Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 733

Archive 730

Archive 731

Archive 732

Archive 733

Archive 734

Archive 735

→

Archive 740

Writing a Wiki Page- Copyright

Hi. I have written a Wiki page about my lifestyle brand and I cut-pasted content from an article that I wrote, which explains my brand; as well as from my website; which I also wrote... and the page was deleted- never really published. How do I overcome that copyright (of my own work and writing) when I re-submit my text? It seems that an automatic cyber-bot found this information; so had no idea that I INDEED was the same author of my own work. Should I create a new account? Re-submit for a Wiki page.

The same thing happened to me when I added my name to Wiki... It found my website bio and called it copyright; but I am the author of everything that Wiki found to create their argument to delete my profiles. Please help me understand the best way to get these pages onto the Wiki platform. Thanks. CatherineGioia333 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To properly donate copyrighted material you need to follow the procedure at WP:DCP, which also explains what doing so means.

However, you state you are writing about your lifestyle brand. You need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you edit further. You should not directly edit about your brand, instead submitting a draft using Articles for Creation. Please understand that you cannot use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and that we are only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a published author, blogger, film-maker and others are asking me where is my wiki page. I see 1000s of wiki pages on other people. This is how I learn about them and their backgrounds. How are these pages created? Please inform the proper protocol...

And to branding. Maybe I used the wrong word... I conceived of a lifestyle "term"-word, concept that has generated much interest; and I want to make sure it is in wikipedia. What is the correct protocol to do that? When I listed it before; again the cyber bot found my own written work and deleted the entry because of copyright... but it is my OWN work, vision, idea, writing. Thanks for informing. cGioia333 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

1) Focus on your business such that independent news organizations write stories about you without you asking them to. Subjects only get articles if there are multiple, independent, professionally-published sources about them.

2) Focus on your business so much that enough of these news stories appear that someone with no connection to you uses those news sources to write about your brand. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion.

3) Do not edit the resulting article, because you have a conflict of interest.

4) ???

5) PROFIT!

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: I would add that any article would not be "your wiki page", but a Wikipedia article about your brand/business. You would not have exclusive control over it, and any content good and bad can be in it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. It is not necessarily a good thing for you to have an article about your business here, see WP:PROUD, WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, so I don't write an "article" about myself. Someone else independently decides to do so; and it appears? Also, on the term I conceived... I have been writing about it over the past few years; and now more so; also books... Shouldn't i be the one to write the term into the wiki space as an "article"? If anyone else did; it would then certainly be a copyright violation, yes? How else do terms that the author of the term conceives get out into the wiki public eye if not from the author him/herself? Gioia333 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: No, there's paraphrasing and summarizing. Those are not copyright violations.

What happens is some news organization decides to write about your brand. They write about it. Someone else, with no connection to you, decides to write an article on this site. They would summarize, paraphrase, and cite the news articles, not your website. There's no copyright violation there. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And, how can anything on the internet, as well, on Wiki, be written about me without my consent; if it is not me, the author of my life that writes the biography, myself? This is find strange. I am not aware of anyone else in my sphere of influence who has not had a hand in the writing of their own Wiki page??? Gioia333 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable Wikipedia biographies are written by independent, uninvolved editors, Gioia333. Although comments and corrections by the subject on the talk page are fine, the substantive decisions are made by other editors who summarize published reliable sources. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not LinkedIn, Facebook or Instagram. We have the right to include biographies of anyone who meets our notability standards, and exclude those who don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333:(ec) Your consent is not needed in order for a third party to write about your work. This happens every day in every news outlet in the world.

An important principle of Wikipedia is that as an encyclopedia it has a neutral point of view. See WP:NPOV. That cannot happen if people write about themselves or their businesses, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you have independent reliable sources, you can (as said above) submit a draft for an independent review at Articles for Creation. This may be how people you know write about themselves, though it is discouraged. (WP:AUTO) However, if your creation is not written about in independent reliable sources, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. We are only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. You cannot use Wikipedia to generate third party coverage, it must already exist. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: There's a difference between biography and autobiography. This distinction is not unique to Wikipedia. In fact, it predates Wikipedia by centuries.

