Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 889

Archive 885

←

Archive 887

Archive 888

Archive 889

Archive 890

Archive 891

→

Archive 895

Quoting Wikipedia as source in academic papers.

About 12 years ago, when I was my completing a masters degree at Birkbeck, citing Wikipedia was a definite 'no-no' in academic writing. Indeed, I remember even being warned against citing a 'fact' (a verifiable eye-witness account of an event) as it was found ONLY on a Wikipedia page.

Does anyone know of any studies made in the shifting academic attitudes towards citing Wikipedia since its beginning?

I am interested as I now lecture students in the art of factual story-telling and, thus on the use of sources.

Many thanks Blue Badge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebadge1 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

you may be interested in Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bluebadge1. Because Wikipedia can be freely edited by anyone, it cannot be considered a reliable source in an academic context. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia editors working on one article do not consider another Wikipedia article to be a reliable source. On the other hand, a well-written Wikipedia article summarizes what actual reliable sources say, and those sources should be cited throughout the article, and will appear in the "References" section near the end of the article. You are free to evaluate those sources and cite them elsewhere. No Wikipedia article should contain an alleged "fact" that appears nowhere else. This violates our policy on verifiability and any such unreferenced claims should be removed from an article if no reliable source verifying the assertion can be found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Frustrated

Hello, I've been trying to make edits to a page that has had false information a long time now. Why is the photo that I own continually rejected when I try to upload even after filing an OTRS. For years now, I have been trying to make these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinsworld (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I made this a new section because it appeared to have no connection to the autobiography query. David notMD (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to files which have been deleted at Wikimedia Commons, not here at the English Wikipedia? The situation with previous attemmpts is explained on your user talk page there at commons:User talk:Malinsworld. The latest attempt is apparently awaiting consideration of the OTRS. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Malinsworld. The author of the Commons file mentioned above by David Biddulph is given as Malinda Williams, the subject of the photo. Is that you? In general, it is the person taking the photo, not the subject, who is considered to be the copyright holder unless it was some kind of work for hire or there exists a copyright transfer agreement. The file is currenlty marked with c:Template:OTRS received which means that the permissions email that you or someone else sent in to c:COM:OTRS was received and enteredinto the system, but it is either waiting for review or currently undergoing review. There tends to be more emails than there are OTRS volunteers; so, sometimes it takes a little time for the entire process to be completed. If you were the person who sent in the email and would like an update, you can ask for help at c:COM:OTRSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That is correct, I am both the subject and the copyright holder. I took the photo, am in the photo and I own the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinsworld (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Malinsworld. Thank your clarifying things a bit. Now, a couple of things.

1. Since you took the photo, you should be able to upload it to Commons. Somebody (you perhaps?) has already sent in a permissions email to OTRS; so, you know just have to be a bit patient and wait for the process to be completed. Whoever sent the email should have gotten an automatic reply containing an OTRS ticket number which can be used to verify the status if necessary. The file should not be deleted while the email is being reviewed and the OTRS volunteer reviewing the email will probably contact the sender if there are any issues which still need to be resolved. Just for reference, Wikipedia and Commons are technically separate projects which means Commons issues need to be resolved there. Plese try to understand that the photo looks like it was professionally taken and the subjects of photos are not generally considered the be copyright holder; so, having copyright ownership verified by OTRS will make it known to everyone looking at the page that you as the uploader and as the subject of the photo are indeed the copyright holder.
2. Since you are claiming above to be "Malinda Williams", you are considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to anything written about you on Wikipedia. This means you shouldn't be directly editing the article at all except in certain specific cases. For more information on this, please look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. You should also look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content for reference. Basically, you have no final editorial control or any claim of ownership over the article or its content, even though it happens to be about you. Your going to be expected to adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines just like every other editor, but you going to be expected to use the article talk page to propose any changes that go beyond a simple editorial correction, etc. because the article is about you. If you have any questions about this, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

Finally, I've added a template to your user talk page which contains some more links to pages which you might find helpful in addition to some of the ones I posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Page Title

How can I change the name of my page title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.242.120 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're talking about changing your user name, visit Wikipedia:Changing username. If you want to change an article name, that's called a page move, and you can do it using the tab feature under the "more" button. But please register for a user name account, and sign your posts using the four tildes ~~~. That shows us who you are and allows us to communicate with you better. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Where to report

Where to report plagiarism? Also where to report and editor if the list of complaint includes multiple issues with the user? Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Harmanprtjhj. Present your evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and be sure to notify the other editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

