in this way, and this is shown with a copyright tag. As you yourself are not the author, the copyright holder will have to submit proof that they released the copyright. To do this, they should fill out a declaration of consent for all enquiries form using the interactive release generator. As the file is on the English Wikipedia, and not Commons, please have the copyright holder send the email to permissions-enwikimedia.org. While filling out the form, they will have to choose an acceptable licence. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 is a recommended licence, where anyone can reuse the file as long as they attribute the original author. If the author wants anyone reusing the image to release their version of the image under the same licence, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 is a good choice. Once they have sent the email, you should update the file description page with two templates:

1. The licence tag that corresponds to the licence they chose earlier (you can find the list of license tags at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses)
2. {{subst:OP}}, which indicates that the permission email has been sent.

If you have any issues with this, please reply here or ask at WP:Media copyright questions. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I create a new page ?

I cannot make a new page and I am asking what to do.Halofan53 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Halofan53. A good place to start would probably be the interactive tutorial available at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You say that you cannot make a new page. If you mean that you cannot create a new article in article space, that is because you are not yet autoconfirmed because you have not been editing for four days, but you will be autoconfirmed in three days. However, you can create a draft page; see drafts and submit it for review via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All registered users can actually create pages in article space. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite correct that all registered users can create an article, but many are not aware that creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks. You are better to build up some experience by editing existing articles to improve them first, before attempting to create a new one. When you are ready, I recomment following the guidelines at WP:Your first article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

My mistake as to new articles. I agree with User:Gronk Oz that many new editors do not realize how difficult creating a satisfactory article, complete with references, is. Many new editors think that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is to create a new article. It would be easier to help us out with the more than five million articles that we already have, rather than with one that we do not yet have. In any case, if you want to create a new article, you would do well to create it in draft space, so that it can be reviewed by experienced editors and either accepted, or declined with instructions on how to improve it. (If you create a new article in article space and it does not meet Wikipedia's standards, it is likely to be deleted by any of several deletion processes.) See WP:Drafts and Articles for Creation on how to submit a draft article for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the sandbox ?

I am new to Wikipedia and do not know much on creating and editing. I am used to exploring and I am just curious about the sandbox.Halofan53 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Halofan53 and welcome to the Teahouse. Sandboxes are pages that you can test editing in without the fear of breaking something in existing articles. I see that you have created one here: User:Halofan53/sandbox. Feel free to use it for trying out how to create links, format text, use references, add images, etc. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for this information. I am new to editing, and will look for sandboxes to help me learn. I did not know about these. EvelynHope22 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I prevent a Wiki page that I created from Speedy Deletion?

Hi. I just created a wiki page about the International Teacher of The Art Of Living Foundation Siddharth Kar. The page has been marked for speedy deletion, I've already contested deletion in the page talks, but I wanna know what more can I do to prevent its deletion and further its updation and improvement? Sachinkar (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have been given a number of useful wikilinks on your user talk page. Start with WP:Your first article, and quickly add references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate his notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of own work

I am currently working on the stub page sogetsu-ryu. I am a photographer and my wife is a Sogetsu Ikebana teacher. We have a lot of photographic material we can and want to share freely. What should be do about copyright licences ?

Ben Ben Ikebana (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ben Ikebana and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have photographs that you have taken and want to use in an article, you need to release them under a free license. Please upload them at Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard. The page will help you chose a license, but you can go with the recommended Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike. Under that license, you remain the copyright holder but irrevocably give anyone the right to use the photos for any purpose, including commercially, so long as reusers credit your name, etc. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarized content found

I just started editing an article for a class project and have found that the introduction, the only part of the article that has been written, was copy and pasted from the source. How should I proceed? Do I flag it or remove it? I want to write this article for my class project so I don't want it to be deleted. Franza615 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Franza615: Welcome to the teahouse, and thanks for asking. At a minimum, it should be flagged. If you are quite certain that it is a copyright violation, you can remove it. Be aware that sometimes, contents match because a "source" copied from Wikipedia. I could give more specific advice if you identified the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the Sustainable Materials Management article.

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

The words are directly copied from here: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-basics

Franza615 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Franza615, the copyright status of publications by agencies or employees of the US Federal Government is not necessarily as clear cut as most other sources, AFAIK such publications are often/usually free of copyright restrictions. But I'm by no means an expert on the topic so we should wait for a better informed opinion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably public domain and you could put the hyperlink in as a reference. See exemptions section in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._governmentGsmoke (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I posted an article with regards to my soccer career. I was inspired to do so as I have viewed many soccer players that I played with over my soccer career that have their own articles about themselves . My article was rejected stating I had no reliable sources. Not sure how to supply a reliable source since my career ended 20 years ago. I see others on Wikipedia that I played soccer with, can I use them as a reliable source? Can they vouch for me?

