Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 774

Archive 770

←

Archive 772

Archive 773

Archive 774

Archive 775

Archive 776

→

Archive 780

How to add information when you have physical references

Hi,

I want to help out on the development of the Nintendo 64 page, I have some information that is not represented in the article. Specifically, there is no mention of the project director. I happen to be related to said project director, so I also have a related question about what to do when you are personally connected to a subject(person) that you intend to contribute information about. Do I need to declare a conflict of interests or something?

The more important question I have though is about offline material. So I have a stack of published articles and magazines that I was hoping to use as sources, but I'm not sure how I should go about using them. After all, I don't imagine I can just type up a bibliographical reference to some printed article no one else can verify.

Thank you, I appreciate the assistance in advance. Ignus3 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ignus3, Welcome to Teahouse! Anyone that is related to the subject and involves in editing the article in Wikipedia is considered with conflict of interest (COI). You could disclose your COI here. Wikipedia is strongly discourage COI editing and you could request other Wikipedia editors to edit for you on the page instead by placing {{request edit}} on the article talk page.

Any independent, reliable source such as from major newspaper, notable publisher could be used as a source irregardless they are obtain from the web or from print and it could be wriitten in any languages. Drop drop by again, if you have further questions. Cheers!. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is a published reference to the name of the project director, you may not add that information to the article. If you do find a published source, you should declare your conflict of interest according to the WP:COI guidelines. You can provide citations of published articles and magazines, as long as they are published by reputable publishers, even if they are offline. Self-published sources are not acceptable. I am not sure though, about your question regarding sources that "no one else can verify". If they were published, they can be used. Even old books etc., which are not online, can be used. But if it is some material that you have the only existing copy of, then it is not possible for Wikipedia readers to verify the information; in that case it can't be used. I hope this helps. --IamNotU (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to both CASSIOPEIA and IamNotU! ^_^ my "unverifiable" comment was more theoretical, since I was assuming that regular publication alone was not enough, but rather that there needed to be some online reference showing that the article/magazine was indeed published.

I will check out the COI guidelines, and I'm very committed to the NPOV, so I don't mind just doing request edits. My goal here is to fill in missing information, the fact that I have a personal motivation for doing so is something I'm trying to make as irrelevant as possible, both by maintaining NPOV and following the rules and procedures :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignus3 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Article editing during AfD debate

Hello! I literally tried to find an answer to this question: As per WP:EDITATAFD which states "if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article", am I allowed, as a COI contributor to Jasmine Directory, to edit the live article to improve its notability? I already made use of the {{request edit}} template however, with no response yet. To facilitate the request edit I created a sandboxed version which is the improvement to the live article. I am unsure if I am allowed to edit the live article or not. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Robertgombos. This doesn't entirely answer your question, but I would point out that it's not articles that are notable or not, but rather their subjects. The easiest way to save an article nominated for deletion because of notability concerns is simply to demonstrate that significant coverage of the topic exists by posting links to that coverage in the AfD discussion. Updates to the article itself can wait until the discussion is over. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Larry for your input. I proceeded To be honest I've never been very active in AfD debates and I don't know what's the standard procedure when one policy contradicts itself with another. WP:EDITATAFD encourages to improve the article during AfD, however my COI with that specific article prohibits it. And I really don't want to get involved in COI fights nor to beat a dead horse. :) Robertgombos (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Robertgombos, I'm an AfD veteran myself, and while improvements to an article at AfD bolstering notability are almost always welcome (any other improvements, with deletion pending, are premature), with COI involved I applaud your caution. Larry's advice as to how to handle it is good; COI or not, and however much I fall on the deletionist side of the spectrum, show me indepth coverage in reliable sources that I missed myself, and I change my vote. Ravenswing 22:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ravenswing, I tried to find a fair consensus to my question and, as I do when I need an advice, I like to ask from those who know. In real life, the same rule applies. The sources are added in my last comments on the AfD discussion. I have not pinged you to avoid being accused of... pinging you. You will have to excuse my English, it will get better by reading and writing (sometimes). ;) Robertgombos (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Robertgombos and welcome to the Teahouse.

COI editors are welcome to participate in AfD discussions as long as they are not hiding their COI. Entries at AfD do need to be based on policy. If lack of notability is the main reason for deletion, then presenting references in AfD that properly support notability is the best way to prevent deletion. Adding them to the article or talk page during AfD is not as effective, and adding them to the article as a COI editor would likely raise issues. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

jmcgnh Thank you, respecting the policies is fundamental and when I feel that I need some help I always ask for it. Robertgombos (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is my friendly advice to you, Robertgombos, as a veteran of thousands of AfD debates. Be brief. Be concise. Your tendency to wordiness is your enemy in a forum like that. Do you think that editors working on dozens of articles simultaneously want to immerse themselves in excessive detail? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I know Jim about my tendency to wordiness. I have been writing weekly columns for a Romanian psychology(-ish) magazine since 2007 and lately I write a lot about contemporary art. To get my BFA I needed to write "minimum" 50 pages thesis. Everybody wrote exactly 50 pages and a few adventured themselves totowards 60 pages. I wrote a 140-page long one. No one intrerupted me nor asked a question while presenting it. Now, I am curious how my dissertation will look like. I'll try to remove from my comments in the AfD unnecessary phrases because I do not want readers to get distracted by unnecessary information. - did it. Thanks for the advice. Robertgombos (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Why "award-winning" is peacock term?