Also, regarding I am not aware of anyone else in my sphere of influence who has not had a hand in the writing of their own Wiki page -- could you please point to those pages and the users in question? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333:, a couple of other things, and apologies if this seems like a pile-on. First off, if you've coined a term that you want a Wikipedia article for, the bottom line is that you can't. WP:NEO is the guideline stating that we don't have articles for neologisms that haven't been widely written about in independent reliable sources. If the only sources you have for your term are your own works, then your term hasn't gained enough public notice for a Wikipedia article. Secondly, the overwhelming number of biographical articles on Wikipedia aren't written or edited by their subjects (I'd be astonished if as many as one in ten thousand have been), a practice as others have mentioned is strongly discouraged here. Like Ian.thomson, I would be grateful to see links to any articles you believe to have been. Ravenswing 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thanks. It does actually feel and sound like you are attacking me; which is not very kind or compassionate. I am not in your world; and simply responding at this time to others in my community who are asking me to put up a wiki page about me and my lifestyle vision... So, I guess what I will do is share with them your rather harsh responses for a "teahouse" dialogue and suggest to them that there is nothing I can do.

cGioia333 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: Good idea, taking my quotes out of context and re-framing them to make me the bad guy will present you in a much more favorable light than explaining that you repeatedly ignored when multiple editors patiently explained that:

• You have a conflict of interest and should not edit articles relating to you or your brand.
• Wikipedia is not for promotion.
• Subjects must be notable (i.e. mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources).

I mean, that was explained, but you kept asking how you can write your articles to about you and your brand. At no point did anyone try to stop you about writing about anything else, or working on any other subject. I mean, it'd be more responsible to use the three bullet points to explain why Wikipedia is the wrong model for you say what people keep asking you to do, but whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333:, it's regretful that you feel hard done-by that Wikipedia has guidelines as to what can and cannot be included on the encyclopedia, but we're not at all troubled if you choose to share that fact with others who might not have known. Ravenswing 23:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioia333: I'm sorry you feel that way. There is no intention to be harsh, just to tell you the way it is. It sounds like that what you want to do would be better accomplished on a personal website. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

New article

Hi, I recently created an article called Paper.io. I first created Draft:Paper.io and when I was finished with the draft, I moved it to the article. Right now, the draft is a redirect. Should it be deleted?

Thanks.

Peterye2005 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peterye2005. There's no need to delete the redirect, no. – Joe (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Picture change?

Hi, on the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer I would like to upload a current photograph of the author. This one prehaps - https://mises.org/profile/ilana-mercer?

Can someone help me out?

Thanks

kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, Kc2290. The image you've suggested at mises.org does not appear to either exist in the public domain or be licensed for creative commons use and uploading it would, ergo, run afoul of copyright restrictions. You may want to check-out WP:UPIMAGE for additional information. Chetsford (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kc2290. We can never use a non-free image to illustrate an article when an acceptable freely licensed image exists. There are no exceptions allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Custom username appearing in recent changes section?

Hello. This is just a quick question. Does my custom username colour appear in the recent changes section after making an edit? AllyGebies (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AllyGebies. Editor names are rendered in blue on the recent changes page, and in article histories. Your custom signature only appears when you sign a talk page comment (or when another editor copies your signature). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Also worth noting, AllyGebies, is that no custom signature for you is displaying at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

So my custom signature isn't appearing (even when I put the four tildes in)? How do I fix that to show it for my signature? AllyGebies (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please follow each step at WP:CUSTOMSIG, AllyGebies. You must have skipped a step. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I did follow each step. I went to the css user thing and put it in, and it made my name orange. I'm asking how to show the orange name as my signature. Unless I need to go in and put all that 'font' and 'colour' stuff in... AllyGebies (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• I just copied and pasted the 'UserBob' example into my preferences signature section, and changed the name and colour to my preferred one. Can you see my custom signature now? AllyGebies talk 03:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

AllyGebies, yes. Rojomoke (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Page deleted, now back up

My page on Cynthia Charlotte "Lottie" Moon Clark got deleted earlier. It seems that the issue was mainly about a bad source. I've fixed that now, but could someone look at it and tell me if it is likely to be deleted again and if so, what I can do to fix it, I would really appreciate it. Also, I've been working on her sister's page, too. Her name is Virginia Bethel Moon. Do my changes to that page look alright?

This is my first time editing on Wikipedia (I participated in an edit-a-thon) and I really enjoyed it. 222H (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks fine, but it probably needs renamed. That's a bit of an unwieldy title. Also, it says it was deleted per G6. Did the article have a different name before it was deleted? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

How could I rename it? And, yes, the name has remained the same.