There is an image I'd like to upload to Wikipedia but I don't really know what to do with the whole copyright thing. On a large magority of the images I have found in the Wikipedia Commons Under the licensing section of the page there is a thing called the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Does this allow me to use any image I want? How would I know if the image will be subject to copyright? The image I want to use is found here. BlakeKbelt (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BlakeKbelt. We take copyright very seriously on Wikipedia. You simply cannot upload any random image you find on the internet, unless you have rock solid evidence that the image is copyright free, or that copyright has expired, or that the image has been freely licensed by the copyright holders under an acceptable Creative Commons license or equivalent. That image looks like a professional promotional photo for a band, and it is about 99.999% sure that it is copyrighted. I see from your talk page that you already uploaded a copyright violation and have been warned. You must be very, very cautious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I tried to upload the image without realizing what I was doing, this is why I"m trying to make sure what I can and can't do. If I can't upload this image then why are other people able to upload images of bands and be fine? BlakeKbelt (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi BlakeKbelt. Images are uploaded to the Commons under a particular compatible copyright license (or as public domain material) because either i) the image bears that license (or as to PD, it falls into it because of release or a legal status such as aging into it), as evidenced from the owner of the copyright (or their legal representative), or ii) the person (or legal representative) uploading the image owns the copyright, and is willing to release it under a suitable license. From the tenor of your question, you don't appear to be the owner so you have no ability to speak for the owner. As to the existing copyright status of the image you link, we assume all images are fully non-free copyrighted unless we have affirmative evidence to the contrary. So, unless you have that evidence (and I see nothing on the image page to indicate its copyright status), that image cannot be properly uploaded to the Commons or used at all. By the way, in some situations we do use incompatiblly licensed, non-free copyrighted media under a claim of fair use, but that would not be suitable here (for some of the gory details, see WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your second question above, I think what you may be referring to are [low-resolution] album covers. They are one of the exceptions to the normal treatment of copyrighted images, in that, unlike a great deal of other types of content, album covers may often be used under a claim of fair use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

BlakeKbelt, you ask a good question, "why are other people able to upload images of bands and be fine?" In most cases, the person who uploaded the image is the actual photographer, who is also the copyright holder. My photos are in several biographies here. In a few cases, the band or its management may have hired a photographer who assigned copyright to them, and then an authorized representative of the band uploaded the image under an acceptable free license. If a musical performer is dead and no freely licensed image is available, then a low resolution image can be uploaded here at Wikipedia (not Commons) under the terms of our policy on non-free images, for use only in that biography. This exception does not include living people. The most straightforward solution is for you to take a photo of the band yourself, and upload it yourself to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Uploading newspaper page

I've uploaded this newspaper front page File:Wisconsin-State-Journal-1952-09-04-p1-top.jpg, but see a warning in the licensing section about adding a detailed fair use rationale, which I've made a stab at. Is there any way an admin could take a look and see if it's Ok.

Thanks,

MikeB17 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks convincing to me WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Welp. Should I proceed as if all is good and insert into the target page, or would it be wiser to wait till those warnings go away? MikeB17 (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@MikeB17: Go ahead and put it in. The worst that can happen is that someone will take it out and explain what you need to fix. Have fun! WelpThatWorked (talk) (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish you success. But your claim that "It will be used once in one article" is not compatible with your using it here in the Teahouse. I've therefore removed the display of it above. Maproom (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help and advice, a new user here feeling his way. MikeB17 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi MikeB17. Non-free content use is quite tricky and there are ten non-free content use criterion which need to be met for each use. Right now, the file you've uploaded fails criterion #7 because it's not being used in any articles; this means that it will be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5 if it's not added to at least one article. In addition, to clarify what Maproom posted above, another one of the non-free content use criteria is criterion #9. This says that non-free content can only be used in articles and this is the real reason why you can "use" (i.e. display) the file on a page like the Teahouse.