Hello. I am korean wikipedian who trying to introduce Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch to kowiki. But I cannot understand why 'Award-winning'is considered peacock. Is it just neutral word told to "A subject win award"? I want to know if it is not, why.--Reiro (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi@Reiro:, Welcome to Teahouse! Content in Wikipedia should be written in neutral point of view. A peacock term is to use words show off the subject especially when adjective such as award wining is use as it has the connotation to puff up the subject in attempt to influence and appeal to an readers' emotions. Instead stating " Julianne Moore is an award wining actress', it is better to put the wording in a plain and factual manner - " Julianne Moore is an American actress and she won an Academy Award and two Golden Globes awards. Drop by again, should you have further question'. Have a good day. Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:Oh, I got it. Thank you, CASSIOPEIA!--Reiro (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, we've clashed in our replies. But Reiro, here's a similar and somewhat wordier explanation I've just written for you: It's a sensible question. My interpretation of "award-winning" is that it never gives enough information, and sounds rather similar to saying they're a really great person because they've won some awards. It seems unnecessary to say it. It may very occasionally be ok to use that term in the lead paragraph, providing there is also a section on "Awards and honours" further down which details (with references) all the awards they have bestowed upon them. But the question you could ask is "why do I need to say someone is an award-winning person when there's clearly a section on awards?" A person is a politician, a musician, a sportsman, a K-pop band or a scientist, and our encyclopaedia needs to say that. Only later does the article need to say that they have won awards of one sort or another for doing what they do. Whilst the award may help make the person notable by Wikipedia's standards, we generally don't need to say it in the introductory paragraph as if it's trying to 'big them up' - i.e using award-winning in that way is just another peacock term. I haven't checked, but I would not expect an article on Usain Bolt to say he is a medal-winning athlete. I'd expect the article to specify which races he won, records he broke or to list all his the honours and awards in a discrete section. I realise this is a rather wordy explanation, and I might not have answered it very well for you, but I appreciate the question and hope I've helped at least a little in your understanding. Please let me know if this make sense, or have I confused you further? Regards from the beautiful and award-winning United Kingdom. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To add to what CASSIOPIA said, Reiro: an "award" could be anything from second prize in a swimming competition to Best Actor in the Oscars. Mentioning a specific award makes that clear; "award-winning" doesn't. But if somebody actually has won an Oscar, people will more likely describe them as "Oscar-winning" rather than "award-winning". So "award-winning" covers a range that at first sight seems to go from bottom to top, but in practice probably doesn't go to the top, and so tends to inflate their achievement. --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Uk election

Can all of you grow up and put back the graphical summary of opinion polls for the next UK election. Just because your supreme leader corbyn isnt leading should not mean you should move to censorship

Truley pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:270C:3B00:4C62:E8E7:4FDA:1F1C (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have comments about a specific article, you should bring them to the talk page of that article- and there could be any number of reasons that the table was removed other than "censorship" which you have no evidence of. Also, this is a worldwide project and editors are not necessarily from the UK or involved in UK politics, so please don't make that sort of accusation without evidence. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is the article in question. The IP above has no previous edits, but is referring to a table added by James-Smillie99 which was subsequently removed, on the grounds that it was a bold edit with no talk page consensus (consensus was to remove the graph in the first place), and added a graph to the (table-heavy) article. I agree with 331dot that claims of censorship are not justified, and that all grievances should be taken to the relevant talk page. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My article was declined even after submission of solid proof

Hi All, I submitted a page for a film. I added references and articles that give you proof. But still, they are not accepting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vignesh.pichai (talk • contribs)

Is this about User:Vignesh.pichai/sandbox? There is some advice on in-line referencing on your talk page. Dbfirs 11:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vignesh.pichai: See WP:N. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are our links removed as spamming ?

We have tried to add our link to those who are buried in either Key Hill Cemetery and Warstone Lane Cemetery in Birmingham Jewellery Quarter, Hockley. We are a voluntary group who researches the lives of the notable people buried in these two historic Cemeteries. We are the only group to maintain the cemeteries and graves. Such as Joseph Chamberlain , Joseph Gilliot (Pen Maker ) John Skirrow Wright ( Postal Order ) Plus many more. Our links have been removed as spam. We are not spamming. Other groups such as JQRT and the Hockley Flyer have links I see no reason why out voluntary group cannot also.