Thank you, Gary DowneyGdowney55 (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Read the autobiography guideline and the conflict of interest guideline which discourage writing about yourself. Also read the reliable source policy, which will explain about reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines with editorial control and review. Individuals are not reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gdowney55: Welcome to the Teahouse. Start by familiarizing yourself with notability guideline for association football (soccer). No, you cannot have anyone else vouch for you. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what published reliable sources say about a topic. Those sources need not be readily available online, but they must be cited properly. Please read an excellent essay called Your first article and an instructional essay called Referencing for beginners. You should also read some cautions about autobiographies, and stick with the Articles for Creation process because of your Conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So how are other players profiles that I played with listed on Wikipedia? Did someone else post their profile?Gdowney55 (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gdowney55: There is no way to answer that question in the abstract, since we cannot see the articles you are alluding to. If you mention specific articles by their precise names, we can give you a quick evaluation of those articles and their histories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gdowney55. There are currently over 5,000,000 Wikipedia articles and many of these are quite good while many others are not. The fact that another article currently exists doesn't necessarily mean it should exist. Articles are being constantly added on a daily basis which means that it can take time for other editors to weed through the encyclopedia and find the ones that should be deleted for whatever reason. Moreover, articles are not profiles or social media pages. They are only intended to reflect what published reliable sources (preferably independent sources) say about a subject. If a particular subject has received significant coverage in a reliable sources, then it is likely going to deemed be Wikipedia notable enough for its own article. So, if you feel that you satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and you can provide reliable sources which show that you do, then feel free to request that another editor write the article at Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. If there's enough to write an article about you, someone will almost certainly do it.

As for the other players you mentioned, I cannot really comment on them without knowing specifically which articles you are referring to. It could be the case that these articles are properly supported by reliable sources which establish their Wikipedia notability. It could also just as easily be the case that some or all of these articles should be deleted. If you feel the article has problems that you can fix, then please WP:EDIT and be bold and try to fix them. If you feel that an article should be deleted instead, then please read WP:BEFORE and then nominate the article for deletion if it can't be fixed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. After some toing-and-froing with maintenance tags, the article has been deleted at the author's request. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It does raise an interesting question about verifying information pre-internet age, though. Soemthing for another topic, I suppose.Aphra (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that offline sources are perfectly fine (newspaper articles, books etc.) even if they are not available or even mentioned online, they just must be in some way accessible, e.g. available in libraries, not just unpublished private communication Beevil (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations lacking / poor

Sometimes articles get marked as not up to standards -- plagiarism, poor grammar, any number of things. While I've seen these mark-ups, I've not found how one does this. I have edited a number of articles, usually minor fixes like grammar and old citations, occasionally bigger fixes (I'm working on a couple right now).

The article I'm not sure I'll get to is about Chinese actor Jiang Wen. I'm not afraid of making the edits but the documentation is hard to trace -- I've put in a library request for the movie review by Richard Corliss but the review is 16 years old (Devils on His Doorstep, By RICHARD CORLISS, July 24, 2000 Time Asia) and getting it done is down on my priority list. I expect that once the new Star Wars film Rogue One debuts the article about Jiang will get more attention.

Anyway, this comes up from time to time, both when an article is challenged and what to do if you think it is fixed.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi GeeBee60. Those banners you see in article are placed by templates, which we use for loads of purposes throughout Wikipedia. These types are often of the variety we call maintenance templates. Use of templates is a big subject but here's some other notes:

1. When you see one and want to see how it was placed, you can edit the page to see the markup. One potential confusion I've seen fairly often is that editors are sometimes only familiar with the side edit links in articles—rather than the Edit link at the top of the page, which accesses the entire article. These templates are usually in the first section of the article, at the top, and usually there is no side edit link to access the first section.
2. Every template, though placed by the markup {{Some Name}} (and often with parameters you can place after pipes ("|") e.g., {{Some Name|parameter}}) is actually named Template:Name, so when you want to visit the template page itself, type into the search field "Template:" followed by whatever name you find after the opening curly braces.
3. Knowing how to visit the template page itself is important, because most have documentation describing the how to use the template.
4. The big, organized list of templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages (shortcut: WP:TM). Templates targeting poor citations – the name you provided for this thread – you will find through that page's subsection at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.
5. As opposed to added a template to an article, when you want to notify or warn a user on their talk page with a template, many of those templates will be found at WP:WARN. Unlike most templates placed in articles, user warning templates should often be substituted, by prefixing "subst:" before the template name, e.g. {{subst:Some Name}}.

Hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Thank you. I will make use of the help in your message in the future. GeeBee60 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Publishing

After I have written an article for Wikipedia, how do I get it published on Wikipedia?

