Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 295

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 290 ← Archive 293 Archive 294 Archive 295 Archive 296 Archive 297 → Archive 300

What is WikiCup?

Hi, I only joined Wikipedia very recently and everyone seems to be talking about this Wikipedia tournament called the "WikiCup". I've tried researching it but I'm still quite confused. What is it exactly? Feather-Bucket (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Feather-Bucket welcome to the Teahouse. Another editor asked this question on the Teahouse. I'm glad that lots of editors are interested in Wikicup. For your convenience I will provide my answer to the previous editor. Wikicup is a competition which you can win by showing off your skills in editing. Like other competitions Wikicup has a scoring system and some rules. Team of judges (Experienced Wikipedia editors) will announce the winner(s). You can score points by uploading good pictures, bringing articles, topics, portals and lists to Featured/Good article state. Improving Did you know?, In the news sections and doing Good article & peer reviews are some other ways of getting point. Give below is the scoring system. (snipped from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring)--Chamith (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
2015 points
Featured article Good article Featured list Featured picture Featured portal Featured topic Good topic Did you know? In the news Good article & peer reviews
200 30 45 20 45 10 per article 3 per article 5 or 10 10 4
However, my advice to any new editor, and to many experienced editors, would be to ignore the WikiCup. It is the source of considerable controversy (and some editors, for that reason, have proposed that it be abolished). For a new editor to focus on competing in the WikiCup would, in my opinion, distract them from more important considerations such as generally learning what the environment and culture is. Welcome. Wikipedia does not need to be a competition. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

markup for "footnotes: page numbers"

Unsuccessful using help page for references and page numbers. Below is the model on help page, followed by my effort to imitate. First reference worked in both cases, but not my second reference. What am I doing wrong?

help page: first reference:[1]: 8 ; 

    second reference to another page:[1]: 18 

my effort to imitate: first reference:[2]: 4–5 ; 

    second reference to another page:Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).: 62–3 

Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi TBR-qed welcome to the Teahouse. You are getting that error because you made a slight mistake when invoking the named footnote. When invoking the footnote you used <ref name=''Pop 65''/> instead of <ref name="Pop 65" />. The quote marks must be the standard straight keyboard marks (") not (''). Final result should look like this,--Chamith (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
First reference:[2]: 4–5 ;
Second reference to another page: [2]: 62–3 
Thanks. I corrected that error and still get error messages. Could the problem be that I put a new section heading between first and second reference? This leads me to a new generic question: I am trying to replace an existing lede section with a new lede and second section. I started by opening "edit" for existing lede. Would that automatically result in a new lede and section 2, with existing section 2 becoming section 3 (and all references in both appearing in existing reference section)? Or do I need to open "edit" for existing section 2 AND reference section in order to replace existing references? My thanks continue.TBR-qed (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No, TBR-qed: there is no interaction whatever between section headings and references. I can't make out what page you are working on, so I can't investigate the actual problem. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm clear on section heading, but still stuck on referencing multiple pages from one source. I was unable to use the help page short form, but found the full {{cite page}} form worked. But when editing another section, neither the short nor long form works: the pages come up but linked to sequential sources numbered 1, 2, 3... Since I cut-and-pasted the form from where it worked to where it didn't, I don't see how I could have written it wrong. Thanks for your patience.TBR-qed (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello TBR-qed. You have probably copy-pasted them from another file such as Word or something like it, that uses typographical quotation marks, like the one in this example: <ref name=“Pop 65”/> . In order for it to work here in the Wiki markup, the quotation marks have to be straight, like this: <ref name="Pop 65"/>. The quotation marks will turn out "straight" if you type them directly in the editing window. Just substitute them there, along with all other "left" or "right" quotation marks, it is the easiest way of doing it. Once it is done, the references will appear as usual. May I also ask, the reason that your article (which is in the editor's sandbox) was declined, was that an article with the same name already exists in the Wikipedia. I presume you knew that all along, so why did you write a new one instead of just adding to and improving the existing one? Best, w.carter-Talk 21:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll avoid cut-and-paste. I would have loved to improve the existing article. But it barely mentions the philosopher who shaped its present definition, and ignores the philosopher who challenged the first. I've sought feedback for 5 months--mostly without result but with several supporters--as the talk page attests. The fellow who declined my sandbox accepted my explanation and urged me to be bold. I would greatly appreciate your reactions after I lay out my case.TBR-qed (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@TBR-qed: Since you have new, relevant and sourced information, I would say it's about time you got bold and added your text to the article. Especially since you have been encouraged to do so by others. Since I gather that it will take several days to get everything in the right place in the article, perhaps with new subsections and all, I would recommend that you let others know that by putting the code {{under construction}} at the top of the article when you start. This will result in a box/sign about what is going on. You can see all about it here: Template:Under construction. Please let me know when you start, and I will keep an eye on all the coding and references while you are working, to see that they turn out right. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful recommendation--I've started using it, and overcome my markup errors on the way. Is it legal to reward gurus in the Wikipedia system?TBR-qed (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@TBR-qed:Your enthusiasm is reward enough. :) I corrected the template the "nowiki" surrounding is just a way of not making the full sign appear here at the Teahouse. I expect you you can see it properly at the page now. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b {{cite book|....}}
  2. ^ a b c {{cite book|...}}