Friends of Key Hill Cemetery & Warstone Lane Cemetery  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grave-matters (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC) 

The same question has been asked, and answered, at the Help Desk. Maproom (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Questioning a product

This is the first time I am using this question page.

Decades ago I heard about and used a product called Vemma. I have since learned it is no longer available. However, I received an email about a product called Nutrabase which uses the same colors and print type extremely similar to the Vemma product. Can anyone find out if Nurtabase is related to Vemma? I'm curious because I received the infomercial via email and am wondering if it's the same Vemma product (that got in trouble) under different packaging and a different name. Personally, I have no idea how to go about investigating something like this.

Elteral3 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Thanks for any thoughts or information. ~EL

The Teahouse is, as it says at the head of this page, "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." For more general enquiries not related to editing Wikipedia, try WP:Reference desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Upload Music

How do I upload musical excerpts in ogg to wikimedia commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moetapeega (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Moetapeega, I believe the instructions are here c:Commons:Audio and upload happens here: c:Special:UploadWizard. Do note the strict licensing requirements: c:Commons:Licensing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Publish a draft

Hi I created a draft - Draft:Canetic Advisors. There is no button allowing me to move this page to Wikipedia. How do I have it approved or move it? This was a rewrite of a draft that was not accepted and has been completely rewritten. Thank you TONYLAAD 00:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TONYLAAD (talk • contribs)

@TONYLAAD: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that you are missing the appropriate template to allow you to submit the draft for review; but I would tell you before adding it that your draft is a long way from being in shape to submit. It is very promotional in its language and nature, and it seems like you are attempting to spread the word about the company and its products. The links you offer as sources mention Canetic Advisors tangentially, if at all. Please review the notability guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG, which any organization must meet in order to merit an article. In short, they ask for in depth coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Routine announcements, brief mentions, press releases, or anything similar to those things does not establish notability. If no one has chosen to write about this company in depth(on their own), it is probably too soon for an article about this company. Wikipedia cannot be used to generate notability or spread the word about a company, it must already be notable.

I would surmise that you represent Canetic Advisors; if you do, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy and also the paid editing policy; the latter is required if you are paid to edit here(such as an employee editing about their employer). 331dot (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, TONYLAAD. I agree completely with 331dot above. There is no chance whatsoever that your draft will be approved in its current form. Your draft describes the company's founder as "a passionate entrepreneur and energy industry thought leader with over 25 years of renewables, clean-tech and start-up experience. Canetic has set out a mission to disrupt the impact investing ‘intelligence’ space." Let me be frank with you. Phrases like "passionate entrepreneur" and "thought leader" and "disrupt the blah blah space" are examples of the worst type of promotional corporatespeak baloney, devoid of any substantive content. There are many similar examples of promotional startup jargon in your draft. That kind of language violates one of our core content policies, the neutral point of view, and is utterly unacceptable in an encyclopedia article. So, your first step is to comply with our mandatory (non-negotiable) paid editing disclosure. Your second step is to find reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this company. Then summarize what those sources say - no more and no less. Then, ruthlessly strip every single shred of promotional language from the draft, until it is the most boring and most rigorously factual thing that you have ever written. Once you have done all that, double check your work and remove any hint, trace or whiff of promotional language that remains. Finally, add this template to the top of your draft:

{{subst:submit}}

Save your draft, and you will see a button to submit. Click it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

TONYLAAD: you should be aware that when normal readers (not PR people) read "a passionate entrepreneur and energy industry thought leader", they mentally translate it as "a self-promoting bullshitter and generator of vaporware". Quite apart from Wikipedia policy, you would create a better impression by sticking to facts. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The draft was deleted as G11 before, and so I've nominated it again as it evidently meets that criterion now (it is clear that "rewrite" did not do anything meaningful) Galobtter (pingó mió)

Bloody Margaret entry

I have been criticised for not entering information correctly and yet do not know how to amend this. I tried to add a page for the cocktail "Bloody Margaret - aka Red Snapper" - a Bloody Mary made with Gin and not Vodka, but was told I had not done things sufficiently and yet was given no further advice or information how to "fix" things - I have autism , I would like to try to get this corrected, please, can someone assist? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsirius (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamsirius, Welcome to Teahouse and thank you for the question above. I believe you are referring to the the draft article, Draft:Bloody Margaret, that you had created and has been declined. Do note that the editor who declined you article did leave a message on the page, and if you find the explanation on the "grey box' within the "Salmon colour" box of the draft page. Since the rejection, another editor has added 3 sources. The reasons for the rejection was the draft article content was not provide independent, reliable source to gauge the notability is met under the guidelines of Wikipedia. To learn more, please visit Wikipedia:Your first article. Thank you for your contribution and do come back if you have any other questions. Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this still makes no sense to me whatsoever, being something of a Luddite. Can someone help perhaps please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsirius (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

THANKS TO WHOEVER HELPED WITH THIS !! APPRECIATED :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsirius (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Referencing a Hebrew image file on English wikipedia (Left to right, vs right to left text)

