Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 473

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 470

Archive 471

Archive 472

→

PROBLEM IN ARTICLE.

HI, I JUST WANT TO CREATE ARTICLE IMCB I-10/1COLLEGE. BUT WHEN I CLICK SAVE BUTTON NOTHING HAPPEN. PLEASE HELP. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC).

Hello, ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~. I have moved your question to the top of the page, because that is where new questions are supposed to be posted here at the Teahouse (unlike other discussion pages on Wikipedia, for some reason). Lots of people are confused by this, so don't worry about it, but your question will get noticed quicker at the top. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As a new user, not autoconfirmed, you can't create a new article in mainspace. What you can do is use the AFC process to create a draft for review. You need to read WP:Your first article before trying to create an article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All registered users can actually create articles in mainspace but it's usually better for new users to use the AFC process and get feedback. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok now my article was created, problem is only in reference but Now I have more better reference. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference

Is it allow to give references from blogs? please answer. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In general, no. see WP:BLOGS. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok but Please how to add pictures ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And please, tell me how to add pictures to an article, i want to add two pictures in two different articles. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You received an answer to that question below, ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Info box person position on page

How do you position the Info box on the right side of the page? I copied and pasted from my Sandbox and it turned up on the left side and took the place of the Contents box, so I removed it. I am working on the article Theodore PitcairnRae 3328 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You have used a table to create an infobox. If you use Template:Infobox person instead, it will appear correctly.Mduvekot (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Where can I find my draft?

Hello teahouse, I've created a draft and sent it for verification since last week, but did not get any responses. I also would like to access my draft which area I can find my draft? Thank you! --Poeijung (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your draft is at Draft:Ruttikorn Vuttikorn. It has not been reviewed yet. Bradv 04:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've declined it. See my comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Protecting editors

What exactly are the measures being taken by Wikipedia to protect the IP Address of editors, I currently beleive there are little or almost no protective measures being taken by the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WindWalk55555 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WindWalk55555, and welcome to the Teahouse. When you are editing using an account, your IP address is not disclosed publicly, so I am not sure what your concern is. What are you concerned about protection from? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As I understand, one has to be a checkuser to see someone's IP address, and there's only about 25 of them. So I wouldn't be too worried. ♥ Kailey 2001 ♥ ^{You just got reverted by a high school cheerleader. ♥} 03:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In short, it is very inaccurate to say that there are "little or almost no protective measures being taken by the website", if indeed you mean by Wikipedia. We go to great lengths to protect your IP address by giving access only to trusted Checkusers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, unregistered editors or editors who are not logged in are identified by their IP address. No protective measures are taken for them. Mduvekot (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I switch the page display from 'Edit source' to plain 'edit'?

How do I switch the page display from 'Edit source' to plain 'edit'? Robin Mence (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you click on Preferences (at the top of your screen), then the Editing tab, you will find a dropdown menu where you can select your editor. Bradv 17:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems with pictures

Hi, I was trying to create my article and I was wondering how to get a picture onto the unfinished article. The article is still in my sandbox, but does that affect it? And how do I find a uncopyrighted picture? Also, for the references, can I cite an online source such as the person's webpage? [[User:Elsa Enchanted|Elsa Enchanted (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)]] (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Elsa Enchanted, and welcome to the Teahouse. To use an image there are two steps needed. First it must be uploaded, either to Wikimedia commons (for images with free licenses, or in the public domain) or to en.Wikipedia (for images to be used under a claim of Fair use. Both can be done starting at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard.

One an image has been uploaded, it is displayed by linking to it in the article or page. See Help:Menu/Images and media, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, and Help:Viewing media for more on how to do this.

Please note that fair use images may only be linked from actual articles, and so may not be used while a future article is in a sandbox or other user page, or in draft.