Often the hardest criteria to satisfy are criterion #1 and criterion #8 because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be purposely more retrictive and limiting than the concept of fair use/fair dealing as explained here. Wikipedia's mission is to provide free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application pretty much by anyone anywhere in the world; so, although some types of copyrighted content are allowed to be uploaded and used per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content use is generally considered to be limited to exceptional cases where a alternative "free" equivalent cannot be used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Anyway, after looking at the file and the rationale you provided for it, it's hard to see how you can add it to the Wisconsin State Journal article in a manner that would satisfy criteria 1 and 8. There's no really sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article of that particular front page and it's not really needed in Wisconsin State Journal#Views on Senator Joe McCarthy despite the claim made in the rationale; so, the context for non-free use required by criterion 8 is not immediately evident. Moreover, the rest of the text content in that particular section and rest of the article seems perfectly understandable without seeing this particular image; so, it's not clear this how adding the file would satisfy criterion #1. Providing a non-free use rationale is just one (more specifically just one part of one) of the ten criteria, and the file can still be nominated or tagged for deletion/discussion if someone feels that all ten of the criteria are not being met. Since you haven't added the file to the article yet, how and where you intended to use it is still not clear; however, you should try and keep in mind some of the things I posted above, and it might even be a good idea for you to seek other feedback at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria from editors who might be a little more experienced in dealing with non-free content that your typical Teahouse host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

link to other language Wikipedias

Hello Tea house I really love the work you are doing here at Wikipedia. I have a question on a small edit I would like to make. I think it is relevant to place a wiki link on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Crest_Sanitarium_(New_York) to Palatul Bragadiru (https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatul_Bragadiru) under the Notable Patients section for George Dimitropolos. George Gyftakis Dimitropolos | Olympia Hotel proprietor NYC | Director [6] Palatul Bragadiru, 1917 | Source: Death Certificate. George was a director of Palatul Bragadiru and he died at River Crest. His name is "....pulo" in Romanian and "....polos" in Greek. Same person. Can you advise how to make these cross wiki links. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephintechnicolor (talk • contribs) 2019-01-08T05:04:40 (UTC)

Help:Link--Quisqualis (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Josephintechnicolor. In my view, the best way to link to other language Wikipedias is to use {{ill}}. This creates a redlink (because the English article doesn't exist) but adds a second blue link to the other-language article, with a label indicating the language; but if anybody does go ahead and write an English article, it will automatically link to that without having to be changed. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine

So if I want to use this Romanian page https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatul_Bragadiru on this US Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Crest_Sanitarium_(New_York) Can you please give me an example.

Palatul Bragadiru {{ill}}

Josephintechnicolor (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Josephintechnicolor, {{ill|Palatul Bragadiru|ro}}would be shown as Palatul Bragadiru. —teb728 t c 23:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very muchJosephintechnicolor (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ellen Reid (American Composer)

I'm having a lot of trouble trying to get my entry for Ellen Reid, the American composer published. It is because there already exists an entry for Ellen Reid, the Canadian musician and composer. These two women are not the same person. The American Ellen Reid is a rising star in the opera world and definitely noteworthy/newsworthy. I was shocked she didn't already have a Wikipedia page. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You use of the term "rising star" makes me wonder if this person meets the notability criteria for composers or those for musicians. Generally if someone is a "rising star" that means they aren't yet sufficiently notable. Wikipedia is for subjects that are already notable, not who are just starting out or even just in the process of becoming well known. However, regarding your issue, I would suggest you communicate with the reviewers of your draft and explain this to them, so they can perhaps re-review it with a different eye. They each have a link to their user talk page in their signatures they posted on your draft. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you so much for your response! She's definitely notable– her work has been performed in all three major opera venues in Los Angeles and in countless theaters in New York. She's been written about in major publications (such as The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc). I have been in communication with the reviewers but keep getting rejected. There are so few female composers and here we have a gifted, notable female composer and she can't even get her own Wikipedia entry! Perhaps she's not notable to the reviewers but to me and thousands of other women, she is crucial. I read that very few women edit for Wikipedia, which is why I decided to try this. Now that I've tried it, I can't help but wonder if reviewer bias is hindering participation. Thanks for hearing me out.

@LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2: You are quite correct that gender bias is a problem on Wikipedia, and your work at addressing this is appreciated. As I suggest above, I would avoid using terms like "rising star" which suggests she is not yet notable. I would definitely gather those publications/reviews of her work and incorporate them into your draft(if not already) and, as I said, communicate with the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2, I've accepted the draft, and apologize on the behalf of my fellow AfC reviewers for the rejections based on the fact that there was already an article when there was not. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Thank you so so much, guys. Deeply appreciated.