I am trying to use this image file stored on the Hebrew Wikipedia, for this English article:

I finally figured out the unicode version of the url, but what is the proper way to figure this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia, you can use images that are at Wikimedia Commons, and those that are at English Wikipedia. You can't use any that are at other Wikipedias but not at either of those two. You may be able to copy the image from Hebrew Wikipedia to Commons, and then use it in an article here. Whether you can depends on its copyright status: Commons is more fussy about copyright than most individual Wikipedias. Maproom (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Johann Kremenezky

I'm sorry, I should read questions properly before I answer them. Here's the wikicode that produces the image to the right: [[File:יונה קרמנצקי-JNF012553.jpeg|thumb|80px|Johann Kremenezky]] . Maproom (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate entries

I see there is an entry for William Cray Brownell and another for W. C. Brownell. They are the same person. What can I or you do to fix it?

Louis Kessler KKMI1740 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKMI1740 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, KKMI1740, you're right about that! I can't believe that went unnoticed for so many years - thank you so much for pointing that out. I've now turned the W.C. Brownell page into a redirect page pointing to William Crary Brownell. What this means is that if a reader searches for or clicks a link to W. C. Brownell, they will automatically be taken to the William Crary Brownell page, with a small notice at the top of the page saying "Redirected from W. C. Brownell." In the future, if there are two articles that obviously are the same topic and should obviously be the same article, replace the content of one of them (usually the one with the less appropriate title or with the lesser amount of content) with: #REDIRECT: [Other page here]. Make sure that if the article you're turning into a redirect has any content that is not mentioned in the duplicate article, that you make sure to include that information in the redirect target. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions, and once again, thanks for pointing this out!--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 17:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Good advice, and good catch. However, if you do copy any content from the article you are about to convert into a redirect to the other article, be sure to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. In my view, the best way to do this is by using {{copied}}. But other methods, including a link in the edit summary when copying the content, can be used. Please keep this in mind. @SkyGazer 512KKMI1740: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rude!

Hi, I'd like to know about how to use Template:Uw-npa1. The text says: "Hello, I'm Example. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you."

I know how to put the template on someone's talk page. But are there instructions or a guideline that explains under what circumstances I can remove another editor's comment (or portions thereof) on a talk page, because it "didn't seem very civil", as the template says? The actual case is here: Talk:Münsterstraße_(street_in_Dortmund)#Notability. It's not really terribly rude, I mean there's no swearing... but actually it's rude! There is an AfD discussion about the article, and I meant to politely suggest that people should direct any relevant notability comments there, while it's active, instead of to the talk page. The reply from Otr500 seems sarcastic, provocative, and, well, uncivil. "Thank you for your improper instructions", "you do not have the authority, unless you bought the rights from Wikipedia, to dictate that article content", "if you did purchase this article, I will apologize in advance and refrain from future edits"...

I've been active on Wikipedia for more than a decade now, and so far have never had the occasion to want to use this template, but for some reason, these particular sarcastic and rude remarks toward me and, further on to another editor (You will have to enlighten the Wikipedia world as to the meaning of [your comments]", "Please also note during this editing 101 class that...]] and so on, have really pushed my buttons! Any advice appreciated, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello IamNotU and welcome to the Teahouse.

More a violation of AGF, I think. You could graciously ignore the comment, it's an easy way to go.

The warning templates are not magic. The wording has been worked out carefully to be civil, non-antagonistic, but firm. You could post your own admonition, based on the warning template, but ommitting the "so it has been removed" phrase. But you should not remove any comments.

My reading is that Otr500 was making an overly sarcastic response to your advice. I agree with them that your advice was largely incorrect. WP:EDITATAFD says that even if an article is up for AfD, one can continue to edit the article (within certain limits) and discuss improvements on its talk page. There is no need to wait for the Afd discussion to conclude. Of course, it's a also good idea to get any notability advocacy into the AfD discussion as well, so you were partially correct.

And if you watch the AfD, you'll see that it turns on rather fine points of policy; the consensus may see things Otr500's way or perhaps conclude, instead, that some aspect of NGEO or other argument for keep is more applicable.

So my strong recommendation is to leave everything alone and just use this incident as a learning experience. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