Photo of certain object in London

(This question moved here from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse by w.carter-Talk 09:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Happy New Year Wikipedians, i want to extend the list of Armenian Genocide memorials. According to [1] there is also a memorial in London not for from Hyde Park. It is located on the yard of Saint Sarkis Armenian church, exactly here [2]. Is there any photograph willing to help me with making a photo of it? If so, i kindly ask to make some overview and detailed photos (often at the back or side there is a plaque or inscription) of it and upload it to Commons. I need this detailed photos to add the transcriptions afterwards. Thanks advance, --Aschroet (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If this query does not yield any result you might take a look at editors who have a "This user lives in London" userbox (they are listed here and here) and see if any of these have a userbox stating that they are interested in photography, and simply ask at their talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Aschroet, Not a bit of London I often visit, but I have posted your request on the talkpage of this Sunday's London meetup. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is a nice picture, it may be worth contacting the org to see if it can be released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC).
Thank you. Hope that someone makes some good quality photo which would be best solution. --Aschroet (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I should be able to get a photo of this, either this weekend or next week. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Thrydulf, much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Aschroet: I've now uploaded the photographs I took of the memorial to commons:Category:Armenian Genocide memorial, London. I managed to photograph both sides, there is an English description on the west/northwest side that I have transcribed in the description of those photographs showing it. On the main, east/southeast face are two inscriptions in Armenian that I have not transcribed (this computer doesn't have the right fonts available to even try). There was no separate plaque that I saw. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf, thank u for the photographs. Only a few of memorials have such detailed views. I added the missing Armenian inscriptions and corrected minor issues in the descriptions. For your interest, usages: Armenian article about the monument and List of Armenian Genocide memorials in German. Further use will come. Thank you very much again. --Aschroet (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

how to begin anew, after a speedy deletion of philipofJMJ

My name is philipofJMJ. My new name is philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me start over? I wish to contribute to Wikipedia, but, it seems, I got it wrong the first time. Can I get some help over the phone, maybe? philipofBVM07:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings PhilipofBVM. Almost everyone who edits or supports Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers so there is no phone support. There is a real time chat IM help option though. You can ask questions of someone and engage in a dialogue with them about editing Wikipedia. To use it go to this page: Wikipedia:Help_desk and then click on the link to the right of the page that says: "Do you need real-time chat help with your issue? Join our IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-help" Another option is the adopt a user program: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user If you add the following to your user page: "{{subst:dated adoptme}}" You should be contacted by someone who can mentor you and help you get started. Also, here are some articles you may have seen already but if not you should definitely take a look at, they give some of the most important principles to being a productive editor: wp:42 wp:five pillars Wikipedia:Objective Sources wp:civility --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
However, if you are hoping to include any of the material currently on User:PhilipofBVM, please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting your theories, and that material is also inappropriate for your user page and should be deleted. Furthermore, all information added to any article, needs to be supported by references from from independant reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry, PhilipofBVM - that kind of stuff can't be on user pages, I'm afraid. We're not an ordinary social media platform - we're a working encyclopaedia. This is nothing personal - we'd come down just as hard on other views and opinions expressed on userpages. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How to create and insert the side-bar summary with picture into your artice (is it automatic?)?

Hello,

Sorry about the vagueness of the title. I wasn't sure exactly how to word it.

I was wondering, I often see a side-bars on many articles with a short synopsis of what the Wiki article is about and is usually headed with a picture. How do you create those? Or are they automatically placed there once there is enough information...? (I'm new to this coding)Psychmajor22 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Psychmajor22. It's called an infobox and has to be added manually with the right information. See Help:Infobox. You can also click the "Edit" tab of a similar existing article with an infobox to see how it was made. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Help on re-submitting a deleted article

Hi there. I recently had an article deleted for copyright infringement. Having revised my article - I see now that I was a little sloppy and have rewritten some areas. How is the best way to go about resubmitting it again? I'd also like to get some advice in case there are other issues that need addressing. Thanks for your help as I'm looking forward to getting more experience and becoming a regular contributor.Angelariedle (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the name of the article? Somebody here can look it up to help you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on BLP