Rebecca.b.mason (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca.b.mason This appears to be about Draft:Peter Kahihu, but it is nowhere near ready to be moved to mainspace. You have "???" placeholders for missing information that you still need to find and add, the referencing is also completely inadequate, please read the Your first article and Referencing for beginners guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pre-internet degree verification

I added a citation to an article but it was marked as "not in citation given". It was the only reference I could find for the subject's graduation from a university; the article I found online was about alumni's accomplishments, and referred to the subject as "9T7", meaning graduated from the University of Toronto in 1997 (in the university's parlance). Here is the reference: https://issuu.com/vic_report/docs/vic_report_2016_winter__cbf0b80fd2fb40 (page 12). If this isn't satisfactory, how does one verify degrees? Thanks for any advice.Aphra (talk)

Hi AphraBenn. The article is Jessica Dee Humphreys. Bare urls like this don't make very good references, since they can move around. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. Use a complete reference with title of article, author if known, date, page. You add a note that says 9T7 means graduating in 1997. Using a template simplifies formatting references. For example <ref>{{cite journal |title=Careers, Authors, Honours |url=https://issuu.com/vic_report/docs/vic_report_2016_winter__cbf0b80fd2fb40 |journal=Vic Report, Winter 2016 |volume=XLVI |issue=2 |page=12 |date=March 27, 2016}} Her graduation date is given as 9T7, standing for 1997.</ref> becomes "Careers, Authors, Honours". Vic Report, Winter 2016. XLVI (2): 12. March 27, 2016. Her graduation date is given as 9T7, standing for 1997. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks StarryGrandma! Really helpful notes! Will implement asap. Aphra (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

How do i?

Good day wikipedians, just want to ask my question here because i found it good here. Please how do i edit a template on wikipedia? --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Music Boy50 and welcome to the Teahouse! Might I suggest seeing Help:Template or Help:A quick guide to templates to editing templates? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adog104: I will read towards the link which you provide, I think it helps --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

how to create borders

I am creating the Wikipedian On Fire Award for an esteemed co-editor and I need to know how to generate a border around my image and the accompanying text. I con sired my self to be a C student when it comes to this sort of thing, so the simpler the explanation the better. Thanks Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Carptrash. There are many means and types of borders that could be applied. What I suggest is that you take a look through Category:Wikipedia award templates and when you find an award that has borders in a form you like, simply click edit on the template, and copy its code—either to make the template you will be wrapping the Wikipedian On Fire Award image in, or, if this is a one-off, and you won't be making a template, then you can also just use the code from the template, but in that case make sure to replace the parameter markup (parts in tripled curly braces) with whatever the specifics are.

To illustrate, if you were copying a template's code that had "I, {{{1|{{{yourname}}}}}}, hereby award...", when you copied it for your one-off use, you would replace the entire parameter markup with whatever the parameter called for: "I, Carptrash, hereby award...". By the way, almost all suitably free images should be at the Commons. Any reason you uploaded it here? If not, please see Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Fuhghettaboutit: I will try that. Over the last decade I have uploaded probably hundreds of images and every time I try at Commons something weird and user unfriendly occurs, so I have stopped trying. Carptrash (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

not sure if page moved from sandbox to draft

Re: draft page for Todd Anthony Tyler Hello, I tried to submit my sandbox page for approval using the submit snippet and I was then prompted to move the page to draft. I did this and got one message saying I had been successful and then went back to clean up and another message appeared saying that the move had not been successful. I wonder if anyone could let me know if the move has been successful please?Neil Kindness (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neil Kindness: The move was successful. I have found it at Draft:Todd Anthony Tyler. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Declined - Baba Iqbal Singh - Baru Sahib

Hi David.moreno72

I just saw your message and have observed that the article was declined. I would appreciate some help on this issue since I am a new author on Wikipedia. Look forward to your help.

Thanks

RPS KOhli Rbykohli (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This is probably about Draft:Baba Iqbal Singh - Baru Sahib. After a quick look at it, I have three comments:

• The article should start by making it clear what the man's name is. Is "Baba" a name or an honorific?
• The language is excessively promotional.
• The article cites no sources. Statements in the article need to be followed by references to sources that support them.

Maproom (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't the page [Nancy Cadogan] showing up on google/Bing etc?