jmcgnh, thanks for your answer. I guess they were deliberately trying to provoke me, and I guess it worked... but probably I shouldn't let it get to me. I'm still curious about the template, and why it says the comment "has been removed". I understood that you shouldn't remove other peoples' comments, so it seems odd. In the meantime I found WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL, which helps explain it, though not completely... I didn't suggest people shouldn't edit the article, I just meant to ask if there were additional arguments relevant to the AfD discussion, that they could go there, rather than splitting off into two separate threads and having to cross-reference each other. It didn't seem like a helpful idea to spill the AfD discussion over to the talk page while it was still active. I admit that saying "this page is about article content" is not really right. In any case, a polite correction would have been nice instead of uncivil sarcasm... I'll try to graciously ignore it, though it's maybe too late for that now, as it looks like you pinged the user who will come here and read this? I was kind of hoping to just get some advice before saying anything to them (or not)... Anyway, thanks again. --IamNotU (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi IamNotU, I do understand how you feel for being treated for what you are not accustom to as what your background would deem a behavior is not acceptable/polite in social setting. You could visit this page for information on what constitutes personal attack. Counter vandalism team members,(or any other editor), we do revert/remove the personal attack edit and placing a "npa" (no personal attack) warning template on the said editor talk page and would continue to increase the warning level if the same type of edit continues. If personal attack edit is on user page / user talk page then it is constitutes "vandalism" edit and if the attack is particularity serious and extremely derogatory such as sexual/sexual orientation harassment, trolling with profanity, legal/violent treats we could report the editor to Administrator intervention against vandalism immediately. There are some differences between what is not a civil behaviour vs personal attack. In Wikipedia, not respond to multiple requests on unexplained edits/ or not cooperative might consider not civil but editor has committed no personal attack here, and that would be the same for being condescending, patronizing, or silly name calling (such as calling editor an idiot even their behavior fits the term). I hope the above help. Cheers and have a wonderful day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with photos and getting rid of "grey areas"

Please can anyone help me?

I've been posting several photos just lately, and the images are not displayed correctly. Grey bars have appeared. See for example St. Nicholas Monastery Church, Mesopotam

Rob Sherratt (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rob Sherratt, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem is also in the original uploads like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/The_Papas_of_Mesopotam_leading_the_dancing.jpg so the error is not introduced when our software scales them to smaller versions. Your uploads are exactly 5 MB: 5242880 bytes = 5 × 1024 × 1024. Something cuts off the images when they reach 5 MB. I don't know what it is but it's possible it's at your end. Others have uploaded larger files before and after. The limit is 100 MB. Do the images look OK right before you upload them? Are they above 5 MB? Can you try to upload with another browser or Internet connection? Or edit the images before upload so they are below 5 MB? You can use the link "Upload a new version of this file" on the pages with your existing uploads at commons:Special:ListFiles/Rob Sherratt. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thank you for your welcome and for your advice. The original images are 6,094,223 bytes, and they are perfect. I believe the software fault is in the Wiki image uploader, it is not a browser-related issue since I have tried with several browsers. However, I will reduce the size of the images and "Upload a new version of this file" to work around the bug. Rob Sherratt (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Rob Sherratt rejected?

Hi, I just had my user page rejected by Dan arndt There was no explanation what I had done wrong, I was doing my best ... There seems to be little or no guidance on what is expected in a user page ... Rob Sherratt (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rob Sherratt: The decline reason is "bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". Read WP:N and WP:BLP. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Rob Sherratt, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you created your user page using the article wizard. This is designed and intended to create drafts of articles that is, pages intended to eventually form part of the encyclopedia proper. Such a page needs to establish the notability of the topic, using citations of reliable sources (See Wikipedia's Golden Rule.) To this end the wizard puts {{Userspace draft}} on the pages it creates in userspace.

However, your userpage seems to have been intended, quite properly, as a user page, that is, a page meant to describe a person as a Wikipedia editor, giving some idea of the person's background, interests, and possibly his or her accomplishments and plans in editing Wikipedia. My own user page is at User:DESiegel, for example. User pages need not, and indeed normally should not, cite sources or attempt to establish the notability of the editor.

The matter seems to have been corrected, and should you wish to restore the short "about" passage that you removed in a recent edit to the page, you are free to do so.

I hope this explanation clarifies matters a bit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternate account

This is an alternate account of my A 10 fireplane (talk · contribs) could you make sure I have done everything wright to avoid Sock puppetry thank you A 10 iceplane (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, A 10 iceplane. You should probably, mention your alternate account on User:A 10 fireplane, with a link. Otherwise I think you have done all that you need to do, except being careful not to edit the same discussions with both accounts, as that might seem to be attempting to count double in a discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

hello again DESiegel I'll make sure to do that, thamk you so much for all your help :) A 10 iceplane (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

When to create a user page?

Hi, I am new to editing on Wikipedia, but I thought I'd share what I know about fragrances and essential oils. I assumed that it was good practice to create a 'user page', but hardly 3 minutes after creating a user page, and before I had a chance to even submit a first edit, my user page was marked for 'quick deletion'. I was somewhat surprised but I went ahead and created my first edit, but I am wondering now if I did the wrong thing by creating a user page? Should I wait to do this? Many thanks! Perfumehead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfumehead (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Perfumehead. The request for speedy deletion of your user page was declined by the administrator Seraphimblade, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. Someone seems to have been a bit overzealous in tagging it for deletion. Deor (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's allowed to start by creating a user page as long as it satisfies Wikipedia:User pages. Many users create a promotional or long off-topic user page and never contribute to the encyclopedia but User:Perfumehead seems OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Perfumehead Hello and First of all Welcome to Wikipedia! I am sorry but I was the one who tagged your page. It was my bad. Sorry about that,and I hope you are not upset about this mistake. I apologize. As an experienced editor I should have known better. Very sorry. I look forward to seeing you edit! Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Question about talk pages

Hello again! Thank you for taking the time to consider my question.