Finding an uncopyrighted picture can be very hard, often impossible. When possible, the best way is often to take a new picture yourself. Then you can license it freely. Sometimes you can ask the copyright holder to release an image, or a low-res copy of an image. See Donating copyrighted materials and linked pages. Sometimes an image will qualify for fair use, see WP:NFCC for details of the strict rules to follow. Sometimes there is no way to find a usable image. DES ^(talk) 16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elsa Enchanted - There are two ways for an editor to add a picture: first is to simply add a pic which already exists on Wikimedia Commons; second is to upload a new image yourself. Here's a good resource regarding adding pictures: Wikipedia:Adding images improves the encyclopedia, while Wikipedia:Uploading images is a good explanation of uploading. Regarding uploading, even experienced editors can make errors regarding whether or not an image has a license which enables it to be used, so read that section carefully. When you use Google or Bing to search for images, there are filters which help somewhat, but they aren't 100% effective by any means. And no, it makes no difference if the page you are working on is in userspace, draftspace or the mainspace. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A minor corrections, Onel5969. A fair use/WP:NFCC image may not be used in userspace or draft space. Otherwise it makes no difference. I hope that helps, Elsa Enchanted. DES ^(talk) 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

( Edit conflict ) :Elsa Enchanted Actually, it's impossible to find a non-copyrighted picture as the creator of that picture is considered the copyright holder the moment he or she creates the picture. The image would have to be licensed as CC-by-SA in order for Wikipedia to be able to accept it , however, there are exceptions to this per WP:NFCC but be careful NFCC is a slippery slope! So read it carefully and understand it first before you attempt to use it to bring in pictures. Also, a person's webpage could be acceptable but it strongly depends on what you're sourcing. If you source something that they believe or have said, your okay, as long as this website can be proven to be their website, not a fan-site, so that too is tricky. Wikipedia uses reliable sources , meaning, if I write an article and say some type of car has a defect with their airbag and I source it to a forum, a fan site or someone's comment that they posted on a RELIABLE website, it's unacceptable, because it would fail reliable sources. It would be best to get that information directly from a reliable source, i.e : That company's website, a reliable news source (not tabloids however)...etc.. Check out WP:RS for a guide on what's considered a reliable source. As far as putting a picture into a draft article, if the picture is licensed CC-by-SA OR the picture's old enough to be public domain, or IS already public domain, that's ok, but if it isn't, don't put it in a sandbox article, as only free images are allowed in the sandbox. KoshVorlon 16:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Another minor correction, KoshVorlon. Images that are in the public domain because their copyright has expired, for example pics published in the US before 1923, are non-copyrighted. So are pics that are works of the US Federal government, such as many NASA photos. There are other cases. But I admit that in my response above I was using "non-copyrighted" as a shorthand for "PD or released under a free license acceptable to Wikipedia". The best way to be sure that an image is free is for the uploader to use an image that he or she took personally. Then there are many fewer issues to deal with. Elsa Enchanted, I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay..... a lot to process, but I think I got it! Thank you so much! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

duplicate entries

Hello,

I recently submitted a second draft for an entry for the company Merrithew. I created a new page, as the old page was created under the username Merrithew, which I created because I wanted to differentiate my account from my colleague's account Rebecca at Merrithew. An editor informed me of my mistake that I couldn't name myself after a company, and I wanted to correct that mistake. However, the username Merrithew was rerouted to link to my colleague's account, Rebecca at Merrithew. I know that multiple users cannot use the same account, and I wanted to make sure I was complying with Wiki's rules about this, so I created the username Laura at Merrithew. Because I had a new username, I mistakenly assumed that meant that I needed to create a new page for Merrithew. Another editor informed me of my mistake. Now I'm unsure of how to proceed. I want to make sure that I am doing this correctly. I would like to take the editor's advice on editing the second draft, but I'm not sure in which space I should edit. Should I transfer the edits of the second Merrithew page to the first? Is there a way to delete one of the pages? Any advice on how to proceed would be very welcome.

Thanks in advance! Laura Laura at Merrithew (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, per WP:COI, it's probably best if you don't try to create or edit an article about the company you work for at all. If the company meets our notability guidelines, someone will do it eventually.