Hi there, Just wondering, has google changed the way they index page recently, or have I messed up? I created the page Nancy Cadogan for a successful artist friend of mine, and when you do a search on Google, Bing etc it does not come up at all, all the way back to p6 with no actual relevance to Cadogan at all. The page is fully backed with credible citations and interlinked with other wiki pages. Confession: when I created the page I accidentally listed it under (Article): RisenFall/Sandbox and had to get the page deleted, before correctly listing it under Nancy Cadogan (I know, idiotic). I wonder if this has thrown the SEO? RisenFallRisenFall (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been said that a change was being introduced such that new pages would be NOINDEXed until they had been through new page patrol, and the latter process has a backlog of 13580 pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

OK thank you. I can see Editor theroadislong has been through the page today and tidied it up - is that likely to be a New Page Patrol check? And is it possible for me to check I've correctly indexed the page or is that a moderator level job? Still so much to learn! RisenFallRisenFall (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@RisenFall: The page has not been reviewed yet. It's a specific action and not a side effect of editing the page. You may get a notification when it happens, depending on your "Page review" setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. The page still has this in the html source: <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>. noindex requests that external search engines don't index it. This setting automatically changes when it's reviewed, assuming it's approved. We don't control how long after that it is indexed by Google and others. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thank you for your help. RisenFallRisenFall (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Request an editor's help

Hi there, How can I request an editor or editors to review a page and change as needed? MichelleMTL (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the page Tasha Eurich? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MichelleMTL. If you are referring to Tasha Eurich, then feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasha Eurich as explained in WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions. That AfD discussion is essentially a review of the article to determine whether it belongs on the encyclopedia. You can continue editing the article and adding better sources while the dicussion is ongoing, but you should carefully read the comments being made by other editors about the article because they are in a sense telling exactly what they feel is needed for the article to avoid deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the use of the word "needed" in question and response is misleading. It suggests that there are changes that could make the page acceptable as an article. But the problem is not with the page, it is that its subject simply isn't notable in the sense used in Wikipedia. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability Maproom (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: You make a very good point about editing and notability. Just for reference, I was using "needed" in the context of "significant coverage of Eurich in independent reliable sources is needed to show she satisfies Wikipedia's relevant guidelines for notability". Such sources, if they exist, can be added to (i.e., edited into) the article by the creator or any editor who can find them. I thought this would be clear from the reading the comments left by others in the article's AfD discussion, but I probably should have been more specific on this point in my previous post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MichelleMTL - Do you have a connection or association with Tasha Eurich? If so, please read the conflict of interest guideline and make the appropriate declaration. If not, and if you simply are trying to contribute to Wikipedia, creating a new article is the hardest job that there is in Wikipedia, and many new editors would do better to help us with the five million articles that we do have rather than with one article that we don't yet have. If you do not have a conflict of interest, welcome to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Crafted page now becomes a redirect

Hi, I've crafted a page (Title: Kaeun) but now that I try going into it to edit today, it has become a redirect again. How do I go about to do this? Do I attempt to draft out from scratch and submit for approval/re-edit the source or? Thanks in advance! Animeuver (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Animeuver, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The article you wrote was very brief with no reliable sources, so editor Zackmann08 made it a redirect to After School (band), which is the band that Kaeun belongs to, and which contains all of the information from your article. The comment at the time was "Not worthy of own article", and based on looking at the material that was there I have to agree. I don't see any indication that Kaeun is "notable" on her own (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that word). In order to demonstrate that, you would need to show that she has significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (see WP:42). --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the prompt response. I was planning to edit and add the resources and additional info today, and I wasn't expecting it to be vetted so quickly - my bad on that part. However, is it still possible retrieve the skeleton template/information already done instead of restarting all the way from scratch? Animeuver (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes Animeuver, it's all still there. If you go to this link you will find your old article, so you can copy and paste it into a Draft. Then fill in all your sources at your leisure, and once you think it is ready you can submit it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Animeuver. The lesson of your experience here is that new articles should be drafted either in draft space or on a user sandbox page, and a top priority should be to add references to reliable, independent sources sufficient to show that the topic is notable, as Wikipedia defines the term. Only then should the draft article be moved to the main space of the encyclopedia. This strategy will keep conflict with new pages patrollers to a minimum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

reply to reason for submission decline of Draft: Diana Fosha

Hello, My article Diana Fosha was declined because the reviewer Robert McClenon stated that too many of the references were not from independent sources. I am presenting the 11 references and explaining here why each is in fact from an independent source. I understand how it could seem otherwise, so an explanation is in order:

Regarding References: 1. is from page xvii: List of theories. this reference supports the statement that Diana Fosha is founder of AEDP. 3. is a published transcript of an interview with diana Fosha, with an introduction by the author David Van Nuys that supports the statements about her professional background. David Van Nuys is not affiliated with AEDP in any capacity. 4. is from the aedp institute website, but the reference is there to document the statements about the institute itself. 5. Is a published transcript of an interview with Diana fosha by Polly Ely. It supplies information about Diana fossa's education and training.Polly Ely has attended aedp workshops etc... but is not a member of AEDP institute. 6.Grotstein is a very important independent reference- He is a major figure in the field of psychoanalysis which is not in anyway associated with AEDP. Grotstein's review provides information about the impact AEDP has had on the entire field of psychotherapy. This is published in APA newsletter . I will attach the to the reference. 7. same as 6 - David Malan is entirely different modality of therapy and is very highly regarded. 9. is a review of book by an author, bessel van der kolk also unaffiliated with AEDP. 10. is link to APA website which published the DVD's of sessions in the APA's master therapist series.