If you look at my contributions you can see that I recently edited a biography on a living person which I created long ago. There is one editor who indiscriminately deletes my edits to the article and the talk page. The article is on an individual that was subject of controversy in Mexico. The editor has removed anything that remotely mentions that controversy. A Google search will yield plenty of news articles on the matter (in Spanish). Perhaps my edits in the past violated BLP, but his last edit makes me feel that the article is being deliberately censored.[3] Is there anywhere that I can go to get a clarification on this matter? I've tried to discuss the matter with the editor but he simply accused me of COI. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ajaxfiore. I notice that on March 14, 2014, you wrote in response to an inquiry from FreeRangeFrog that "I have no COI but I will stay away from this article." You also received a formal editor review that pointed out your problems editing that article. Why are you returning to the very article that you agreed to stay away from? If your motivation is to make the person look bad, then that is a major BLP concern. I will put the article in question, Jorge Erdely Graham, on my watch list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed links you pasted into the talk page which were excised from the article because your edits were wholly inappropriate and very obviously in bad faith towards the subject. You also have a conflict of interest, as you know quite well. And yes, you agreed to stay away from it, which you apparently are unable to do. You were chased off the Spanish Wikipedia for the same reasons. I'm thinking of bringing this to WP:ANI to formalize a topic ban so that the moment you even change a typo on that article (or any other related to the whole La Luz del Mundo topical area) you can be blocked immediately. I don't have a problem with anyone adding correctly-sourced negative information to this bio, however given your past behavior I do object to you doing that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
FreeRangeFrog, just to clarify I was not chased off the Spanish wiki but decided to leave of my own free will. Also, in my defense I have not added negative material to the bio. Thanks for the help Cullen328, I will go back to reading BLP. I apologize for bringing the dispute here. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologize. Have a cup of tea. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

making an article

Hello, i was tasked to make an article for the organization that I am apart of and it said I plagiarized from our own site. Is there a way i can enter an article with paragraphs from our site without showing up as plagiarism?

James Hishmeh Trash Mountain Project

Jameshishmeh (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Jameshishmeh Welcome to the Teahouse. The process for donating copyrighted material is described here: Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials However, in my experience as an editor I have never seen an example where material from a web site was deemed appropriate for a Wikipedia article regardless of copyright issues. The problem is that a web site and an encyclopedia almost always have very different requirements for the kind of prose. Most web sites tend to be wp:promotional, the whole idea is to say "look at this cool thing and here is why it is so cool and different" where as the tone for Wikipedia is supposed to be wp:objective BTW, you can quote directly from a copyrighted web site or other sources as long as you properly attribute the quote but those quotes should be a few sentences or a paragraph or two at most never a whole article or even a major part of an article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Jameshishmeh. I'm afraid you have been tasked with a job which is very difficult for you (in particular) because you have a conflict of interest and so you are strongly discouraged from working on the article. Please also read WP:CORP, and be aware that if your organisation meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability and may therefore have an article about it, it will not be your article, and your organisation will have no control over it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Despite what others may say, you certainly can submit your version of an article about the Trash Mountain Project. Just be sure it is written in a neutral tone and that it has some WP:Reliable sources. I see that at least one reliable source (a newspaper) has written about the project here. I'm sure you have more news clippings in your files somewhere. You will find many good editors here to help you whip the article into shape. We all realize, though, that when we create an article it no longer belongs to us, but it can be edited by everybody. Good luck. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How to edit the Self-Regulation page to add article information rather than it just stand as a Disambiguation page?

Hello all,

I'm trying to edit the psychological term "Self-Regulation". I'm trying to create a self-regulation entry, however, whenever I enter Self-Regulation, it brings me straight to the Disambiguation page for Self-regulation about terms that may be associated with it.

However, Self-Regulation is a term that has it's own definition and is important enough (see Education movement towards Self-Regulation) to merit its own Wikipedia entry.

I tried moving the Disambiguation page under a different title, but it didn't work like I thought it would. I thought it would free up the title Self-Regulation for me to make an entry under it but it didn't.

I keep getting put back to this Disambiguation page for any format that I try to add with Self-Regulation (i.e. Self-Regulation (Psychology)).

How do I Disambiguate the page or bring it somewhere else for me to actually fill out the article entry for Self-Regulation?Psychmajor22 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would advise writing and posting the article under the title "Self-regulation (psychological term)." GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the teahouse @Psychmajor22: I think before you worry about the exact title of the article it would be better to take a first cut at writing a draft which as far as I can tell you haven't done yet. Many of the existing articles on that disambiguation page are also related to psychology. The first thing you need to establish is exactly what topic you are writing about, is it wp:notable and is there already an article that covers the topic? "Self regulation" is a term that can apply to neurons, individuals, or groups for example. Here is a good place to start for new editors who want to write a first article: Wikipedia:Your_first_article Also, IMO it is far better for a new editor to get experience by editing existing articles first and then move on to creating a new article. It is much easier to make useful edits to an existing articles than to create a high quality new article from scratch. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Or possibly Self-regulation (psychology).--ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And if the article is accepted the new entry will be added to the disambiguation page Self-Regulation. w.carter-Talk 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

why are you erasing my inputs?