222H (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@222H: I suggest you name your article Cynthia Charlotte Moon. Wikipedia already has an article for Lottie Moon (1840-1912), who was a Christian missionary in China. The person who reviewed your article was probably getting Google hits for this (more famous) Lottie Moon. I'm not really sure how to rename a draft, but the reviewer or someone else can help you. I searched for sources and found two good print books, and I will post them on your user page. You still need to finish the end of your draft either way, because it stops in the middle of a sentence. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: I am confused why you refer to it as a draft: it is in mainspace. I've moved it to the suggested title, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@A lad insane: It still had a "big box" at the top when I looked at it (@2:00 or 2:00 UTC) so I thought it was still a draft. Thanks for doing the move. Like your user name, BTW. Cheers! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: What do you mean by "big box"? Was there a "this article is a work in progress" maintenance tag or something? I can't find it in the history. And thanks about my username :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@A lad insane: Sorry, my bad! The big box was on the editor's talk page! Since it pertained to the article, and looks similar to the AfC "big box", I mis-remembered it as a draft. I apologize for the confusion. I was scratching my head and trying to figure out where the heck I had seen the box, but finally found it. Getting old.....?? Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding Pictures to Wikipedia

Hi. So I have previously added pictures to Wikipedia for the infobox on biography pages. However, even when the picture is taken from a news article on the web, I've always run into a rights issue.

Rather than doing that again, can someone first guide me on what pictures are okay to use? Are pictures that have been published on news portals not okay?

Thank you for your help! TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Almost all images that you find in news articles are copyrighted, and not suitable for Wikipedia. See the advice in WP:Uploading images as linked in the section immediately above this one. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please block a vandal IP

I know this isn't the right venue, but nobody seems to have noticed my plea at WP:AIV, so I'm putting it here too. Could some admin please look at my post at WP:AIV and block the IP editor who I reported? This editor is actively vandalizing as I speak and is wasting the time of me and a couple of other editors as we try to revert this IP. If someone could block this IP editor, I would be very grateful. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Joe (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sharing articles

Can I share a Wikipedia page and if I can how can i share a wikipedia page to facebook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMprincess76 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi MMprincess76. You can just copy the address of the article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse) and copy it into a Facebook post, like any other web page. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Express Entry (2)

I reviewed Draft:Express Entry (2) and asked that the author consolidate that draft with Draft:Express Entry into one draft for review. I said that both drafts relied too much on the primary source of the government’s information and not enough on secondary sources. User:Onkreukbaar then wrote on my talk page:

(I thought this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry would be an easy post to start with. Now I know none of them are easy. :)
A few questions before I start consolidating my Express Entry Post with the previous one.
Would Immigration Agencies count as secondary sources? All reputable agencies are legal experts and work daily in the interpretation of the Canadian Immigration Law. I am thus inclined to think that the immigration services (those who can prove that their author is a qualified Immigration Consultant and also boasts a good reputation amongst users) would be the most up to date secondary source available. What is your opinion?
There are other secondary sources but they usually focus on the amounts of people who use express entry, and not the details as pertains to its inner workings.

I will comment that the original poster may have thought that developing a new article is easy. It isn’t. I will also comment, and this isn’t addressed to the original poster, that the user of second person language addressed to the immigrant in Draft:Express Entry suggests that the language was copied from the government’s instruction brochure.

Comments for a new user who has found writing a new article to be harder than it seems?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Also a discussion regarding this on my talk page, where I just pinged Robert about 0.5 seconds before seeing this thread. GMG^talk 17:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that the first draft is very highly likely to be copied from somewhere, even if we can't definitively say from where. Not going to hurt my feelings if someone applies a pretty common sense G12. GMG^talk 17:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't reject out of hand the validity of the government website for information about the program, but the elephant in the room is the complete lack of sources attesting to the subject's notability. That, of course, can't come from the government sites. What makes this program notable? If the article creator can't come up with independent, third-party cites to answer that, there's no point in proceeding further. Ravenswing 17:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Ravenswing and User:Robert McClenon I have included some high quality secondary sources, to address the problems you highlighted regarding notability and secondary sources. Is what I did correct? Can I resubmit or is my number of secondary sources still insufficient? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry_(2) Onkreukbaar (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

can I submit a page about a software training institute in kerala

Is it possible to submit a page in Wikipedia about a software training academy in KeralaRini Sebastian (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite possibly yes, Rini Sebastian, but writing a Wikipedia article is not easy, and there are several challenges that you need to overcome.to do so. one to understand is that Wikipedia is not interested at all in what you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) know or think about the subject; and it has very little interest in anything that the Academy or it staff or associates say about it. You will need to find several places where people who have no connection with the academy have chosen to write in depth about it, and been published in reliable places (like major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. The sources do not have to be in English, but if there are English sources they are preferable). If you cannot find such sources, then the institute is not presently notable (in the special way that Wikipedia uses this word) and it will not be possible to write an article about it.