I hope this helps to resolve the issue. Thank you. Carrie Ruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Carrieruggieri. You need have this discussion in the first place with Robert McClenon, and you haven't even linked him (though in fact he often posts here, so will probably see this. I've linked him anyway). In any case, this is not the appropriate place to have this discussion, but on the talk page Draft Talk:Diana Fosha. I haven't looked through the paragraph above, but I will note that an interview with Diana Fosha, whoever performed and published it, is incapable of being a source independent of her. While non-indepedent sources are acceptable for some purposes, anything about a person's "professional background" should come from a source other than herself. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Carrieruggieri - You already posted a lengthy discussion of your references on my talk page. I advised you that this Teahouse was a reasonable place to ask general questions, but that the place for comments about your references to support acceptance of the article was either in AFC comments in the draft article or at the draft talk page, Draft talk:Diana Fosha. I think that is also what User:ColinFine has said. The only reason for a discussion with me is if you, Carrieruggieri, think that I made a mistake in declining the article and should accept it. Otherwise, I am willing to let another reviewer review the draft once it is ready for re-review and resubmitted, and in that case any justification involving the references should be in the draft itself (including in AFC comments or on its talk page). I think that ColinFine and I are in agreement that some of the references that I said were not independent were not independent, and that improving the references would be useful. Do you have any general questions either about the draft or about contributing to Wikipedia? If so, we can try to answer them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)‎

thank you Robert and Colin, I'm sorry for my confusion. I'll bring my questions to the talk page on the draft But how do I bring attention to a potential reviewer that I posted on the talk page. Until now I have responded to a post on my talk page. Also, The AFC comments on the page - that is a space I can respond to the comments? Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Carrieruggieri. As a suggestion, your could add an {{AFC comment}} template to the main page referring to discussions on the talk page. Something like this:

Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone read my explanation of sources on the talk page for Draft: Diana Fosha? Thank you. Carrie

Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability?

I've been working hard on an article of an author I like. I think I have researched enough information to prove notability. Can an experienced editor have a look for me? It is: Jessica_Dee_Humphreys Thanks!Aphra (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AphraBenn - Do you have a specific question? Experienced editors have already looked at your draft and disagree about notability. In posting this question, you correctly showed your article as in article space, because it was accepted from draft space. However, another editor has put a GNG tag in the article, indicating that they are not sure that she passes notability, but they did not nominate the draft for deletion. My advice would be to see if you can find more reviews or other discussions by independent parties of her work to improve the article. Do you have a specific question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon. Just this morning I added more new information with many citations and references, in hopes that it would now meet notability criteria. I guess my question is, now that new information and references have been added, how does it get "reviewed" so the notabillty can be confirmed?Aphra (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears, based on the way that you are wording your concern, that you have a different concept of how Wikipedia works than experienced editors do? You ask how to get it "reviewed" so that notability can be confirmed. Your draft was already reviewed by one reviewer who agreed that she is notable and accepted the draft. Another reviewer has doubts. I am guessing that you are asking how to get a final review that locks the article in so that it isn't subject to tagging and isn't at risk of being nominated for deletion. I don't think that there is such a thing as a final review. All of Wikipedia is a work in progress. Everything is continually reviewed. Was that your question? If not, what was your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

My question is how does the notability warning get removed from the page? (Sorry, I am very new and still learning). Aphra (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AphraBenn - I will try to answer your question, but will also say that you are asking the wrong question. The answer to your wrong question of how to get the tag removed is to discuss on the article talk page. However, many Wikipedia editors, both experienced and inexperienced, think that tags are more important than they are. The purpose of tags should be to call attention to the need for improvement of the article. The way to deal with an article that has a notability tag is to add more references and more information to establish notability of the article. Don't worry that much about the tag. Try to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be so obtuse, Robert McClenon, but now that I have made additional references and more information, how do other editors know to check the article? You mention the article's talk page. What is this? Aphra (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@AphraBenn: Welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor interesting in the article will have the article on their watchlist and will be notified of changes. You can always notify any specific editor on their personal talk page. Every editor has a talk page, as does every article. If you look at the menu at the top of any article, you will see a "talk" tab. Clicking that takes you to the talk page for that article. The "history" tab enables you to find out which other editors have contributed to any given article. For this article, the talk page is located at Talk:Jessica Dee Humphreys but conversation has not yet started there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen³²⁸! Very helpful!Aphra (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I review pending changes?