philipofJMJ is my name on Wikipedia. I am new, and nothing stays. Please advise. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am waiting for an answer. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@PhilipofJMJ: Your edits to anti-paganism policy of Constantine I was reverted by Favonian due to WP:NPOV concerns, maybe he could explain more to you. In the meantime, I think you should read up on WP:NPOV. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, PhilipofJMJ. It seems that you tried to add unreferenced information, including the statement "See other Wiki articles by philipofJMJ on wikipedia."
We never use one Wikipedia article as a reference for another. No respected Wikipedia editor ever promotes their own article work in article space. I am proud to say which articles I have helped improve on my own user page. But it would be entirely inappropriate to do so in an encyclopedia article. Please take this as a lesson. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am learning a lot by these responses. Thanks. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hello, Mr. Favonian, can you help me out, as the gardener spoke of above, please? philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. First, don't make a series of marks (as the plus signs above) to set off your contributions. Use a simple colon (:) to indent your contribution, or more than one for more indents. Second, go back to the Talk Page here, and I will try to help you out. See you there! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

SEO

How do I make sure my page shows up on google and has the right SEO attached to it? Jewishsarah (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jewishsarah, and welcome to the Teahouse! If the page you're talking about is a Wikipedia article, then I'm afraid the answer is that you don't; since Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, SEO should be irrelevant to Wikipedia articles (though, given Wikipedia's fairly high status with Google, SEO isn't usually needed anyway). If you're talking about a website outside Wikipedia, then I'm afraid we can't really help you here; the Teahouse is more for questions about editing Wikipedia. The fine folks at the Reference Desk (particularly the computing reference desk) might be able to give you some answers, though. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Jewishsarah by SEO I assume you mean Search Engine Optimization? Things like assigning meta-data to a page so that it gets properly indexed by Google and other search engines. There isn't a lot that can or usually needs to be done, as Writ Keeper said, Wikipedia is so dominant article almost always show up pretty high in most searches. Keep in mind that it may take a few days from the time you create an article to the time Google updates it's servers. Also, assigning the proper wp:categories to the article will I think help with indexing, I think the category key words are passed on as metadata about the articles to search engines. However, if when you say "my page" you mean your specific wp:user page then the answer is different. User pages are not supposed to be indexed by search engines. I think they can still show up sometimes but the point of a user page or any page you host on wikipedia should be to develop wikipedia articles only, not for other uses. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both! I appreciate the quick response and understand my mistake.

Jewishsarah (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor copies great swaths from other sources

I've found an editor who is obsessed with U.S, fire departments. He has been adding articles about such departments for quite a long time now. Here is his contributions page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FDNY18. What can be done about reining him in? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably at least wait until he responds to your message on his talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That was just the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. I've found multiple copyvios and have cleaned some and warned--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

[4] Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to this, Bananasoldier and Technical 13— there is a bit of nuance here, because while grist.org is notable, they do carry a point of view that can be seen as non-neutral. My general recommendation when considering a source is to see if there has been previous discussion of a source at the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can search the archives for previous discussion. In this case, grist.org has been discussed and while there were only two editors participating in the discussion, both agreed not to use the source because the neutrality was unclear. Since grist frequently analyzes or reposts news from other sources, it may be worth following your data and checking to see if the information you would like to include in the article was originally reported in a source that is considered more neutral. None of this is to say that the source can't be used, however; it's about being careful. There is plenty of analysis regarding this topic in this essay. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How to Create a Stub Article

Hello,

I am still confused about how to create stub articles! I have read the articles about how to create stubs on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right. (PS it would be helpful if we added an example to the stub how-to page.)

Do I just place my stub tag at the end of the article I'm writing? (i.e. {{academic-bio-stub}})

Thanks!

Psychmajor22 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I realized I just answered my question. Now, I'm not sure how to delete this. Haha. Help with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychmajor22 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Psychmajor22, it seems like the Teahouse brings enlightenment to users in many ways. :) And to answer your question about deletion: You don't. Everything written here at the Teahouse is archived for future reference and is searchable in the archive at top right of this page. Maybe your sudden insight will help others in the days to come. Happy stub-making, w.carter-Talk 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
But at least make sure when you are creating a stub that it is reasonably capable of being expanded into a fuller article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Psychmajor22. This is 2015, and Wikipedia has almost 4.5 million articles in English. In my opinion, no serious editor should set out to write a stub these days. Stub is defined as "an article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject". Instead, I recommend that your minimum goal should be a well-referenced, introductory overview of the topic in question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