If you look at the notes on those pages, you'll see that the reason User:Laura at Merrithew/sandbox is rejected is because it's pretty much the same page as Draft:Merrithew. In other words, (pretending for a moment that the policy WP:COI doesn't exist), you would need to edit Draft:Merrithew instead of trying to make a new article. Looking at the notes at Draft:Merrithew, the problem is that the article is written like an advertisement, an almost guaranteed problem for anyone trying to create articles about the company they work for, and something we do not allow (see WP:NOTPROMO).

If you are going to try to write an article anyway, do this:

Gather sources that are specifically about the company (not just mentioning them in passing), which are otherwise in no way connected to the company. No press releases, no listings for conventions that the company does business with, no announcements from other organizations who do business with -- no connections whatsoever.
Summarize those sources in a way that even someone who absolutely hates your company would have to agree with. Don't try to "win them over," expect them to still hate it, but that they'll at least agree "ok, that's true."
Only include that information, nothing else. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain things to me, and I appreciate your advice. It's very useful. I'll try my best to take the sales pitch out of it and pare it down to something that is acceptable to Wiki's standards.

Laura at Merrithew (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not able to add images to my Profile - I get a message that says my Profile needs to be confirmed. Kindly advise.

I am not able to add images to my Profile - I get a message that says my Profile needs to be confirmed. Kindly adviseShaalin4u (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article Shaalin Zoya, it is not your profile -- see WP:OWN. It is the community's article.

If you are Shaalin Zoya, you should not edit the article -- see WP:COI. Instead, you can make suggestions on the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Many new editors think that Wikipedia, like social media, has profiles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has articles on notable topics including notable people. The closest thing to profiles that Wikipedia has are user pages. Articles, including articles about Wikipedia editors who are notable, belong to Wikipedia and its readers, not to their subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The message probably says that the editor must be autoconfirmed by having been active for four days and making ten edits before they can upload an image. See Autoconfirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How Do I know I did well/good?

I edited an article. It is on line. I am assuming at some point it will be reviewed. How do I know if I did right/wrong? Will I get feed back Careytheone (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your article is at User:Careytheone/sandbox. It looks like it's still in the early stages. Once you are ready for us to take a look, click the "Submit for review" button. Bradv 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The OP may have been talking about his/her edit to Ancient Greek novel? In general, Careytheone, you won't get feedback in response to an edit to an existing article. In this case, no news is good news, as you will normally be told if there are significant problems with your edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OH the Sand box is for rough/waiting to be approved articles? brill... that was me playing around with the tutorial subjects..... I would like expand on the Ancient Greek novel I feel it should be a much larger article. I was just going to add sections as I went along. Is that cool? Or should I redraft the whole article at once? Careytheone (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The sandbox is for test editing or for waiting to be approved articles. You used the sandbox correctly. Just don't accidentally submit it for review. If you think that an existing article needs to be expanded, it is a good idea, but not required, to discuss on the talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that probably makes more sense than what I was looking at. I don't know anything about the topic, but that looks like an excellent edit. Well done. Bradv 17:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. THX for the info. I will go ahead and do a new section to the article. I will consider it good if a week goes by, and no-one yells at me. Careytheone (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's generally the way it works around here. ;) Bradv 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Careytheone. There really isn't a "good/not good" dichotomy. You make your changes. Sombody comes along and makes their changes - which might be reversing yours, altering some of what you've done, adding more material to whatever you did, or all of the above. As long as you're not editing disruptively (for example, vandalism), nobody should be criticising you, but just doing whatever they think will improve the article most. If they disagree with you, that doesn't mean they're right or that you're right: it's up to the two of you to reach consensus. See WP:BRD. ----ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Page deletions problem

Why can't crrate an artical?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainudin (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mainudin. Please see your talk page, where people have left you messages explaining what the problem is. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mainudin. You are attempting to create an autobiography which now located at User:Mainudin/sandbox. Writing an autobiography is highly discouraged as other editors have explained. In your case, you say that your are 17 years old and based on your sandbox page it is highly unlikely that you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your sandbox has been deleted for the reasons stated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Put submit code in title but no review yet--how do I get an article reviewed so it can be posted?