If you can find such sources, then it is possible to write an article, based almost entirely on those sources. The next question to ask is, do you have a connection with the Institute? If so, then you have a potential conflict of interest, and you are discouraged from writing about it.

If, given all that I have said, you want to continue writing the article, please start by studying your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

software solution during neurosurgery

How can create an article regarding facts about this software as a reference all to read and learn about. I need help in doing so. So far there are old references and sources dated back to 2010 and articles that talk about it using its old title but not the current one. 82.81.105.153 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Advice on creating an aticle is available at Wikipedia:Your first article. If you have any more specific questions about the process, please do ask here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Another question

I have an article about a major facility in Mexico, which is in direct competition with other similar entities in California. The facility in question was started by a Media Mogul who has been at the centre of world wide politics and controversies for the last 60 years. He started said Enterprise in an effort to nullify the power of a major stateside Trade Union. Almost certainly all of the above has meant that the quality of printed and web media about this facility from our point of view (as described here) is minimal and pathetic. Yet we have photos that are undeniable proof of its existence and its high profile position in its industry. How to include an article for same? BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BeckenhamBear. Wikipedia articles summarize what published independent reliable sources say about a topic. If such sources are, as you say, "minimal and pathetic", then it is not possible to write an acceptable article. Unpublished photos are not acceptable as sources. Your claim of a "high profile position in its industry" is what we call original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The one thing that is published are photos of the facility, showing the huge size of it, only one of these is PD. Its own website is full of conflicting statistics, and obviously it's a sales brochure. Its facebook page has videos which are self explanatory. Others sources consist only of its name and location at best, or are at the best oblique negative references to it while highlighting how dangerous and crime ridden the neighborhood is. Thus warning off potential business from the USA. Is the PD photo and celluloid movie references enough for us? BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

please

can I get someone who is experienced to help me out with creating a page that is written in an encycopidian manner. many thanks, Noodlebomber (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Noodlebomber: - depends. When we last encountered you, you were attempting to create a promotional autobiographical article, despite such an effort being opposed to Wikipedia's guidelines. If you still wish to create this article, the answer is no, as the draft, amongst all its other issues, failed the general notability guideline, and thereby did not merit an article. If you are working on worthier pursuits, then editors will be more than willing to assist. What article/WikiProject do you wish to work on? Stormy clouds (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to work on an article about Mad Dex 2 (an android game) Noodlebomber (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You've already received a fair bit of advice, Noodlebomber, and I recommend you go to the link already posted to your talk page about how to create your first article. I hope and trust you aren't still planning to write an article about yourself? Ravenswing 08:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are asking about your Noodlebomber article, then no. The draft has been repeatedly turned down and deleted, and the reasons have already been explained to you on your talk page and on this page at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 731#why? and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 731#why? (2). You have been told not to resubmit the article, and you have been given a level 4 warning for promotion over this article. Meters (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made an article. is it good? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_dex_2 Noodlebomber (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Noodlebomber I'm sorry but it is no good at all. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as an advert. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No use whatsoever. Where are the references to significant coverage in published independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability? You have been given many links on your user talk page to the advice, but you have obviously ignored everything which you have been told. In future, don't try writing an article directly in mainspace. If you have a subject which you believe is notable, write a draft and submit it for review through the WP:AFC procedure. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I can not understand why the publication was rejected

Hello I do not understand why the article was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Global_Database From the start, thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.155.8 (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have articles on every and any company, and this one doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion. The links in the reviews you have received already will give you more information on how we assess that. Is there a reason why you are so keen to create it? – Joe (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi 109.185.155.8 and welcome to the Teahouse. There is lots of advice on your talk page that perhaps you have not understood. Please use in-line references (see WP:Referencing for beginners), and find sources that are independent of the company. If you cannot find these, then perhaps the article is WP:TOOSOON. Dbfirs 08:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Rejected four times, by four different reviewers? I think the message is clear. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Userbox