Adding a company to a list

Hi there,

Can you tell me how I can add a company name to a pre existing list - eg Theatre Companies in London?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTyhurst (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@JTyhurst:Hi, I cannot find a list with that name, can you link it? WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@JTyhurst: I can say in general that such lists are only populated with members that merit Wikipedia articles and(usually) have such an article already. A theater company would merit an article if it meets the criteria written at WP:ORG, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that goes beyond things like press releases and announcements of routine transactions. The lists are not meant to list every possible member of said list. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there - thanks for responding, it's this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=edit&section=46 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTyhurst (talk • contribs) 10:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Image deleting

I have only one question. Why all the time my uploaded images are gone removed from wikipedia page? Freely licensed means? Images, which are being made by myself, is only belongs to me right? Then what is the matter for its license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2Zkkkkkk (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, A2Zkkkkkk. I see that you uploaded an image of a logo to Wikimedia Commons, claiming it as your "own work". Did you design this logo yourself, and do you realize that you are giving up almost all rights to the logo when you upload it to Wikimedia Commons? Did the network agree to give up these rights to their own logo? That seems strange. You can donate photos of people in public, or things like hills, mountains, lakes, rivers, plants, animals and so on. You cannot upload images to Wikimedia Commons of copyrighted things like publications, most logos, contemporary paintings, posters, albums or sculptures, unless you personally are the copyright holder and you freely license the work. Very limited use of such images is allowed here on Wikipedia (not Commons) under the terms of our policy on non-free images. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi A2Zkkkkkk. Commons and Wikipedia are like two siblings who have grown up together, moved out of their parents' house, and are now basically living their own separate lives. Since both projects are operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, there tends to be lots of overlap; however, each project has its own policies and guidelines that need to be satisfied and these are not always exactly the same. So, if you want to upload files to Commons, you need to make sure the files comply with c:Commons:Licensing and if you want to upload files to Wikipedia you need to make sure they comply with Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files because the files will be deleted if they don't. In general, you should assume that pretty much every photo, logo, video file, audio file, textual content, etc. you find online is protected by copyright unless it clearly says that it isn't. Downloading a file onto your computer from some website and then subsequently reuploading the file to Commons doesn't make you the copyright holder of the content if you are not the original creator of the content; so, you cannot and shouldn't claim such content as your own work. Things are often much more complicated than this, but the basic idea is that anything that you didn't create yourself is not going to be something you can upload to Commons under a free license without receiving the explicit consent of the original copyright holder. Certain copyrighted content can, however, be uploaded for use only on English Wikipedia if (as Cullen328 mentioned above) its usage complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

One last thing, it's OK to make mistakes when it comes to uploading images, even uploading images to Commons; if, however, you continuously uploaded files with probems to Commons, a Commons administrator may formally warn you to be more careful. If you still continue to upload files with problems even after being warned, a Commons adminstrator may decide to block your account. So, if you want to upload a file to Commons and you're not sure whether you can, ask for help at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright and someone look at the file and tell you whether it's OK to upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If you create an image that is a close copy of a logo that is copyright, then you are still infringing copyright, and cannot claim it as your own work. Dbfirs 08:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi A2Zkkkkkk. File:Zee 24 Kakak logo.jpg which you uploaded to Commons looks the same as the logo at zeenews.india.com/gujarati/ which page is tagged "© 1998-2019 Zee Media Corporation Ltd (An Essel Group Company), All rights reserved." This creates the appearance that they own the copyright rather than you and that it is not licensed. If you designed it for them (rather than copying it) and without transferring the copyright to them, then see WP:DCM. —teb728 t c 11:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Since I am the publisher of Trans Asia News Service what is the criteria to retain the text I posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abulfazal1966 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Abulfazal1966. In principle you could license the text as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. But that might be a waste of effort, your article was deleted not only for copyright violation but also for being unambiguously promotional. —teb728 t c 11:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

How do I fill in the "connected contributor (paid)" template on my user page?

Stumped before I got started ... :/ I am trying to disclose my COI on my user page, but when I type in {{connected contributor (paid)}} it just sits there. Feel free to chuckle. I know there are fields to fill in (employer, client), but how do I do that? I am using the Visual Editor, if that matters. . . .

Oh, great, I see in the preview that it gets been properly transcluded here, but it doesn't seem to do that on my user page. And I still have no idea how to fill in the template. With respect, GGSloth (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@GGSloth: I'm not sure how it works in the visual editor, but in the source (normal) editor, you can fill in the fields as follows (inserting your relevant information after every equals sign):

{{connected contributor (paid)| User1 = GGsloth | U1-employer = | U1-client = | U1-EH = | U1-banned = | U1-otherlinks = }}

There is more specific information available at Template:Connected contributor (paid)/doc regarding all the specific parameters and uses of this template. As for transclusion, I haven't seen any problems when previewing on my own user page, but then again, I use the source editor. I hope this helps! ComplexRational (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Looking at the /doc pages of the "paid" and "connected contributor (paid)" templates was quite helpful -- that, and trying the source editor, and realizing that parameter names might be case-sensitive. There are many ways to go astray, but I have made progress this evening, thanks to you. Cheers! GGSloth (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@GGSloth: {{connected contributor (paid)}} is actually placed on the talk page of articles affected by paid editing. I just added some TemplateData to that template so it's easier to use with the VisualEditor I hope. Remember to place that template on the talk page of any article you are paid to edit. As you found out by now, the {{paid}} template is meant for your userpage. I'll add some TemplateData for it as well. Regards SoWhy 13:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My edits are being reverted without substantive reasons, how do I prevent this?