Hello, I have edited this draft appropriately https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Figure_Championship and have put {{Submit}} at the top of the page as advised but it has not been reviewed yet (as far as I can see) and I would like to get someone to review it so it can go "live". Can someone advise if, a) I did this properly, and b) how to ensure that someone sees and reviews the submission? Thanks! Lakeplacidskater (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lakeplacidskater. I have placed <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags around {{Submit}} in your question, to stop the submission template from appearing here at the Teahouse. Ironically, you have placed these tags around the template at Draft:World Figure Championship, and as a result the draft has not actually been submitted for review (although you did manage to accidentally submit the Teahouse questions page for review!). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry , I removed the tags and see the "REVIEW WAITING" Box, so hopefully it will be reviewed soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeplacidskater (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Great - yes, that seems OK now. I thought about removing them for you, Lakeplacidskater, but I think "learning by doing" is often the best way. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In the draft you ought to change {{Submit}} to {{subst:Submit}}, then it will expand and substitute the submit template and set the appropriate parameters to make the process easier for the reviewer. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks David Biddulph. Lakeplacidskater (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lakeplacidskater. Your draft about a new figure skating event has three references. Two of these are the website of the event itself. This website is of no value in establishing notability. The other reference is to an article in the local newspaper of Lake Placid, New York, a hamlet of 2500 people whose local economy revolves around winter sports and tourism. They report indiscriminately on all local winter sports events. In my opinion, this single article is insufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Contributing information about innovative technology to USB page with low notability and strong COI.

Dear Wikipedians,

I am an old reader of Wikipedia, but I opened an account to start editing yesterday.

The reason: I need to publish information about the company I work in and its patented technology.

The problem: After learning the policies, I realised following issues: 1/ The company I work for is not notable enough. There are no references on reliable sources and the company is still young. 2/ There is a clear COI. My job is International Marketing, so this should be also considered as a paid-editing and the article I write probably will have many COI biases.

So, I assume it is too early for the company to have its own Wikipedia page.

But besides that, we have a unique technology that is patented by us. It's a kind of a double-sided USB port which is insertable either ways. The technology is worth noting. I am planning to contribute the information about this technology into USB article of Wikipedia [1] About the references, there are photos of the USB product and official web-site of the company, but no reliable 3rd-party references, yet. So, do you think it is approvable to contribute that new piece of information into existing article about USB? The USB article is quite complex, important and sensitive. So I think, I should be cautious about where to put that information, how to put it and be neutral in description.

Any help and advice will be very appreciated. Thank you. Shoh 10:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shohruhjon (talk • contribs)

Hi Shohruhjon - WP is very sensitive to COI editing, especially paid COI. First, until there is independent discussion of your company's product, it probably shouldn't be inserted, as it would amount to advertising. Second, if and when that independent referencing becomes available, if I were you I would post it on the article's talk page, and ask a not-involved editor to insert the information into the article. That way, your verbiage can be checked for neutrality. Good luck and welcome to WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969, thank you very much for your explanation. I see, OK.

Hello, Shohruhjon. Thank you for coming here and being open about your situation: that stands you in good stead in the community of editors. I'd just like to comment on one thing you said: when you say "I need to publish information about the company I work in and its patented technology", you are necessarily talking about promotion and not about improving Wikipedia. Except in the case of removing errors, attack pages and copyright violations, there is nothing which "needs" to be changed in Wikipedia: I cannot think of any cases where some information "needs" to be added to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine, thank you for your response. You are right, in that sentence I emphasized the need only. About the information that is needed to be added to Wikipedia, why not? There is a new innovative technology of something that has been created, why not to mention it in the related article, but the technology only, not the brand. I realized, our product has a brand and unique technology. If approved by the WP community, only the information about the technology can be contributed to WP, adding the brand would be a clear promotion. Then, first I need to focus on online marketing on the appropriate web-sites until the products become trusted and the brand familiar. I feel a bit ashamed to start editing on WP from this intention, it's my personal account, so hopefully I will be able to make appropriate contributions in the future without any COI :-) Thanks for support.

Shohruhjon, welcome aboard!