I want to create a userboxes related to Ludo but I dont know how I can do that. Can someone please tell? Zayyam123 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there is a guide to userboxes at WP:UBX that should help answer your question. Iffy★Chat -- 11:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zayyam123: I can create one for you in case you haven't done that already. FlyingShrimp (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

help with editing

I think I need help with editing my page. I am not understanding why the article was declined. I donate to Wikipedia. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Brphillipoc (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brphillipoc:: Thanks for stopping by. I hope I can answer your question adequately. The issue is primarily that the article does not indicate that the group you are writing about is notable by Wikipedia standards. Notability is proven by showing that multiple, independent reliable sources have written significant amounts of text about the subject. That means that people who are unconnected to the organization have written about it, and that that writing appears in reliable sources, such as published journalism or books or the like, and that the writing covers enough of the subject to allow us to write an article from those independent sources. So far, your article cites one source, the organization's own website, which fails the independence criteria. I hope that helps. You can read more at Wikipedia:Notability. --Jayron32 15:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for donating, Brphillipoc. Nobody editing Wikipedia has any information at all about who has or hasn't made donations: it is completely irrelevant to all issues of editing the encyclopaedia, including reviewing draft articles. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

editing help

The Acquisition history section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabCorp has a kind of spider chart and I added a new acquisition to it, but can't figure out how to connect the acquisition to the larger tree. Can someone show me how to do that?

Thanks,

grbrumderGeorge R. Brumder (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

A spider chart like that that is called a cladogram. Editing a cladogram on Wikipedia is a nightmare. If you are are lucky, a helpful expert may offer to do it for you. Maproom (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Grbrumder: I think I fixed it. I've never worked with cladograms before, so if I messed it up, feel free to revert it. You can find my edit at this diff. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

article

Hello, I have one question: For example, there is an article and I want to make this article in another language, what should I do? I have to make it as the new article in another language, or to edit and make a translation?

Sincerely, Tea

81.16.246.14 (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 81.16.246.14. Are you seeking to translate an article from the English Wikipedia into another language (in which case you'd have to post it on the other language's Wikipedia, according to that Wiki's rules) or from another language into English? Ravenswing 10:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The advice for translating from the English Wikipedia to another language is at WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Sri Lanka

Hello, I want to publish an article about the current status and progress of Encyclopaedia of Buddhism because most of the scholars have a view that the encyclopaedia project has been deferred by Sri Lanka Government. There is no any trace of this encyclopaedia in the internet and their doubt is then reasonable. I am the deputy editor of this encyclopaedia and I have constructed the whole material referring to available recodes at the office of the Encyclopaedia of Buddhism. They are not published works, but files and other documentations. In fact they are first-hand materials. Owing to this fact, I can hardly draw the connection of facts in the article with reliable sources such as books, journals etc.. What can I do? Shall I write at the bottom of the article that I have constructed this article based on available documents at the office of the encyclopaedia? Note that reasonably Wikipedia does not publish this article, otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liyanagebg (talk • contribs) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Welcome to the Teahouse, Liyanagebg! Unfortunately, your suspicion is correct: if your encyclopedia has not been published, and hasn't therefore been written about by reliable, independent, third-party sources, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and we can only write about the things of which the world's already taken notice. Ravenswing 10:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Presence n Wikipedia

Hello,

I want to know if someone can help us in editing our entry in Wikipedia. It has been rejected twice. If yes, where can I post my article? Thank you very much..

Rockjames630 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rockjames630: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is "no". You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia and not free web space for your organization to maintain a webpage about itself. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what third party reliable sources write about article subjects. You have what we call a conflict of interest(please review that page) and as such you should not directly edit about your organization. As you seem to work for this organization you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare such status. If you just want to tell the world about your organization, you should do so on its own website or social media. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Rude words in the entry for Kilmainham Gaol

Hello, I was reading about the Kilmainham Gaol in Dublin entry and someone has entered Poo & poo the New Gaol pee in paragraph two. Just thought I would tell you so that you can edit out this abuse. Thank you, from Mrs Waterworth 92.14.62.184 (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the report Mrs Waterworth. If you find problems in the future, I just wanted to let you know that you are allowed and encouraged to fix it yourself :) There's an EDIT button at the top of the page. You can make corrections or improvements, preview your changes, and save. There's also a HISTORY link where you can view and UNDO edits that have been made to the page, or edit&save the last good version. Alsee (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Auxesis_Group

Hi all Can you please help me about why this page got deleted after a month. It was verified and approved after a long discussion.