The talk pages seem strangely empty to me, with talk pages for large collaborative articles only containing one to four sections discussing something. I'm curious why this is, and nervous that my current approach to volunteering information (presenting it on the talk page) is wrong, and that I am making a whole lot of unnecessary noise or otherwise being somehow uncouth. Can you provide me a little more insight into how the talk pages are usually used, and how they are meant to be used? Ignus3 (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ignus3: Often, older discussions that have run their course are archived to avoid the main talk page becoming bogged down with old, stale threads. But not everything is discussed on the talk page. It really is okay to just go ahead and edit the article, you don't need anyone's permission first. Of course, if anyone reverts you or disagrees, then it's time to take things over to the talk page and figure them out. It's entirely possible that editors on some pages just collaborated through their edits, and didn't really need to have extensive discussions on the article talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Thank you for the response! I suppose I can try to be a bit bolder in general, but what about a situation where I think something should change but I'm not sure exactly how I think it should be changed, or I know of a resource but I'm not sure exactly how the article should use it?Ignus3 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that might be something to bring up on the talk page, but like you said, some aren't terribly active so not a lot of people might be watching them. If you don't get much that way, you can check the top of the talk page for relevant Wikiprojects that the article falls under; members there might be able to give you some advice. And of course failing that you can always ask here as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Can i send it on gmail to confirm? and what thing i need to do?

Hi i'm ShnRvs Unicorn 147 i want to know if i'm doing right. I'm a editing about colors and crayola colors. i want to edit the article titled "List of Crayola marker colors" i'm doing some research and i found a page called "jenny crayon collection" and some text in there can be use in the article so i send him a message informal (text) if i can have permssion to use it. Then next he replied she said " Do you work for Wikipedia? What information are you wanting to use?" and i replied "Yes i work in wikipedia as editor of color topics and crayola colors. I want to use some information in your website titiled "List of Current Crayola Marker Colors" The following information that i want to use: Name and Hex of 64 Pip-Squeak Makers Name and Hex of 50 SuperTips Markers"

if she approve it what next step i need to do how to confirm that she approve to use it or can i send evidence that she agree to use it and confirm it by sending to permissions-en@wikimedia.org in gmail

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShnRvs Unicorn 147 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ShnRvs Unicorn 147. Why should we include complete lists of Crayola colors? That seems to be indisciminate information that our readers could easily find on the Crayola website. Is the "jenny crayon collection" a reliable source? Does it have professional editorial control and an established reputation for accuracy and fact checking? I doubt it, although I am not a crayon expert. Please think carefully about why you want to add this content to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

generating custom lists of articles.

Firstly: Is it possible to generate a list of articles according to the following criteria:

1. Page has 1 or less watchers and
2. Order by page view frequency over the last year with highest number of views first

The idea being to search and monitor pages which are popular, but aren't getting a lot of maintenance
Secondly: Where can I find some general info about making custom lists of articles?
A further idea which my permissions wouldn't allow, but a bot/admin might find useful, might be to sort pages with n watchers and subtract from n, watchers who are users who haven't been active for more than one year. Does stuff like that happen already?
Last final thing - is there a better place to ask questions like this? Many thanks Edaham (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Edaham, your idea is a good one, and this is the right place to ask about. Unfortunately the answer is no. If there were a way to find pages with few active watchers, ill-intentioned people would be able to identify and abuse those pages, for instance by adding spam links. (I can't help with your second question.) Maproom (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Edaham: To answer bullet point #2: is [1] what you had in mind? However, I am not sure exactly if/how this can be used by bot.

For the first bullet point, I believe Maproom is mistaken. While personal watchlists are private (i.e. you cannot tell whether user X watches page Y) the number of page watchers can be seen via the "page information" link (for instance, as of my writing, the Main Page has 111728 watchers), though it will say "less than 30" rather than the exact number if it is low enough (which somewhat mitigates the "vandal searches for unmaintained page" effect). You even have a stat for watchers who visited recent edits but I could not easily find what this number covers exactly (that is not documented at Help:Page information). All that information can be retrieved by bot via the API (mw:API:Info).

Finally, any Wikipedia-related question is fine on the Teahouse, but you might get a quicker answer on more specialized venues. In the present case, I would say WP:VPT was the "best" venue (but again, asking here is fine). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Referencing question

What reference should I add to my Draft namely Draft:C.K. Nayudu Award as I don't have any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Map Collector (talk • contribs) 08:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi I formatted your question for you. Please start a new section when you ask a question. Have you read Wikipedia's information on reliable sources? Someone's left some links with more general info on your talk page. Edaham (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You will need to cite several references to reliable independent published sources that discuss the award. This one may qualify, i'm not sure how reliable it is: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/110441.html . Maproom (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Map Collector, In the Draft:C.K. Nayudu Award, you would find the below inside the "salmon colour box and see below", click on news or newspaper and you wuld able to find some source for your article.