First, allow me to also compliment you on your openness and forthrightness by asking for help and carefully listening to the responses. Well done, keep up the good work.
Next, I whole-heartedly agree with Onel5969's suggestions above, you would be very wise to follow them. To those suggestions I would also add that you might want to find a topic which you are knowledgeable about -- but that is not related to your company or the specific technology you are involved with -- and "get your feet wet" making some helpful edits in that area for practice. Pick something that you enjoy like a hobby or a favorite author/entertainer/historical figure/etc. Do the work in your off-hours away from work so you can keep it separate from your job responsibilities. In this way you will learn more about how WP works both technically and socially/politically (yes, like all organizations we have our internal politics that must be navigated). Take your time, there is no rush.
Finally, as you are a marketing person may I suggest you spend your off-Wikipedia job time getting well-respected consumer-electronics journalists to examine and review your company's technology. Look at what magazines are being used in computer tech articles here to see who might be good to try and ask for a review. Be VERY sure these are not "compensated" or "paid-for" reviews (other than a free sample of the tech to review, which is normal in most industries). After two or three of these articles are published then you will probably (but no promises) have some good sources to help create a section under USB for this new tech (keeping in mind the suggestions to avoid COI). The more in-depth the review the better ... at WP we only write about what others have already written so the more details that are written the more you and others can write about the technology.

Good luck and happy editing. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 05:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Koala Tea Of Mercy,

Thank you! Glad to hear that.
I see, OK, sounds interesting. Then I will start to get my feet wet :-) About WP Politics, yes, it was quite surprising to see the enormuous articles about editing rules and others that have been developed throughout years.
Nice suggestion, thank you. Totally agreed, for work, I will start form this then. "At WP we only write about what others have already written..." - nicely said!

Thank you all for your attention and support. As being an Internet caveman who nevered joined any online community; after these attention, help and appreciation, it creates an interesting feeling inside that motivates to participate and contribute more.

Shoh 06:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shohruhjon (talk • contribs)

@Shohruhjon: What a nice thing to say! Many of us try to help new users but seldom is the appreciation said so warmly. Thank you! Enjoy your time at Wikipedia and keep today in mind when you run across difficulties. Sadly we have a whole range of editors and inevitably you will find conflicts. Always remember that there are many good and helpful people here despite the occasional pain-in-the-butts. Follow the rules and keep your cool and most important of all have fun. If it stops being fun take a break.

PS: I leave you with one last request... When you can, when you feel you have acquired the experience and skills to do so, help others who are new to Wikipedia. I happen to think it is the most rewarding thing a Wikipedian can do. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Koala Tea Of Mercy, I'm glad to receive your message. OK, I will. Thank you for your advices, I will keep them in mind. And about helping others when the time comes, no problem. I hope to reach that experience soon. And I will keep your last sentence in mind. Sincerely, Shoh 02:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shohruhjon (talk • contribs)

How to report a user involved in vandalism?

I happen to know a user who is notoriously active in deleting pages and having users blocked. After reviewing her talk age and contribution, it seems that this is what she does all the time. I checked her contributions to wikipedia in past 1 week it is 1 edit and past 1 month, it is 4 edits, but she has been quite active in Afd pages and nominating article for deletion. I have a doubt that she represents a firm that manipulated wikipedia entries for other firms/people for monetary return. Many other users share this belief and have attacked on her talk page for her vandalism, she seems to have been blocked previously 3 times from wikipedia. Where and how can I report her? Mridu (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND. The user you describe does not appear to be a vandal at all.

If she has to nominate the pages for deletion, then the pages were deleted by administrators who were chosen by the community because they know how things work here. In other words, the page deletions are not vandalism.

If she is not an administrator, she does not have the ability to block users, and so that means that the blocks were again carried out by administrators who know what they're doing.