Here is the url for reference...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Auxesis_Group X4119 (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@X4119: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The page was not deleted, just moved to draft space(as you were able to link to it). The log and tag on the draft indicates that it may have been created by someone who did not disclose that they were paid to do so, which is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use; see WP:PAID, the paid editing policy. If you are the creator of the page, you need to return to your original username and request to be unblocked, and stop creating additional accounts. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No i am not the creator nor i am paid to do so the article was in draft space and it worked for a month.

X4119 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess this must be moved to sandbox first to be verified fully before being live.

X4119 (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would i be paid for this ???

There is no reason behind this.. X4119 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to move it to a sandbox. It's currently at Draft:Auxesis Group, where you and others can work on it. However, there's a concern that people associated with its creation have been undeclared paid editors, and have violated Wikipedia's policy by using multiple accounts. Maproom (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any proof for that they are being pad for it.

Then one day someone will blame us that Wikipedia contributors are also paid for editing multiple articles. X4119 (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible.

To avoid any misunderstandings, I suggest that you answer these questions honestly:

• Who do you mean by "us"?
• What is your connection with Auxesis Group?
• Have you, X4119, registered any other accounts?

Maproom (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Creation of a page

Can someone help research and create a page for Victor Mochere?

197.232.70.177 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. I would recommend reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article as a good first step. Writing a brand new article can be difficult, even if you are experienced writing for other types of publications, since Wikipedia has a few special rules that you probably don't see much of anywhere else. If you feel that the subject meets our standards for notability, which usually requires sustained coverage in reliable published sources (normally things like magazines, newspapers and books), then you can create a draft using the article wizard and submit it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 13:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

?

what article do you recommend making since I have had no luck so far with my own? Noodlebomber (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Noodlebomber. Try writing well-referenced biographies of 19th century provincial or state legislators, or cabinet secretaries of smaller countries, or hit songs of the 1920s and 1930s. Those three areas alone could keep you busy for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Alternately, instead of fixating on creating a new article (something that's hard for Wikipedia novices to do), you could work on editing an already-extant article that needs improvement. There are hundreds of thousands of those kicking around Wikipedia! Ravenswing 10:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328, would writing about count Arthur strong be appropriate? Noodlebomber (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No. The way you wrote your failed attempt was totally inappropriate. It was malformatted, there were no independent references, and it went against the conclusions of WP:Articles for deletion/Count Arthur Strong which refered to the various existing articles, hence your edit has been reverted. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:How Do You Live?

Hello,

I have created this draft it will be a feature film from Studio Ghibl. I have a question about putting it in mainspace. The film is in production, so could it be published yet? Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Artix Kreiger. Per our specialized notability guidelines for films, unreleased films are presumed to not yet warrants an article, unless they are high profile enough to qualify under our more general notability guidelines, which usually means receiving sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like magazines, newspapers and books. Since Studio Ghibli is a pretty high profile outfit, it may likely have already received enough attention to qualify for an article in mainspace. In fact, looking at news searches it does seem like it's gotten a fair bit of coverage, although much of it may depend on what portion of that coverage is in-depth, rather than routine announcements.

If you're unsure, you may want to consider submitting it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. This can be done by copying and pasting {{AFC submission}} at the top of the draft. GMG^talk 13:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not according to WP:NFILM, the guideline that governs the notability of films. As far as future animated films go, it holds that "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." In the meantime, this information can be summarized in Miyazaki's own article, which I see that it already has been. Ravenswing 13:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox question

For an article about two people (Count and Countess de Hoernle) are there two infoboxes, or do they get combined into one?

There are no infoboxes I can find for Philanthropist or Industrialist. (If I’m wrong please point me to them.) Would it be a good idea to create them? deisenbe (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey deisenbe. Infoboxes aren't absolutely required on every article, but can be a helpful way to summarize information for readers. You may want to compare the way the infobox is formatted on the article for the Wright brothers as an example to go by. GMG^talk 13:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person is pretty flexible, and it is OK to use two infoboxes in one article where this is appropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Episode list of HQ Trivia moved to bottom of page?