My edits are being reverted without substantive reasons, how do I prevent this?

I have been making minor edits to the Virtue Signalling page to bring it in line with the pillar of neutrality. To do this I removed a clear editorial bias which conflates two notions without evidence, I make clear that the expression has only very limited usage in academia (two known mentions - same author), and I removed a gross and verifiable misrepresentation of a source. These changes were in line with an edit proposed in Talk by another user on 22 October and I provided extensive reasoning on the talk pages. As it stands the page is highly inaccurate, confused, and misleading. On google searching 'Virtue signalling' the wiki definition is the first returned result in many locations, and the false and misleading information is provided. As such I think making this page neutral is of high importance. I first enacted the minor switch to a more neutral wording and it was swiftly reverted by an editor who did not engage in discussion of the topic. I then replied at length to the editor detailing further why it was to be changed before reenacteing my edit. This was then reverted again by another editor who didn't give any topic-related reasons, merely stating that I'd removed sourced material and claiming that I was the one "repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions", which in fact, is what appears to be happening to me. I also provided a detailed reply to that editor.

I have no problems with people changing my edits whatsoever, I welcome it. What I don't feel comfortable with is people not engaging with the reasons given in talk and simply reverting the edit without consideration of the content of the page. There are clear and verifiably misleading uses of sources on this page, and that seems to me to be fundamentally against Wikipedia's rules and pillars. To do the edit again is now going to take a lot of time as someone else has popped in and made a very minor change which means I can't simply revert back to my latest edit.

Anyway, that's my frustration. I must say this page is great, and it was nice to receive the welcome message on my talk page from the Teahouse.

My edits are being reverted without substantive reasons, how do I prevent this? Pjconnolly123 (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is quite common for edits that remove referenced content to be reverted. You are doing the correct thing by discussing this on the talk page of the article, where you should try to obtain consensus. If you can find better references, then you will have a stronger case. I haven't read the article or the references, so I have no opinion on who is correct. Meanwhile, it is best to continue the discussion rather than continue with an edit war. Dbfirs 11:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I totally agree and would like to carry on the discussion on talk, but the editors who have undone the changes aren't engaging in talk discussion relating to the topic, which is the source of my frustration. Pjconnolly123 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A) Patience. The other editors may not get to Wikipedia on a daily basis. You just became an editor days ago, so assume that other people have an idea of how Wikipedia works, if not this specific topic. B) Too many words. What you wrote at the articles Talk page went on for paragraphs. Be concise. Other editors will reply - in time. The purpose of Talk is dialog, not polemic. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My Article was declined?

Hi i had a message from Sam Holt.. my article has been declined even though i done thorough research into my subject and kept it neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bon-Bleu#Bon-Bleu

can i have any tips on what to change etc.. to get it publish or any pointers on where i am going wrong

many thanks

Liam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam23029 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A useful starting point would be to tie each reference to the text which it supports. See Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hello, I'd have two questions linked to notability: 1) Would you consider that if a person has a Wikipedia page in a different language then he/she is notable enough to have his/her page, or a part of that page, translated into English? 2) Can references from this other (non-English) page be used on English Wikipedia? Thank you very much!PeSa (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

1) No. The subject needs to meet the specific notability requirements here at enwiki. Other language Wikipedias have different criteria, and (as here) some articles may exist which don't actually meetthe requirements.

2) Yes, though English sources are preferred. See advice at WP:NOENG.

--David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hey PeSa. In order to be considered notable, a subject needs to have sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like magazines, newspaper and books. Having a page on another language Wikipedia doesn't necessarily guarantee that a subject meets this standard, but it may provide a good indication whether they do or not. If you look through the citations that are used on the non-English page, and they appear to be high quality published sources, then that is probably a good indication that the subject is be notable. If there are few or no sources, or the sources used are very low quality, like official websites, social media, or blogs, then this may indicate the the subject is not likely to be notable.