If you have evidence (in the form of WP:DIFFs) which that this editor is engaged in paid editing, it's fine to present it. But if you do not, then you need to assume good faith instead of slandering what appears to be a good user. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mridusinha. To add to Ian.thomson's answer: understand that "vandalism" on Wikipedia means a deliberate, malicious attempt to harm Wikipedia. Being active in Wikipedia's deletion process is not deliberately malicious. (We would actually encourage more participation in our deletion discussions to get more perspectives on the issues.) Speaking generally, the response to vandalism typically begins with starting a dialogue with the editor you think is vandalizing Wikipedia. Go to their user talk page (search for User talk:<username>), then start a new section, identifying what edits you felt were unconstructive and asking them politely to stop, but don't directly accuse them of vandalism yet. When in doubt, you should always assume the editor is contributing in good faith (i.e. not vandalism) – perhaps there's more the the story you aren't aware of. The places to seek administrator attention on an issue is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if it is straightforward vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if it is more complicated. However, administrators will usually look for evidence that you attempted to communicate with the user before taking action. Hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for clarifying this. Mridu 05:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)

Posting on wiki

Dear Wiki Friends

Am just not able to post a simple article about my company Amsa Renal Care. Can anyone help.

Thanks,

Salauddin Salauddin.shaik (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Salauddin.shaik and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, if you work for or own the company you have a clear Conflict of interest, and you are probably considered a paid contributor. Under those circumstance it is best if you don't start the article at all. Secondly, for anyone to start an article about a company (or other topic) here, one must be sure that the topic is notable, a term which Wikipedia uses in a special sense. Basically, we consider a topic "notable" when multiple independent published reliable sources have covered the article in some detail (say at least 2-3 paragraphs each). This does not include directory entries or other passing mentions, it does not include press releases or news stories largely based on press releases, it does not include most blogs, fan-sites, or one-person sites. This does not include anything on the site of the company or its affiliates. This means mainstream news or magazine coverage, or other coverage of comparable reliability. Coverage may be online or offline.

Then, even if a company is considered notable, any article must be neutral. This means it must be factual, not promotional. Any opinions must be explicitly attributed to some specific person or entity, and backed up with a citation. This is what often proves particularly hard for a person with a COI.

So your best bet is to wait until someone else, someone uninvolved, considers the company notable and starts an article. If you still want to try, please use the Article wizard, and submit your draft to the articles for creation project. Don't forget to declare your conflict of interest as explained on the WP:PAID page. DES ^(talk) 14:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DeSiege. That was very informative. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salauddin.shaik (talk • contribs) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding links and needing captcha

Every time I try to add a weblink as a source, I am prompted to give a captcha. Will this always be the case?

Cantab1985 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia Cantab1985. When your account is four days old (about 1 day and 17 hours from now) you will be WP:autoconfirmed, and you will not have to enter captchas. —teb728 t c 10:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that answer.Cantab1985 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I need help on adding to a template

Hi, I am editing Template:Hong Kong weatherbox.

The template has a single weatherbox template there for Hong Kong. I found another weatherbox for Hong Kong's Airport, which was found in Climate of Hong Kong. I want to add it to Template:Hong Kong weatherbox in a way that lets editors choose between which weatherbox to display. I'm not sure which parser function to use - if or switch. Basically what I want to happen is that

If the template is written as

   {{Hong Kong weatherbox}}

with no value in parameter 1, then only the usual HK weatherbox will show.

If the template is written as

   {{Hong Kong weatherbox|airport}}

with

   airport

value in parameter 1, then only the airport weatherbox will show.

I don't know which parser function to use so I'm asking here

The weatherbox code (airport) is here on this page in hidden text.

Thanks Koopatrev (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Koopatrev. #ifeq can be used to display one thing for a specific parameter value and something else otherwise:

{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|airport|code for airport|code not for airport}}

But it sounds likely to cause confusion for editors updating a combined template. They could easily update the wrong table, and the page history would be hard to follow. I don't know whether any template in Category:Weatherbox templates uses such a system. I think a new template {{Hong Kong Airport weatherbox}} would be a much better solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Review an article I've created about My company ( currently under employment of the company )

Hi, I'm new to wiki

Most of the articles I've researched on don't recommend me creating a wiki page about my current company (conflict of interest ) , but seeing that this company have existed and contributed as a memory solutions provider for more than two decades, I have tried to write about this company in the fashion of neutrality and record its historic progression.