Why did this happen, and how do I fix it? When I view it in source, it appears to be completely fine. The Verified Cactus 100% 14:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The usual reason, unterminated table. Cured with this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Signature

Some user have a font or design of their signature at the end of a notice or message. How can I change my Sign. My sign is Zayyam123 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Zayyam123. For more information customizing your signature, see Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. It generally requires a little bit of knowledge about how to do the markup for the formatting, or you can do like me, and just takes bits and pieces from other signatures you like, and combine them into your own (because I'm not very good with the formatting) GMG^talk 15:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft

Hi! I create a page, but this page is like Draft. How can I change this Draft page in the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Renato_Valentim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelobarao123 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Marcelobarao123. I have added a banner for our Articles for Creation project, where the draft can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. However, if you do not follow the advice you were previously given regarding the draft, and take steps outlined in our tutorial for writing your first article, the draft is very unlikely to be accepted in its current form, because it includes information about a living person which does not meet our minimum requirements for inline citation. GMG^talk 16:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Stumbled across an advertisement article

Was browsing around articles and searching for information when I found a link to an article that is seemingly completely a nonbiased advertisement.

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

It seems upon some elementary research that the editor is financially tied to the author of the series that the article describes. I was not sure as someone who's never edited Wikipedia before how to report someone abusing the page, and it appears to have been undisturbed for ~8 years. Sorry for the improper channels!

75.132.43.191 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. Thanks for pointing this out. It is very likely that this topic is notable, but the article as it was written was little more than jargon-laden promotional garbage. I have rendered it a stub meanwhile until someone decides to write an actual encyclopedia article there. GMG^talk 17:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

external link was rejected

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and thought an easy way to begin would be by adding an external link from an artist page to a database that contains further information about them. Should something like this be a resource rather than a link? Should there be content added to the page with a citation to the database? Thanks for your help. LeslieatCMA (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LeslieatCMA. This is your only edit with this account. Did you edit the artist page logged out, or with another account? Please give us the title of the article and an experienced editor can explain what happened. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@LeslieatCMA: I guess you refer to Special:Contributions/ClevelandMuseumArchives adding links to Cleveland Museum of Art. The page histories show your edits were reverted as spam. All the links went to a general search page http://library.clevelandart.org/search_mayshow with no mention of the artists before you search their names. I tried searching April Gornik and the only content I could find was http://library.clevelandart.org/node/97313 and http://library.clevelandart.org/artists-makers-architects/gornik-april-0 where I see no information about April Gornik apart from apparently making a work called Moon-Cage which isn't even shown. My search efforts seem like a waste of time and I agree this is spam unless I'm missing some way to get to more information about April Gornik. The link would never have been added by somebody not from the website. See User talk:ClevelandMuseumArchives#March 2018. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I added the external link to Edris Eckhardt and April Gornik under a different account which I found out was inappropriate. They have since been removed. I didn't add any information in the body of the article that described the resource. Would it be appropriate to describe the resource in the article with or without an external link? LeslieatCMA (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@LeslieatCMA: If http://library.clevelandart.org/node/97313 and http://library.clevelandart.org/artists-makers-architects/gornik-april-0 is the only information the site has about April Gornik then any link or mention of the site is completely useless. Think about what would be good for Wikipedia's readers and not for your own website. We are not here to drive traffic to websites with no useful content to our readers. You have a conflict of interest when you add links to the site. The first point at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided says: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Your site is extremely far from satisfying that for April Gornik. Mentioning this "resource" without an exernal link is even more useless. I haven't examined whether there is any useful content about the other people. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving userpage to userpage

I want to move User:PorkchopGMX2/ttt and User:PorkchopGMX2/ttt/example to my username PorkchopGMX. I use PorkchopGMX2 when i am at school, and it is an alternative username. I use PorkchopGMX as a main username. I created User:PorkchopGMX2/ttt and User:PorkchopGMX2/ttt/example at school. How do i move a userpage to a different username? Is it allowed? Also, it is a wikigame. PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You can move pages (via a "More" tab in the default interface) when your account is four days old and has made ten edits. User:PorkchopGMX can do it in five hours. User:PorkchopGMX2 needs eight hours and two more edits. You are allowed to move pages between two accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) since you were not autoconfirmed, I moved the pages for you (to User:PorkchopGMX/ttt and User:PorkchopGMX/ttt/example). While the moving itself is certainly allowed (as a general rule, you can edit anything you want under your own userpages), the content is borderline "abuse of Wikipedia as a web host". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to ping PorkchopGMX. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, i want the page deleted PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey PorkchopGMX2. You may request the pages be deleted by pasting {{Db-author}} at the top of each. GMG^talk 19:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What to do once I have uploaded a pdf file.