How do I review pending changes? Because of the 'r' flags that show up on my watchlist sometimes, I asked for pending changes review permission. It was granted. But I cannot figure out how to do it: what and where to click. I thought there might be some editing gadget, one of the help pages directed me at AFCH. But that isn't it. M.boli (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi M.boli. To review pending changes, go to the page history of the page in question. Unreviewed changes are highlighted in yellow. View the diff or click on the "pending review" button and you'll see options to "Accept revision" or "Unaccept revision". To view all revisions currently awaiting review, click on the "(View all pending revisions)" button. If you edit the page, you have the option at the bottom of the editing window to accept the previous revisions. Finally, if you revert the edits using Twinkle or rollback, your changes will automatically be accepted.

Also, a list of all pages with pending changes awaiting review can be found at Special:PendingChanges. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! I have checked now. It seems that pages marked on my watchlist with an 'r' are no longer showing as unreviewed on the page histories. I had missed that fact. But now I know how to do it. M.boli (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

How does one respond to comments left on ones teahouse question?

How does one respond to comments left on ones teahouse question? TrueColor (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TrueColor. Ordinarily, you would do so by clicking on the "Join this discussion" or "Edit" links in the relevant heading. However, posts here are archived after a few days of activity, and this is the case with your question. In this case, it's best to start a new discussion, preferably providing a link to the previous discussion in the archive. The link for your question is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 540#I would like to create a few Wikipedia pages.. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, THANK YOU. This Wiki business is not very intuitive. difficult to find one's way around.TrueColor (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

templates

is there a template that you can recommend so that I may make an article that is articulate and flowing22:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruminative (talk • contribs)

Hello, Ruminative, and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on what you mean by "template". On Wikipedia the word has a specific meaning: Templates are pages that are embedded (transcluded) into other pages to allow for the repetition of information and there are some that make articles more flowing (such as infoboxes). If by "template" you mean an example to follow, please see Your first article and take a look at some of our best articles. These follow all of our style guidelines, and you can take much of what the Manual of Style has to say as a "template" on how to make article flow good.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I have an entire article in Word doc and I'm looking for an editor who could post it

Not sure if I really want to get into creating the Wiki article yet so I'm wondering if somebody would want to look at the two articles to merge into the one I created. It is 2757 words with all the references now. There are 35 references plus links to Wikipedia pages. So I'm wondering if somebody would want to take what I have and run with it. If not point me to a starting place and I'll look a bit deeper than I have so far on editing. It's taken me two weeks to get the article together and dig up references. This is my field so I can respond to any question. I've kept it fairly general for all readers. I've circulated to my mom and colleagues for review so far so once I do another cut, I'm finished with this round.Gsmoke (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gsmoke. I suggest you start with My first article. Please be aware that writing Wikipedia articles is different from writing in most places, and that writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia. The fact that it is your field is of course helpful when writing an article; but academics who come new to Wikipedia often get frustrated because it takes them a while to understand that what should go into a Wikipedia article is not what you think, or even what you know, but solely what your reliable sources say - original research is not accepted. I would also advise that working for weeks on a private copy that Wikipedia editors cannot see is not usually a useful way to proceed, especially if you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines

My advice would be, once you've read My first article (above) to create a draft using the article wizard and copy the text from your Word document into it - it's pretty easy formatting headings, paragraphs etc. References are more complicated: please see referencing for beginners. How to import articles may be helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll look at the references you noted and come back. There is no original work in the article. I had to track down and reference as many Wikipedia and other source articles as I could to compile this draft. I figure the best way to do this is take the [liquid smoke] page and wholesale replace what is there section by section maybe one section per week. The History is the longest section and took the most time to piece together to build the case for the lineage of the products for at least the last 2000 years. It's a perspective that hardly anyone would appreciate. I do the more I look into it in spite of spending the last 39 years in this arcane field.Gsmoke (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post on a blocked user's talkpage

A blocked user is trying to speak to me on their talk page and I want to respond but I do not want to get into anymore trouble as I got blocked too few weeks ago and now I'm unblocked after requesting unblock. It appears that an admin has reverted one or more of the blocked user's messages on the talk page but I do not know why. Should I email the user instead? - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Just to clarify: you were indefinitely blocked, and unblocked less than twelve hours ago; you were then discovered to have been socking and nearly indef blocked again about seven hours ago; and now you want to engage in conversation on blocked users' pages? That sounds like a really bad idea. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please be clear, I was "socking" before requesting unblock. I never socked after that. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess I should refrain from talking to blocked users. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheMagnificentist. If there's a legitimate Wikipedia-related reason for posting on this editor's talk page (for example, posting a notification of an WP:XFD discussion, etc.), then I don't think anyone would take issue with you doing so. On the other hand, if you are just posting small talk or posting anything that might be seen as disruptive or further exacerbating the situation, then you may run into problems. Blocked users are pretty much only allowed to use their user talk pages to make unblock requests as explained in WP:UNBLOCK; they are not really supposed to be asking others to make edits on their behalf, posting rants against Wikipedia or the administrator who blocked them, posting random musings or ramblings as if their user take page was some kind of blog. Blocked editors who inapproriately use their user talk pages often find their ability to edit their talk page revoked. We do not own our userpages/user talk pages any more than we own the articles we create/edit, and we must use them in acordance with WP:UP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