Editors at teahouse, please proof read / review this article in hopes to make this article public , Thank you Article in progress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:T.L_Cheng_(_ATP_Electronics_)/sandbox/ATP_Electronics

Any further action items or improvement suggestions is greatly appreciated! T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ) (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It uses the word "solutions" in each of the first three sentences. This suggests to me that it was written by someone who isn't sure what the company actually makes or provides. Electronic chips? Cloud storage? Something else? Maproom (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom, I will be more specific on my further editing of the article

Hello T.L Cheng, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all you need to declare your conflict of interest. Oh i see that you have done so -- not with our usual template (see WP:PAID) but what you have on your user page should be enough.

Secondly i agree with Maproom above. Drop "solutions", a marketing buzzword that only reduces clarity. The company makes memory or memory chips or RAM, not "solutions". Please say so.

Thirdly, I see that several of our sources are, or are very directly based on, press rleases. While such sources can be used to support specific facts, independent sources are preferred when possible, and non-independent sources do not help to establish notability, which is a major issue for most articles about corporations. Using more independent reliable sources will help. DES ^(talk) 11:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, T.L Cheng. A thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not interested - at all - in what a company (or any other subject) wants to say about itself, whether on its website, in interviews or press releases, or in a Wikipedia article. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have published about it. If you can find enough information about the company that people unconnected with it have published in reliable places, then there may be an article about the company, based almost 100% on those independent sources. If you cannot find such sources, then the company is not notable (in Wikipedia jargon), and no article on it will be acceptable, however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hubslide.com

I'm not really a new user but I have a question about the repeated addition of hubslide.com-pages as a reference in wikipedia articles by a user such as here. Is this website viewed as a reliable source? It looks like a user-generated website. - Takeaway (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Takeaway I would say "no" based on their | terms of use. This appears to be user based content with no editorial oversight whatsoever, therefore this would fail our reliable sources guidelines. That's not to say the information's wrong, it may be right for all I know, but because the source isn't reliable , it can't be used. Please read up on reliable sources in Wikipedia to see what makes a source reliable over here. KoshVorlon 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I was about to make a statement similar to that by User:KoshVorlon, and their terms of service confirms it. The information on many unreliable sources is true; it just isn't reliable if it isn't reviewed. More generally, if you have questions about the reliability of sources, you may ask at the reliable source noticeboard. I think that this one is answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! It's kind of what I thought when I scanned the site. Will go to WP:RSN in future if anything like this crops up again. - Takeaway (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Comment to Deletion Discussion

I want to add a comment to the discussion about an entry marked for deletion. How do I do that? Amygdala17 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Which article would you like to comment on? Bradv 17:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you tell us what AfD you want to comment on, we could help you more, but here goes...

Before you comment, look at the article and do a few Google searches to see if sources are available. Then make your own decision about whether you feel the article merits being included in this encyclopedia. Go to the edit tab and add your views at the bottom of the debate. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It is also a good idea, before you add your comment, Amygdala17, to read the previous comments in the discussion. You might be persuaded by one of them, or you might want to specifically address points made in one or more of them. DES ^(talk) 22:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at the Article for Deletion on the Dawn and Drew Podcast page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dawn_and_Drew_Show_(3rd_nomination)

I wanted to point out that Dawn and Drew have been announced as inductees to the 2016 Academy of Podcasters Hall of Fame, a point in favor of the page continuing since they are clearly seen as important to the history of podcasting, and still continue the show today Amygdala17 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

info box

After adding an info box how do I publish it so i can actually see it on the Wikipedia page? Victoria Mata (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Victoria Mata. Which article? If you add the proper wikicode for an infobox to an article, then the infobox will display immediately once you save your edit. Some editors do not like infoboxes and may remove them from some articles. If this happens, discuss the matter on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Danger of being tracked

The unregistered users (the ones who are not logged in), are in the danger zone they may belong to countries where there is limited freedoms and their views are treated like dissent, they need to be protected. -WindWalk55555 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That is true, and our guidelines about unregistered editors take note of that. It does appear, but this is only my guess, that editors in unfree countries understand privacy considerations better than some unregistered editors in the United States (many of whom know beyond knowledge that their privacy is better protected by unregistered editing than by registered editing). Do you have a suggestion to expand on our guidance to editors in unfree countries? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