neutral point of view

Hello world! I've added some info to the article Muhammadu Buhari (I'm 62.233.34.78) and then another IP undid my revision using a rather dubious argumentation (claiming my edits were not done in good faith). But everything I added is sourced and even if they might seem negative for Buhari, I feel they balance out what was initially an overtly positive article. What's more, everything I added was found on the Internet on a quick search, nothing more… I would have undone the revision, but this IP edits wikipedia only to remove the negative stuff on Buhari and I'm a bit afraid he/she would just go at it again… Do I have other options? Passenger68 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings @Passenger68: welcome to the teahouse. First, just a point about how to identify yourself on Wikipedia: the preferred way is to create and use a user ID which you did. So once you do that you no longer need to identify yourself by your IP address. Just make sure to always be logged in before you make any edits. Regarding the article on Muhammadu Buhari first, you were right not to just get into an wp:edit war with the other editor who reverted your work. Second, yes there are still options after someone reverts a change. The next step when that happens is to take to the talk page of the article in question which in this case is this page: Talk:Muhammadu_Buhari The most common thing to do when someone reverts your edit and you don't think the reversion was justified is to post a new section on the talk page for the article. Explain why you think that the reversion was justified and respond to their rationale for reverting which in this case is the claim that your source is biased. BTW, you can see the edit history for any article by clicking on the "View History" tab. In this case the history is here: Muhamid B Edit History As I look at the history it seems that other editors are reverting each other as well so you aren't the only one who is involved and I think at least one other editor agrees with you. Also, the justification being used by the IP editor who reverted your work is not IMO a strong argument. They say that your source represents "opposition research" and is a "dirty" source. Just because a reference has negative information does not mean it isn't a good source. Also, keep in mind that since I believe this person is still alive the rules for wikipedia:biographies of living persons apply. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Passenger68 I took a closer look at that article and the changes. It turns out there already is an existing discussion directly relevant to your changes. Here is the appropriate section of the talk page: Talk:Muhammadu_Buhari#suppression_of_well_sourced_informations I suggest you add your thoughts to the discussion there. I think the main issue should be how credible the wp:references are. One way to help resolve the dispute might be to post something on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about the sites used as references to support this information and see if there is a consensus there about how reliable they are. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello MadScientistX11 ! First of all, thanks a lot for your help. I think I'll do what you say, hoping someone will help me. Tanks again Passenger68 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome Passenger68. If you have additional questions feel free to drop me a message on my talk page or of course to come back to the teahouse. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New Editor who doesn't know where to get started.

Hello,

I joined Wikipedia tonight, since I've read wikipedia for as long as I can remember. I've always loved the site, and decided to get involved. I'm extremely interested in politics, history, national cultures, weather, and automobiles, but I don't know where to start editing. It seems that many articles on these topics are very well written and don't need further editing. Furthermore, I'm unsure as to how one starts an article "properly." I know how to create one, but when adding your own pictures, I'm not sure what pictures wikimedia commons considers "okay to use" and which ones aren't. For instance, when creating an article, on say, a mall, would a picture of the mall from their website be alright? Sorry for the long post. I'm so excited to have joined, but I just don't know where to begin!

72.222.132.231 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I just realized that I wasn't logged in when creating this...whoops. Search for the Wikipedia user "LibertyandLinguistics"

Welcome to the Teahouse, LibertyandLinguistics. You will often find articles here that are pretty well-written, but that doesn't mean they are perfect. A careful reading by someone highly familiar with the topic will often reveal certain weak spots where a reference or two to a reliable source can be added, and a few sentences rewritten and expanded. Also, you will often find that major articles about important topics are quite comprehensive, but that secondary articles about specific narrower aspects of those broader topics still need a lot of work.
As for images and copyright law, that is a highly complex area. Your example of a photo of a mall from the mall's own website is pretty clearcut: almost certainly, such a photo is copyrighted and can't be used anywhere on Wikimedia projects. The obvious solution is to go to the mall yourself, take photos, and upload them to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. But there may already be freely licensed photos of the mall there, if it is inconvenient for you to visit.
To start an article properly, first verify that the topic is notable. Then, familiarize yourself with what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. Summarize what those sources say, leaving out your personal opinions and personal experiences. Add references to the reliable sources. Referencing for beginners explains that process. A good overview is Your first article. Feel free to ask questions at the Teahouse at any time. We are here to help, and thank you for volunteering. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism is pretty common as well, so always be on the watch for that. Sometimes it isn't as obvious as you think it might be. If you're still wondering what to add, maybe try checking users' contributions to see what they're adding, maybe even me... Stubs should also be expanded if possible - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I know Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's, but I hope people will forgive me if I recommend another site, to wit Wikipedia Simple English. There are far fewer people working on it than on Wikipedia English. Many major lacunae exist. Yet it is a tremendous resource for children and non-native speakers. It's very easy to find topics that are not covered or have only a stub. Kdammers (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Writing Simple English is actually quite difficult due to the grammar restrictions and limited vocabulary. It's not like writing "natural" English so it's not something a beginner should get into too quickly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kdammers: I know it wasn't a serious comment anyway but regarding Macys and Gimbles it isn't really an apt metaphor. There isn't any competition between Wikipedia and other sites that use Wiki technology such as Wikibooks, Wikiquotes, or (and I didn't even know this one existed so thanks for that) Simple English Wikipedia. We all have different goals and we support each other rather than compete. If you are looking for ways to get some basic editing experience have you tried looking here: Wikipedia:Community_portal? Scroll down to where it says "Help Out" and you will see examples of pages needing basic kinds of changes (e.g., "Fix spelling and grammar") and a "Learn how" link next to each kind of change requirement to help new editors understand how to make those changes. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors

Can more than one editor edit a file at the same timeNextstepsailing (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Grettings Nextstepsailing welcome to the teahouse. Yes, absolutely more than one editor can edit a file at the same time. This means there can occasionally be an wp:edit conflict when two people try to commit their changes to a file at the same time. That article I linked to explains how this happens and what to do when it does happen. Also, editors can use the wp:talk pages of articles to coordinate their work. But for the most part edit conflicts aren't nearly as much of a problem as you might think, they don't happen that often and when they do they are usually easy to resolve. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are busy making several changes to an article, you can type a template like { {In use} } or { {Under construction} } at the top of the page (just don't leave spaces between the brackets, as I have just done). That warns others to stay away for a while. The tags are removed automatically if there has been no editing for a time. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
A tip for GeorgeLouis: you can use the template tl to talk about a template without inseting it. So if you write {{tl|In use}} it appears as {{In use}}. That also has the advantage that it is a link to the template, so you can go and look at its documentation easily. --ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding Content to a new Wikipedia Page

One you have a Wikipedia Page, how do you add new information to it? What is the process for this (who can add it, who reviews the content, how approves it)?74.85.18.234 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Anybody can edit a Wikipedia page (apart from a very few pages which have been locked due to a history of excessive problem edits). At the top of each page is the "Edit" tab - click that and start making your edits. If you need help learning the special markup language used on Wikipedia pages then I recommend taking a look at Help:Getting started. And if you have questions, you're always welcome to ask here in the Teahouse. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, anonymous user. I want to add something to what Gronk Oz has said. I'm making a guess from your words, and forgive me I've I'm guessing wrongly; but I suspect you are talking about an article about you (or your band or your company). If that is the case, please be aware that you are regarded as having a conflict of interest, and should edit only in accordance with the recommendations in the article I just linked to. It might help to bear in mind that it is not your article: it is Wikipedia's article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does my Wikipedia Article keep getting rejected

Hi, I'm really new to this! I have submitted an article several times with changes and wondered why it keeps getting rejected?

Could anyone advise me please :) (BeckyLuck (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The pink box at the top of the draft should explain it, but in brief the article must cite reliable sources that demonstrate that the subjects meets the notability requirements, which in this case are set out here.--ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BeckyLuck. I've looked over your submission at [5], and I don't see any citations there to neutral, reliable sources. Are you sure that the organization is WP:Notable? If so, then it will already have been covered in places like newspapers, magazines, websites (not blogs), etc. Or are you simply trying to make it notable by including it in Wikipedia? That won't work. What you should do is to send your information to, as I said above, newspapers, magazines, websites (not blogs), etc., that might be interested in doing an article about your group. Starting out with Wikipedia won't do the job because we're not that kind of "service" or "news agency." We are an encyclopedia. So get your publicity elsewhere and then come back here with evidences of your notability. I hope this helps you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of "articles for creation?"