In looking at your recent history, I see that you were unblocked subject to mentorship. Before asking any public question that might seem to raise questions, I would suggest that you ask the advice of the mentor. If I were the mentor, which I am not, I would advise you to call as little attention as possible to yourself other than by making non-controversial edits to articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

TheMagnificentist, Hello. I too have reviewed the circumstances behind your recent block. In my opinion, you are remarkably fortunate that you are not blocked indefinitely. I think that it is safe to say that you are skating on very thin ice. My suggestion to you is to control your temper and avoid interacting with any other editor who is in a similarly precarious position. You are unable to help the other blocked editor, and any attempt to try will end badly. This is my sincere personal advice to you, offered as a long term experienced editor who has never been blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the advice. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Recently edited a page, want feedback

Hello, I'm a student editor and recently edited a page for a class of mine. I added a section entitled Water Scarcity under the Geography section of the Bulawayo page. I attributed a couple of paragraphs to one source and after finishing typing my text I noticed that one of the pictures on the page was oddly positioned, so I also moved it over. I just want feedback on whether or not my edit was good or bad. Thank you. -- MJ6571 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@MJ6571: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your addition to the article is a good one, but I have a couple of comments and suggestions. You note that your reference is available on the web, but do not provide a link. It is always useful to provide a link to an online source. Please read Referencing for beginners for how to do so. Copyedit your work, as I noticed a typographical error. You mention various suburbs. I suggest that you name them. I think that more information about the public health implications of the water shortages would be a useful addition. I hope that this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Master Long Tian Xiang

I reviewed Draft:Master Long Tian Xiang and declined it as reading like an advertisement. I then received the following on my talk page from User:Wikismartsg:

Dear Reviewer, This page was not created for marketing purpose but really created for Master Long Tian Xiang to remember him. He is a famous figure in this field in the Singapore market but he was not found on Wikipedia. I just want to contribute an article to Wikipedia by consolidating the many third parties' objective comments found on forums and blogs on him. He wants to retire and really does not need to have more business. There are many many more references but I did not have enough time to put them up. I will continue to add when I have time.
To prove that this is not for marketing purpose for Master Long, I have shortened the writeup to make it more neutral. I have also managed to find one negative post about Master Long Tian Xiang and have added it as one of the reference too.
I have spent a few hours to search for the references to complete this article. So please help to reconsider again to approve my contribution. Thanks!

I would like the comments of other experienced editors. However, my thought on the shortened version of the draft is that, in taking out the non-neutral language, the author has left almost nothing, and that Wikipedia isn’t here just to record that someone exists. The revised draft doesn’t read like an advertisement, but it doesn’t read like much. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikismartsg: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please be aware that "forums and blogs" are not acceptable as reliable sources for use in a Wikipedia article. We need coverage in published sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Also, we do not use honorifics like "Master" in the titles of Wikipedia articles, but that is easily corrected and secondary to the issue of the quality of the sources. The bottom line is that I do not see good evidence that this person is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Images and fair use

Can I upload copyrighted (and maybe non-copyrighted) images under fair use directly to Wikipedia without going to Commons? I would like to add images of musicians to their articles but there hasn't been any of those images in the Wiki gallery. I remembered something about fair use that allows a copyrighted image to be uploaded but only if that image has no other suitable substitutes. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheMagnificentist Images of living people cannot be uploaded under fair use, as they fail the first criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria that "no free alternative is avaliable". In essence, anyone could take a photo of a living person and use that instead.

In general however, if there are images that meet all the fair use criteria, then they can be added to Wikipedia and not the Commons (Commons deletes all Non-free images). Joseph2302 08:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Welcome back to the Teahouse. Only images free of copyright or freely licensed under an acceptable Creative Commons license are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Some non-free images are allowed here on Wikipedia, but our requirements are much stricter than fair use. As for non-free photos of people, the only ones allowed are those of people who have died, since there is no realistic possibility to obtain a free image in that situation. For living people, the presumption is that a freely licensed photo can be taken at any time, so we do not allow non-free images in such cases. Please read our policy on use of non-free images, and be absolutely certain that any images you upload are in complete compliance. Since you have a mentor, I recommend that person reviews and approves any images before uploading. We take copyright compliance very seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with article deletion/salvaging

Hello! I am new to wikipedia, so I went to the community portal help out section and chose the article Elham Manea to fix the wiki links on. After adding all the wiki links, I realized I didn't even think the article belongs in wikipedia. I have looked at all the deletion processes, however being new, it is very confusing which process I take it through. Can someone help?