To try to rationalize the thoughts of editors who refuse to register, they may be more concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation is spying on them than that the NSA is spying on them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing from such countries is clearly risky, WindWalk55555, but as Robert says, creating an account likely offers some protection (although I guess there are still risks if people's internet use is closely monitored). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

How to edit with a friend

Hello I'm working on a new article on Dearcurves fashion line and I'm thinking of doing it with a friend to combine our ideas together to make a good article but I don't know how pls helpLucy (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Lucy idegwu. The best way is for each of you to register with separate accounts. Then one of you starts a draft using the Article wizard, Then you can each work on the draft, perhaps each of you taking a single section, or just editing in turn. Divide it up how you like. But please try to make sure that the topic is notable and you have the independent published reliable sources to demonstrate it -- several of them -- before you spend any time on the draft. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

How to start a new topic?

I want to create a new topic! How can I do that without being getting it deleted? arjunc1997Arjunc1997 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Arjunc1997. Read Your first article to make sure the article you want to create is appropriate, and if it is, use the article wizard. But my advice is that before you even try to do one of the hardest tasks there is on Wikipedia - creating a brand new article - you get some experience of how it works by improving existing articles for a while. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, read Articles for Creation and develop a draft article which will be reviewed by experienced editors via the AFC review process, rather than attempting to create your article in article space. That way, if your first draft is not ready for acceptance (and it probably will not be, because creating new articles is hard), it will be "declined", sent back to you for rework, rather than deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Tinman (Nkx2-5) gene

I reviewed Draft:Tinman (Nkx2-5) gene. I declined it due to issues with the formatting of the references. I also asked why the gene is called ‘tin’ or ‘tinman’. I then received a talk page note, generated by pressing a button, with no further content, from User:Avery.brister, which I know asks for help. It appeared to me that what needed to be done was to insert a {{reflist}} template under References, which I have done, but that doesn’t solve the problem. It appears that the author may have caused the duplication of the references by the way that they defined them, because they put the references at the end with pointers to them, rather than including them in-line. Comments?

By the way, can anyone confirm that there is a guideline, in the process of being developed, that all human genes are notable? I support such a guideline, since I think that human genes are at least as notable as professional athletes (and genes may be part of what make the professional athletes notable). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon and Avery.brister. There is already an article on this gene at Tinman gene, so new material should be added there. From the looks of Category:Genes and Category:Human genes any gene with sufficient sources will have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft Better Than Article Question

Thank you. This raises a question that comes up from time to time. Sometimes a draft is submitted for which there is already an article, but the draft is obviously better than the article. AFC is not designed as a process to replace or improve articles, but, as its name implies, to create them. If the draft is clearly better than the article, is it necessary for the author of the draft to edit each of the improved parts of the article in order to maintain the history, or may the draft be copy-pasted in place of the original article? What might be best in terms of the history would be to delete the existing article and copy the draft, thus preserving its history (and deleting the history of the old article that no longer exists), but what deletion procedure can be used? What can be done in this situation (where the draft is clearly better than the article)? We don't want to make it burdensome for the author of the draft, who has already done Wikipedia a service. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Had this same issue a few days ago, and I asked for a history merge at WP:AN. That seems like the best option to me. Another option is to merge the articles, and add merge tags to the talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Any draft that covers the same topic as an existing article must be declined, regardless of the quality of either the draft or the mainspace article. Copy-pasting the draft over the existing article is never acceptable - AFC reviewers should know this. The draft author must be instructed to use their material to improve the existing article - the "exists" decline template includes such an instruction. If the draft author is unable or unwilling to do so, a proper merge can be done by any editor. (BTW, the fact that a gene has a specific name implies that sufficient sources do exist for it to be notable - because giving a gene a name by necessity means that at least one comprehensive academic journal article about it must exist. This is true of all genes, not only those unique to Homo sapiens sapiens.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

First, I was once told that an article could be copy-pasted over if the entire article was being replaced. I didn't think that was policy, but I appreciate the clarification. So it appears that the key is to request a merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)