I recently saw that a user's page was rejected and I was linked to a page that allowed users to have their pages submitted and reviewed for creation. Is this how we're meant to create articles? I have always though that you needed to press the red link when you search up a term to do so. But since users appear to be able to have their pending pages reviewed and classified, I'm still wondering how a page I created could be reviewed (Porpema). - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an option, a good one for new editors or people who want feedback on their article before it goes live. Other editors will be able to make suggestions and perform copy-edits before you put the article into the main Wikipedia 'space'. Putting something incomplete or with dubious notability directly into 'mainspace' does run the risk of deletion, and I think WP:AFC is a good option for new and less experienced editors, despite the long wait for review. However, it's not the only option, and it takes a long time to get an article reviewed, so some people don't recommend its use.
Regarding your own article, I see it's already been accepted and is in Wikipedia. If you are that good at writing articles, I think you should be OK with writing them directly into mainspace. There's a few little tweaks I will do for you (e.g. formatting of the 'See also' links - they should really have bullet points before the individual topics)...but well done. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 19:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I partly agree and partly disagree that PotatoNinja123 should be okay with writing articles directly into mainspace. It is very seldom a good idea to write articles directly into mainspace, since very few editors can really write an entire article in a single edit. If an editor tries to write an article directly into mainspace, it will show up as a new article, and will very likely be tagged for deletion because it is incomplete (which it will be). If Lstanley1979 means that PotatoNinja123 can reasonably write an article in user space, and then complete it in user space, and copy-edit it in user space, and then and only then promote it into article space, I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Good points, Robert. I took a look at the article and was quite impressed by PotatoNinja123's efforts. I think that it probably wouldn't have fallen under any immediate deletion criteria. I would just have corrected the formatting and move on on that one. I'd definitely echo, however, that it's definitely better to draft something and move it later on, or submit it to AFC for judgement. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The completion of the references is the most difficult part of completing an article. Some of the editors who review new articles in mainspace are deletionists and will tag any article whose references are not in final shape. Maybe you are not a deletionist and welcome new articles. However, an editor who is reasonably confident of their own ability to complete an article would do better to edit it in user space and move it into article space than to edit it in article space, where it is likely to encounter deletionists who do not leave a work in progress alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this question to the Teahouse, PotatoNinja123 . The point of the AfC process includes review of all new articles by unregistered users, but it's also to help new editors get it right. I suspect had you used the AfC process, the reviewing editor would have required you to find a few more references, as you have only one in the infobox, and the question of whether this critter exists at all is open for question, according to your description. Some of your statements present conclusions that may be original research (see WP:NOR), so having other editors provide feedback at this stage helps to improve the article as well as protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Understood, Robert McClenon. Thanks for your help explaining it. As Grand'mere Eugene points out, there are issues with the article that I haven't learned to spot - I generally only go for the articles which are clearly not up to standard and leave other work alone, mostly that which passes through speedy criteria. Thank you both. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 22:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I actually got most of the information from the chondrophore page, which is the family that the genus belongs in. The description was simply based on all of the characteristics that all of the chondrophores share. So I doubt I would be able to find any references, unless you want me to use the references used on the chondrophore page. The other information was just based on observations made of the illustrations made by Ernst Haeckel. Oh, and how do I get it reviewed? Do I have to wait? - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, PotatoNinja123. Ideally, every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be referenced to a cited reliable source. If you have not found a source saying something specifically about the species Porpema prunella (I assume that's the article you are talking about) then the article should not say it. It can (and should) have a Wikilink to an article about the genus (or higher taxon if there isn't one for the genus), so that the reader can follow that and find out the general characteristics of the genus; but in the absence of a reference, the article should not say that it does or doesn't conform to these characteristics. The references on the Chondrophore page are certainly worth using, if they are relevant; but they should be used only to support statements that they actually support, not deductions or syntheses from those. You can get a page reviewed by editing it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'll add as many references as I can and submit the article for reviewing when I'm done - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed the tags at the top of the article, and left a comment on the article's Talk page. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Should I get the new article I created reviewed

Around two days ago I asked a question about reviewing and showed you guys a new article I created, which I didn't put through "articles for creation". You said that you were fairly impressed by my efforts at creating my first article, but advised that I find reliable sources to go with the facts. I've done that now, and I would like to know what you think. Should I get it reviewed? Click here for the page. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there again, PotatoNinja123. 'Review' is a process which happens at WP:Articles for Creation before the article is moved into the main Wikipedia space (reviews accept an article for the main space or reject it, requiring the submitter to work on it for further scrutiny). As your article is already in the so-called 'mainspace', it's not needing to be reviewed right now, except informally by someone who might come across it, or give it a look now to see whether you improved the sections that were problematic. Apologies for the confusion.
As I was mistaken earlier on, I'll let someone else judge whether it fits their criteria or not and whether the tags should be removed. The sourcing looks better, so the 'relies on one source' issue may be fixed, but Grand'mere Eugene was more perceptive about the subject than I was so I suggest that you ask them directly whether they think the article has been improved. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I replied below on the original post. Good work, so far, PotatoNinja123. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fate of a recently submitted entry.

How can I find out what happened to a draft entry I submitted recently -- on January 10? It was a completely rewritten text, based on interviews and e-mail exchanges with the subject, a previous version having been rejected because it was too close to a published profile of the subject held to be under copyright protection.108.24.49.137 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. All you have to tell us is the name of the user account you were using (or IP address you were assigned) when you posted the page, or the exact name of the draft, inclusive of the original capitalization. Either will allow us to look at the deleted content and then advise you further. Right now you are posting from an IP address whose only edit is your post here, and you have not provided any information to target what page it might have been. That having been said, unfortunately, it sounds like you posted a draft article based in whole or in part on original research, which is material we cannot use. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. Our articles must be based on published, reliable, secondary sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, fughettaboutit. I'm still not clear what I need to do (a) to make the article acceptable (give a published source?)and b)to be apprised of its fate (whether it is under review somewhere or has been rejected, etc.). In the meantime, it has appeared on the web as "Draft: Victor Brombert" -- the text as I submitted it to Wikipedia -- on another webpage, www.bigmaybe.com/learn?s=Draft:Victor_Brombert

Using Wikipedia is easy, communicating with it is byzantine! But you -- probably a volunteer -- have been most helpful. I'd much appreciate your advice.108.24.49.137 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is IMDb not considered a reliable cited reference?