Hello, I recently uploaded a pdf file, but I have no idea how to see it in Wikipedia. I do not understand any of this code, and the links are a bit overwhelming. I was attempting to add my Ph.D. research to a link , Maumee Torrent with the pdf file and figures, but I really do not know where to start, or if using a pdf file is the optimal way of contributing. Cordially, Danny M. Vaughn Mapdoctor (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mapdoctor: Sorry, but you might be barking up the wrong tree. Wikipedia does not use original research, and we prefer professionally-published sources. We're also a little picky on citing oneself. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The essay is referenced and would be a significant contribution to the link to Maumee torrent.

Mapdoctor (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you get what I'm saying. Where was your essay published? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mapdoctor: - you can not add a link to your own (unpublished) research, nor directly enter your own original research into the article as an edit. It appears that a Jeff G. did find your upload and created a link to it. I reverted that. You wrote above that your essay is referenced. Those references, if published, could be added to the article in support of the facts in the article. David notMD (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about complicated citation format

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Fort_Pillow&diff=829087480&oldid=828971824 properly formatted? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey deisenbe. You should remove the wikilink in the title, around C. C. Washburn, because that messes up the formatting. You may also want to consider using Template:Cite book instead of Template:Cite web, since it lets you add the ISBN for the book, which can be helpful for readers. GMG^talk 15:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, but you haven’t answered my question. Let me be more specific. There was a letter by one person of one date, quoted in a book written (not edited) by someone else at a different date. How do I handle the two authors, the two dates, and the two titles? deisenbe (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Well deisenbe, Template:Cite book has parameters for citing a chapter in a book, which you might be able to use for the kind of thing you're talking about. You could do something like chapter =Letter by John Doe, original publication date of 1900 and then use the rest of the template for information about the book overall. GMG^talk 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: notice the on "cite" templates you can add the parameter "|quote" so if the article/book you're citing says "this fact comes from a letter Smith wrote in 1953", you can directly quote that fact in the parameter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Where to from Teahouse

I have got this far with the trial, but can't see where it is leading me. Can you tell me whether it will show how to create a new subject page?Robson16 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robson16. Welcome to the Teahouse and congratulations on following "The Wikipedia Adventure". Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks in Wikipedia, but there is some guidance at WP:My first article. You might like to create a draft first where you can work on the article and receive some guidance and help, rather than using main space right away where reviewers will be more critical if you don't include appropriate references. Do ask again here if you need help. Dbfirs 22:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

How does new article get posted?

Hi!

I generated an article back in January but it is not yet live and I am having a hard time finding information on the time-frame for article verification (I know I have read about it in the past, but today I am getting lost in the wiki! :)

This is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Scanlan

Thank you!

Leonadance (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason is that drafts are not automatically reviewed, you need to submit them to WP:AFC. I’ve submitted it for you but be aware that it is only now at the bottom of the list and may take some time to be reviewed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the visual editor broken?

I was editing a page then suddenly it cleared the content of the page, when it was supposed to clear a few letters. Then when I refreshed the page it automatically switched to source editing. Is there a problem? UTC: 1:59 PM Itsquietuptown (Talk • Contributions) 14:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Itsquietuptown. If you think you may be experiencing a bug, you may want to consider posting at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Doesn't look like anyone yet has reported similar problems, but it may just be that you're the first with that particular browser or some other technical detail. GMG^talk 15:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I had similar problems with the visual editor. Video of the error in action. ^–User_Dude 02:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of order reference list

How do I fix and out of order reference list. I made a page years ago and am now adding to it with new references and the number next to the reference does not correspond correctly to the number in the reference list. Enkonis (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Enkonis, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to Resurrector but I don't see the mentioned problem. I guess you refer to numbered links like [1] (made by [http://alianzaarkana.org/blog/?p=726&lang=en]) where the number itself is an external link. Those are not references but just external links. "[1]" means it is the first external link on the page with no link text, and so on. They are not shown in the references section unless they are inside reference syntax like <ref>...</ref>, and the numbering is unrelated to the numbering of references. See Help:Referencing for beginners, and see Help:Link#External links for how to add link text to external links instead of an automatic number. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

ok thanks PrimeHunter. The reference numbers within the body of text do not need to correspond with the reference order and subsequent numbers in the reference list. This I did not understand. Enkonis (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkonis (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Enkonis: They are not reference numbers at all as far as the software is concerned. They are just numbered external links and can be added for different purposes. Your purpose was apparently that they should work as references but that is not how Wikipeia makes references. See Help:Referencing for beginners for proper ways to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The refs are showing up under Notes. Separately, you have content under a section named References that have numbers in brackets at the end of each line, but these numbers do not connect to the text. David notMD (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)