You can't cite the non-English Wikipedia page directly, but what you can do is cite the sources that they cite, if those sources are high quality. Sources on the English Wikipedia don't necessarily have to be in English, if no comparable quality English source is available. GMG^talk 16:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph GreenMeansGo Everything's very clear, thank you both! PeSa (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Appropriate Copyrights

Hi! I have doubts about the Creative Commons Licenses and Copyright Donation Processes. I uploaded an article to Wikipedia and it was deleted with a speedy deletion tag under the G12 Unambiguous Copyright Infringement category. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Illicit_Alcohol) Now, the original paper is on the Euromonitor website, as well in Tracit.org.

The question is: where the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) should be? Has it to be explicit in the paper (both websites or in the original site of publication) or in a specific place on the website, so that once the information is published in wikipedia, it is fulfilling all the copyright requirements?

There is it any other type of license this document could have or is the referred ones (CC Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 and the GFDL) the mandatory ones for it? Is there a license that allows the content to keep uploaded on Wikipedia, without the document being permitted to be modified and adapted by any other person, website and organization?

Once the author has done this licenses processes, where in Wikipedia exactly has to be the link that confirms this article has the appropriate copyright to be uploaded?

The paper is an information to be downloaded at the Euromonitor WebSite and in Tracit.org it is in the following link: https://www.tracit.org/uploads/1/0/2/2/102238034/illicit_alcohol__-_white_paper.pdf

Thank you very much for your help, very appreciated. AlcoholEducation (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

When I download your link, it clearly says Copyright 2018 and "not to be distributed without permission", so I don't see how it can be released under an appropriate licence. Also, Wikipedia does not publish papers; we have articles about topics that are WP:notable, but not original research. The paper may be used as a reference, of course, though secondary sources are preferred, but any article should be written in your own words. Dbfirs 16:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Page Title

How can I change the name of my page title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.242.120 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Answered, the first time you asked. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Appropriate Copyrights

Hi! I have doubts about the Creative Commons Licenses and Copyright Donation Processes. I uploaded an article to Wikipedia and it was deleted with a speedy deletion tag under the G12 Unambiguous Copyright Infringement category. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Illicit_Alcohol) Now, the original paper is on the Euromonitor website, as well in Tracit.org.

The question is: where the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) should be? Has it to be explicit in the paper (both websites or in the original site of publication) or in a specific place on the website, so that once the information is published in wikipedia, it is fulfilling all the copyright requirements?

There is it any other type of license this document could have or is the referred ones (CC Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 and the GFDL) the mandatory ones for it? Is there a license that allows the content to keep uploaded on Wikipedia, without the document being permitted to be modified and adapted by any other person, website and organization?

Once the author has done this licenses processes, where in Wikipedia exactly has to be the link that confirms this article has the appropriate copyright to be uploaded?

The paper is an information to be downloaded at the Euromonitor WebSite and in Tracit.org it is in the following link: https://www.tracit.org/uploads/1/0/2/2/102238034/illicit_alcohol__-_white_paper.pdf

Thank you very much for your help, very appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlcoholEducation (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't ask questions twice. Answers are below. Dbfirs 16:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Can you copy someone else's userpage on yours by doing this {{ }}. Thanks HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

Hello HSBC account number is 4598 Your question isn't very clear so it's hard to answer, you can find useful info about user pages here though Wikipedia:User pages. Please note that we are all volunteers here. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The answer is no, you can't. It may look like you are, but you aren't. Also, wut? Drmies (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems the editor has apologized; Theroadislong, see their talk page; your good work here is appreciated. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks that's helped me HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification of titles and post-noms

Hi, I'm not that new to Wikipedia, but very much still learning the myriad ways of Wiki. I had tried this in HELP, but received no answer, perhaps here?

Rather than fuel an editor's angst, or digress into an editing war, is there someone very experienced who could please tell me if:

1. something overrides MOS:POSTNOM, or if I am somehow misinterpreting it... ie: see Bill Gates post-nominals history, whom, as I read it, is entitled to post-nominals, though not to be styled as "Sir", not being British.

2. this sort of name restyling is advisable, which it does not appear to be to myself... ie: see Infobox top title, etc of Maurice Roche, 6th Baron Fermoy and his father, aka "The Lords..."

Both the post-nom deletions and the title re-stylings (either deleted, or given greater prominence) are on some editorial fast-track (rampant), it would appear. Thank you very much for advice.AHampton (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My article was declined?

Hello!