It's confounding that Wikipedia, the most prolific user submitted and maintained encyclopedia of information would consider IMDb as "unreliable" because it contains user submitted data. Do you realize that IMDb is not only curated (just as Wikipedia is), but that to make changes to any filmography or biography, you must be a paying member of IMDb and The Powers That Be at IMDb cross check references with all the other members? It is 100% more reliable than Wikipedia, itself, when it comes to what is accepted for listing. BlackAndBlueMedia (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source because it is user-generated content. Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. RudolfRed (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but as you just said Rudolf -- IMDb is no less reliable than Wikipedia and therefore, it should be considered just as reliable as a source. Did anyone at Wikipedia notice that you have to have a paid account and you have to prove who you are and your role in the entertainment industry to be allowed to create profiles or filmographies or make changes to such on IMDb to have those changes take effect? So what? I can source some press release site, where companies talk great about themselves with no oversight, but I can't cite IMDb? Can I cite The Onion, even though it's a parody news site? I'm sorry, but I just don't get the distinction and why Wikipedia would have the nerve to consider IMDb any less reliable than Wikipedia or any other website.

BlackAndBlueMedia (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You missed my point. We do NOT consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, BlackAndBlueMedia. You seem to have a deep misunderstanding of how we define reliable sources here on Wikipedia. We do not allow references to press release hosting sites like PR Wire, though a few of those slip through. We most certainly don't allow The Onion as a source, and we do not allow any source which is user edited. Including Wikipedia. One Wikipedia article is never acceptable as a reference in another Wikipedia article. If any experienced editor notices such references, they are expected to remove them immediately. As for IMDb.com, we do allow external links to that website. But we do not allow it as a reference within the body of an article, because we do not consider its editorial control stringent enough. Again, we do not consider our own editorial control stringent enough, so that is no insult to IMDb. But you can't change our longstanding consensus here at the Teahouse. It is what it is, and is based on discussions by many editors over many years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi BlackAndBlueMedia, please refer to WP:WPNOTRS for more specific information regarding why Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles. Let me also add that it seems from this talk page comment, this username change request and this edit sum that you may have some kind of professional or personal connection with the subject(s) of some of the Wikipedia articles you've been editing. If that is the truly case, then you'd be considered to have a conflict of interest. Although COI editing is not expressly prohibited on Wikipedia, there are some limitations placed on what COI editors are allowed to do which can make it a little tricky to pull off. The edits of COI editors also tend to more scrutinized by other editors working on the same article. So, it might be a good idea to read through "Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide" and "Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing" just to familiarize yourself with what is typically expected from COI editors. Good luck.   - Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Above, Cullen wrote that "But you can't change our longstanding consensus here at the Teahouse. It is what it is, and is based on discussions by many editors over many year." While it is true that the Teahouse is not the place to change consensus, the rest of the quotation is unfriendly and, I think, unhelpful. While "long-standing" (That is a matter of perspective: to me, Wikipedia has not even existed for many years.) policies have some intransigence, they sure had better be subject to re-evaluation. Maybe the source has changed since the last extensive discussion; maybe there is more to the source than met the eye of the discussants.Kdammers (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Kdammers. While I did not intend to start a campaign for inclusion of IMDb in the Teahouse, it was the easiest way to ask the question and potentially open discussion on IMDb's inclusion for future Wikipedia Editor conversations. I can say with authority that the majority of the people composing the US entertainment industry trust IMDb for accurate and verified information on a variety of subjects (especially filmographies and profiles), so its exclusion by Wikipedia as a verified and reliable source very much confuses me.

BlackAndBlueMedia (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kdammers:, @BlackAndBlueMedia: The issue is more to do with editorial control rather than anything specific to IMDB. We need sources which are written by independent, neutral third parties - have a look at the text of the guidelines on reliable sources. As for consensus, I'm relatively new to active participation, but to change consensus, you'd probably have to get a lot more people onside than you think - I'm not sure you can just turn up, say 'I don't agree with this policy', and get a consensus for change - particularly not when it involves one of the core philosophies of what Wikipedia is. Since people can pay to upload content about themselves, that drives a hole through their credibility as a neutral, independent source. that is, a source with enough editorial control over the content to be genuinely reliable. A notable actor, however, probably has a lot of coverage elsewhere in sources which are overseen by editors who work to be neutral of their subject. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 07:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_295&oldid=1089643522"