For starters I don't think the article meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. While there are a lot of articles pertaining to Elham, they all seem to be of conflict of interest via place of membership or work. There are a few articles written in the news, however none seem to be significant over time and merely use her as a reference for the information or point they are trying to make.

Furthermore, the entire article is blatant plagiarism. this this and this all say almost the exact same thing as the wikipage. To me it almost seems as if Manea is going through all these organizations she has worked with and adding the same biographical information--and then had someone do the same on wikipedia.

Can someone please give guidance on what process of deletion this belongs to and if my points are even valid? Wikipedia is so vast that I have a hard time pinpointing the right method. Thanks for the help. Pual98 (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pual98. I would investigate and take care the the copyright violation right now but I am leaving momentarily, and just glanced here, and am only writing because copyright violations should be taken care of immediately. I recently revamped and placed detailed instructions at the new pages tutorial to deal with copyright violations. Please see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The use of the same language on multiple sites might be either of two types of copyright violation. If the language was used on one of the web sites first, and then on Wikipedia, then the Wikipedia text can be tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violation. However, it is equally likely that the subject, or someone associated with her, first posted the information to Wikipedia and then to the other web sites. That is a violation of Wikipedia's copyleft because it isn't properly attributed, but that doesn't call for deletion from Wikipedia. It is definitely fishy. If you don't think that her article belongs in Wikipedia for notability reasons, you can nominate it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Pual98: You have obviously done your homework on looking into this - well done. I see that you have tagged the article for Speedy Deletion now, and that will be resolved soon. If it is rejected, that may not be the end of the story - Speedy Deletion is the quick process for cases that are very clear-cut and fit into a specific set of criteria. So there is also a more involved process for cases outside those narrow confines, called "Articles for Deletion" or AfD.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of using CXT

Whenever I try to translate a page using the Beta feature of "translate page", even if I select "Don't use machine translation" on the CXT tab, I always trigger filter 782 for "using" the content translation tool. Any way to avoid this from happening? I tried visiting the Wikipedia:CXT page but did not find any help. Yevgeny Kitaysko-Angliskiy-Entuziastov (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Yevgeny Kitaysko-Angliskiy-Entuziastov and welcome to the Teahouse. These flags are triggered by many events and do not necessarily indicate that the user has done something wrong or that there is a problem. If you use the Content Translation tool and follow instructions (including not using machine translation), you'll be fine. I believe the flag exists because we've had problems with people who do not follow the instructions, but we do not have automated means to discern good content translations from bad ones. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Does it actually mean that it is best to take some extra time and "create" a new page for the article to be translated and do the translation without using the Beta Translation Page as to avoid triggering these flags? Yevgeny Kitaysko-Angliskiy-Entuziastov (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit in doing it that way, Yevgeny Kitaysko-Angliskiy-Entuziastov. Like I explained above, you should not be afraid of triggering the Content Translation flag if you are not doing anything wrong. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I reported the accusation as false positives, and all were determined by human administrators as true positives, therefore, in order to maximally evade this situation, I might just spend some extra time and translate from one page to another manually. Thank you, Finnusertop, you have been helpful ;) Varxo (Yevgeny Nemestnyye-Russkiy-Entuziastov) (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Varxo (Yevgeny Nemestnyye-Russkiy-Entuziastov), just keep in mind that if you do translations manually, you need to account for the attribution of source that the Content Translation tool does for you. You should do this in the edit summary. Instructions can be found here: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard Wassersug

Whilst editing I have stumbled upon this page which, I think, just passes the boundaries of notability. I would like to politely educate the IP editor (who I presume is also the focus of the article, given the amount of edits) about lists of publications, and then remove the list. I am sure that it is not part of what we do here (bio articles with publication lists, that is), however I can't find a guideline or policy to support that. Could I have some help? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Tom (LT). I agree that that list is not appropriate. It would be appropriate to list key publications, in my view, but the article looks like a CV. A relevant guideline here is WP:NOTCV. The article should also be tagged for the conflict of interest if Wassersug has been editing it. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT) I also agree. An IP editor added loads yesterday, which I reverted, but there's till too many in my opinion. I'd say 10-15 is probably more than enough. Joseph2302 12:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You can also call their attention to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as to the length of the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, a published work should be listed only if a reference to an independent review of that work is provided, or if the published work is independently notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Android device codenames

Hi,

Android devices all have specific codenames, for example:

Moto E2 LTE - surnia

Motorola Droid Razr - spyder

Would it be appropriate for me to add links to these Android devices on the disambiguation pages of their codenames?

Thanks Mtbu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbu (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mtbu: Sounds right, as long as these codenames are supported by a suitable reference. The information probably also belongs in each article about the phones. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

I will make sure the phones' pages also have their codenames on if they do not already, as this is useful information particularly in the modding/rooting field. Mtbu (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)