My article Draft: Coordination Dynamics was declined by AngusWOOF, citing that the article was an abstract or summary of my own dissertation work. This is false. I'd like to improve my article, and would greatly appreciate some help on how to do so. I purposefully wrote the article in an encyclopedic manner, in wiki style. Please help! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmannino (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Another reason for declining Draft:Coordination Dynamics would be that it doesn't cite any sources (though it does list about 40). You need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mmannino, the article still reads like a research paper rather than an encyclopedia article. Needs a structure overhaul Intergroup relations. Also some references to common encyclopedias for the term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Template for displaying categorys?

Is there a template that will link the categories of a page? Like {{thing|Example}} would produce Category:Example if that cat was on the page. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 18:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just putting [[Category:Example]] at the bottom of the page should work. WelpThatWorked (talk) (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No, a template that will produce the output of: the categories of the page that is put in the parameter. Like if you were like "hmm, this page needs the same categories from another page. i'll just use this template to put the categories on the page". It can actually place the categories on the page, or it can just place links to the categories. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 18:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

DRAFT ARTICLE FOR PUBLISHING AND IMAGE RIGHTS OWNERSHIP

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Snoooze&oldid=877921034

Hello...I am not familiar with posting on this site. How does my article move from a draft to wiki? Please advise.

- Wes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleyraz (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I need to finalize and move Draft:Snoooze in the main space? I am unsure how to proceed.

- Wes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleyraz (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It won't be moved to mainspace. The draft is about to be deleted as blatantly promotional, see WP:G11. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hell, no. There is no clinical evidence provided that the product does anything. All the Snooze website (ref #3) points to is some weak evidence for the individual ingredients, not in same amount as in this product, and in some instances combined with ingredients not in this product. All of the other references are about the importance of sleep - true, but entirely not relevant. David notMD (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, Wesleyraz, but Wikipedia does not allow promotional content. I have deleted your draft. Please comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure and follow our guideline for editors with a conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Translate articles into another language

How does one go about translating and publishing existing articles into another language version (ex., https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Young_Gully)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayoungjr (talk • contribs) 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jayoungjr. Please see WP:Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Dr Bob Arnot

There is a page for Dr Bob Arnot - he is a medical writer/broadcaster etc.

My name is also Dr Bob Arnot - I too am a published author (cited on a number of occasions on Wikipedia); I work and run development programs in Nigeria and have had an academic career in the UK. I would like to add a note to the established page differentiating myself from his page. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.184.245.112 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Try Template:Distinguish, I.E. {{Distinguish|text = custom [[text]], and [[foo]], a common example term}} →

Not to be confused with custom text, and foo, a common example term.

WelpThatWorked (talk) (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Distinguish is for similar but not identical names. Other templates like Template:For can be used for identical names. All such templates should only be used if there is a Wikipedia article with relevant information to link, not merely one where the subject is named as author of a reference. Are any of the search results on "Bob Arnot" about you and not just in a reference? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What does this mean? "All IpV6 Are Not Allowed To Edit"

I received the following message from another editor. I was unaware that there are editors that are able to send out under their own address mass messages especially as it has a misspelling and the editor failed to properly follow WP procedure when ending it?

All IpV6 Are Not Allowed To Edit[edit]
All IpV6 editing will be reverted so I suggest that all IpV6 editers to change all their ip address to IpV4 or create a new account for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.158.230.168 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9149:8300:3D53:631B:A55F:D17F (talk)

It appears he is a selective vandal. You are good.WelpThatWorked (talk) (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A search shows you are the only user to get that post. The poster has been blocked. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions (Page)

I have been contributing to Wikipedia sporadically since 2017 and have been trying my best to adhere to Wikipedia's policy. In line with the same, i created a page around 3 weeks ago Draft:Optimum_International_School. Would really appreciate suggestions on reform it while it is pending review. AkkiDeutscher (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AkkiDeutscher. The usual thing, I'm afraid: you need to find some independent sources. Those are not published by the school, it's true, but they are just listings in directories, and the information will have come from the school. What have people unconnected with the school chosen to write about it? That is the only kind of information which a Wikipedia article should be based on. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Style for military units/actions

A general review of military unit actions will show that there seem to be two types of style used. One is the regular grammatical style of using "the" before the unit name, "the 51st ……"; and there also seems to be a common use of not using "the" and instead just writing "51st …….". Which is acceptable and why?2605:E000:9149:8300:3D53:631B:A55F:D17F (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

As that is a topic-specific style issue you'd get the best assistance at the Military History WikiProject's Talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I second Dodger67's advice. I've noticed the edits that you have made to several articles I've worked on, specifically several 300-series Red Army rifle divisions. The use of definite articles in these articles follows the Wikipedia style guide, as well as standard references such as Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Felipe Wamerson