Find sources: "C.K. Nayudu Award" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news

Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Um that would be Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, I think. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

How to get autoconfirmed

Good Morning,

I tried to edit the page Cyberbullying and received a message that said only autoconfirmed members could edit it. I have 100 edits and have had an account since last summer. Is there something else I don't know about. Thanks for your help with this. Jean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr524 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The message which is displayed does not stop you editing the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing the page will trigger the check on your confirmed status, which should then be updated on your account. SeeWP:CONFIRM for info. - X201 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Searching for infoboxes and what fields they have

Where can I find information about any arbitrary infobox (i.e. Wikipedia User) and what fields it takes?

Moonythehuman (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Most infoboxes are listed at Category:Infobox templates or its subcategories. Each one lists its parameters, e.g. Template:Infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Moonythehuman: Infoboxes are a specific kind of templates, that create right-aligned boxes with quick facts, mostly used in mainspace. All templates are found by prefacing the template code (without arguments) by "Template:". So for instance, to find out information about {{Infobox country}}, you would go to Template:Infobox country. You should find documentation about the arguments if any at the template page, though documentation quality varies wildly across templates.

Also, we do not have a {{Wikipedia User}} or {{Wikipedia user}} template, and if we had, it would likely not be an infobox (infobox templates should almost always be named "infobox foo"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think they mean this...{{Infobox Wikipedia user}} - X201 (talk)

Yea, i meant that. Thanks you two. Moonythehuman (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

how to add pictures

hi i'm new to wiki how do add pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Madanje (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Kevin Madanje: To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

1. Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
2. If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
3. If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
4. Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an 'edit war' - need help from an experienced user or admin

I have been using and contributing to Wikipedia for many years, and I have found myself in a potential edit war which I want to avoid.

The page Dave Min is about a current candidate up for election in California. The page has been edited recently by user BrittonBurdick, a paid staffer of rival candidate Kia Hamandachy (it's easy enough to confirm this information by searching for Britton's LinkedIn page; I won't post the link to that in the interest of privacy). I believe he has also been 'sock-puppeting' on this page as anonymous user 2600:8802:2101:2fa0:71ac:614e:db16:b2b2

I have made some edits to this page which I have referenced on the Dave Min talk page. "the article referenced is a fabrication" documents a dispute which I feel was resolved and edited by an admin. "The editor has attributed information not found in the cited source" is self explanatory, but this user made edits to the page reverting my edits without commenting on the talk page.

Recently, he removed this second edit I made (Min response statement) and commented on my person talk page as if he were posting from an admin's perspective, saying "I removed the Ballotopedia article because the consensus of editors and administrators Wikipedia that it does not meet our standards of reliable sources." The article I posted referenced his employer, rival candidate Kia Hamandachy.

If you look at all 24 of the edits since May 11, with the exception of my 3 edits 3 minor edits, they are all by him or the referenced anonymous account. The way the page stands now these paragraphs reflect only his partisan opinion, and he has removed all referenced to his employer.

I'm hoping that an impartial editor might look at these changes and make appropriate changes that would reinstate my edit. Or can I confidently go ahead and reinstate my edits (which he as referred to as BLP/Vandalism)without being accused of 'edit warring'? Could a more experienced person also comment on whether some remedy such as blocking this user might be applied? Gbonline (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gbonline. In my opinion, Dave Min fails our notability guideline for politicians since he is an unelected candidate for office. I believe that this article (and all similar articles) should be deleted. The best outcome would be rigorously neutral coverage of Min and all the other candidates at California's 45th congressional district or a spinoff article about the 2018 election in that district. As for your concerns about BrittonBurdick having a possible conflict of interest , you should discuss that at User talk:BrittonBurdick. If that editor is paid by a candidate, then a paid editing disclosure is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Cullen³²⁸. This has been a great learning experience for me, and I'm glad I found the Teahouse. Gbonline (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference overkill

Hi there, I have tried to create a few articles, in which I have cited several references, in a long list at the end of the article (which was just one paragraph). I understand that this leads to "reference or citation overkill", but what other options do I have to include all the references, if the article at this point is only a few sentences long (one paragraph)?

Thanks a lot!

KSK (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kusemek: How to write articles that don't get deleted, with emphasis on relevant steps:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Notice that you don't use every source you can find, just the meatiest ones. This avoids the whole "citation overkill" issue and lets others see that the subject is notable right away. Sources that just mention the subject in passing are useless for establishing an article. If those are the only sources you can find, then the subject really is not notable, no matter how many articles dedicate a whole sentence to the subject.