Felipe2019, is created photos and pages in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe2019 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Felipe. Do you have a question or an issue you want help with? By the way, on project discussion pages like this one, and on talk pages (but never in articles) it's best practice sign your posts so that other editors can see who authored what and when. You can sign by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of a post, or you can place them automatically by clicking on the signature button – – which is located above the edit window. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I am new here and need help

Moved from WP:AN

I made a proposal here, but all the permutations and combinations have been rejected by another editor and so, I thought that someone experienced can only add it. Please add what is proposed there to the article in a way that is acceptable according to the rules. It was copied from the List of fatwas article, from the section titled, "Fatwas against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and ISIS". I also wrote about the Trump administration withdrawing aid citing its dissatisfaction with Pakistan's counter-terrorism, but it has been removed as can be seen here. Please modify and add that back to the article in a way that others will accept it, according to the rules. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have cited references for everything!-Karumari (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Cannot put a caption on article image

Writing sample from the Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia (1906–1913)

Article: Shneur Zalman of Liadi (See my attempted edit in Edit mode.) Why does it not appear?; there wasn't any visible caption previously, either. I copied the syntax of other image captions within the article. The caption I want is "Writing sample from the Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia (1906–1913)" I hope his ghost is not causing this problem...--Quisqualis (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Used a different image style WelpThatWorked (talk) (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, WelpThatWorked.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

CD liner notes

Are CD liner notes considered a "reliable source"? If so, how do you cite this source (what information needs to be included between the reference marks)? Is there a template? An example would be helpful. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcnavin (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Article I would like to create

It is an article on me. I am a professional eduator with 3 advanced degrees in the field as well as four years service as an elected official in the U.S. Will this be OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlflanders (talk • contribs) 06:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You might like to read Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:Autobiography before attempting an article. The number of degrees is not relevant, but if you have been written about in independent WP:Reliable sources then an article might be appropriate, though it would be better written by someone not connected with you. Dbfirs 07:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carlflanders. In addition, please read our notability guideline for politicians. If you were elected to a national, state or provincial legislature, then you are almost certainly notable. Or if you were elected to a comparable high office. If you were elected to a small town city council or local school board, then probably not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Change or delete username.

I was not aware of the self promotion guidelines when creating my username. Is it possible to change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfPannek (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello HouseOfPannek, I would recreate an account but using something that is unique to you, not any business's or personal attacks (like swears) and finally do not include the word Bot unless it is approved by the administrators. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You can use WP:CHUS, but as you'd made only one other edit before this it may be easier just to abandon that account and start a new one. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

adrenocortical adenoma - my own, removed in 2015

My own Adrenocortical Adenoma removed from my body[edit source] "Incidental large adrenal mass. Non-functional. Surgical excision.

MICROSCOPY

specimen labelled left adrenal tumor consists of an unorientated round tumoral mass which has a yellow surface. The lesion has a focal surgical incision within the capsule.

The specimen measures 165 by 120 by 110 millimetres and weighs 1171 grams.

Cut surface reveals a solid yellow tumor with multiple foci of heamorrhage. Adjacent normal adrenal gland is present.

MICROSCOPY Sections of the excision a show a circumscribed and encapsulated tumour, arising from the adrenal gland. The tumor is composed of sheets of cells which show cytoplasm, varying from deeply eosinoplhilic to clear and vacuolated. The cells are arranged in sheets, with interspersed small blood vessels. No nested architectural pattern is noted.

The neoplastic cells show mild to moderate nuclear pleomorphism and enlargement (endocrine atypia). No mitotic activity is apparent in the submitted sample. There is no evidence of vascular Invasion. There is no evidence of necrosis, capsular Invasion or abnormal mitotic figures. The non-neoplastic adrenal gland is unremarkable. The tumor is clear of inked resection margins." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprilschild (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Adrenocortical adenoma you are apparently asking for medical advice. Wikipedia does not give medical advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is my article taking long to review?

Hello, I noticed that pages I created took long to be reviewed unlike other previous pages I have created so far, which doesn't take much long and all of them meet wikipedia standard, I'm just curious to know why and improve more on it.Amosflash (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Amosflash: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Reviews are performed by volunteers, who do what they can when they can. There are over 1200 drafts waiting for review, so you will need to be patient. It is possible that prior drafts that were reviewed quicker simply because someone randomly picked them out of the queue, or saw them in the Recent Changes feed. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)