Also, in case those deletion notices were a bit intimidating, never, ever, ever, ever post copyrighted text onto the site. We can (and do) block users who end up requiring too many warnings about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A geographical search tool for Wikipedia

Hi all, I love Wikipedia and use it daily, thank you all for your devoted work. I hope this is the right place for asking this. If not please refer me to the right one.

I have created a site (a type of search engine) that can help search geographical information and places from Wikipedia. It basically lets users choose an area and a subject and get results on a map. Like "art deco architecture" in New York.

I would like to find a way to let Wikipedia users know about it. Is there a way I can do that through Wikipedia?

If you wish to see for yourself (it works best on a computer but mobile works too):

Examples: copernix.io/about

Search page: copernix.io

Omryv (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Omryv - this is a very cool app you created - thanks for creating and sharing. There are some interesting applications. Is there a way to filter the results so only lists are displayed, as one option? In other words, exclude any results that don't have the word list in it? Items like State Capitals, Presidential birthplaces/libraries, NFL Stadiums, locations of mass shootings, etc. - are all items that are interesting to see visualized on maps. Three quick fixes I'd recommend - 1) add a reset button, which would reset the searches and take users back to the start page - it wasn't easy to change the search once I did the first one or clicked on an example, 2) change the second sentence on https://copernix.io/about/ to "Ever been to a place which you didn't know anything about?" and 3) don't have the "To see places from Wikipedia..." prompt keep popping up - it may be better and less distracting to have it in a fixed location on the side, or perhaps allow users to click a checkbox to suppress its recurrence? I think posting this here was the right way to promote it - and once it's fine tuned people will may save the URL and maybe even share it on social media. Have you seen these cool apps also? wiki.polyfra.me, wikiverse.io/ and listen.hatnote.com/? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You might also want to put it on your user page, and give some background on its genesis. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Timtempleton - Thanks a lot for your advice. I have already implemented some of your suggestions. Regarding the question about the lists, if you just add list to the query line that should give a similar result by boosting up pages with the word "list". To clear the search you can simply refresh the page or delete the text in the search bar. I will have a look at these projects you mentioned. Thanks again. Omryv (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to add details about a fashion brand...

Hello. A popular Korean celebrity has her own fashion brand since 2014. I added well-sourced details about her brand in her own article page under a separate heading, but it was removed due to "blatant advertising". I wanted to know why I couldn't add information about her business in her own article, but I wasn't given a reply. There are dozens of online publications and magazines which have written full articles about the fashion brand (Eg: Vogue, Kodemag, KBS, Fashionista etc) so there is no shortage of reputable sources for information/details. Why can't facts about her business be included in her Wikipedia page? If this is the case, can I create an article for the fashion brand? Jesstan01 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Jung

Hello, Jesstan01, and welcome to our Teahouse. It's great to see a BTS fan and K-pop-lover wanting to edit here. My daughter is utterly infatuated with both, and she loves to read about brands, so your edits would have interested her immensely. Unfortunately, however, by adding a very large amount of content about one brand line that the person (Jessica Jung) has created, you have rather gone off at quite a tangent. This is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia page on the biography of a living person. Had you mentioned it with just one or two sentences, providing a reliable reference to a source that is independent of the subject, that might have been ok. But I hope you can appreciate that you added far too much detail, causing the biographical article to rather go off course and to lose its focus. So a reader might then wonder if this was an article about a person or their brand. Another editor who removed your edit did leave a brief but polite note in their edit summary to say that this looked too promotional, so was deleting it. And I agree with them. What I'd encourage you to do is to just write a few lines with citations and explain your suggested edit on the talk page of that article and see what others think before you add it. We work by consensus here, so asking for opinions is exactly the right way to go forward when you're not quite sure what's best. If (and it's a big 'if') the brand has attracted the attention of the media and of writers, and if you can provide references that talk about it in great depth to prove that it meets what we call our "Notability guidelines, the brand might well merit a linked article of its own. See also WP:PRODUCT. (I haven't looked in detail at the information on this brand to make that assessment, I'm afraid). Does this help explain your concerns? Either way, keep up the good work! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright policy for old coinage/currency not currently in circulation?

I have a Voyageur dollar that I've taken a few pictures of, but I don't know what the copyright policy is for unused coinage. The Verified Cactus 100% 21:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VerifiedCactus. Yet again, you ask a wonderfully interesting question! I didn't know the answer to your question but, because no one has answered in the last couple of hours, I thought I'd kick off with a first attempt. You might like to read this article on Wikimedia Commons which suggests that different countries take a different view to coin copyright than others. You're in Canada, so this bit suggests coin images are copyrighted for 50 years. (Coins are copyrighted by the Royal Canadian Mint. There are charges for educational and commercial use, so they cannot be shown on Commons before the expiration of fifty years. Whether an image of, say, these coins in your hand would be considered in the same way I am not qualified to comment upon. Commons is a lot fussier about copyright infringement than is en-wiki, so maybe uploading locally might be a sensible approach. Please take this as a personal opinion, rather than formal advice. Maybe others could offer a better perspective. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)