Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 788

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 785

Archive 786

Archive 787

→

Wanted to clarify my claims on the authorship of a particular article

On 14 May, 2018 when I had autopatrolled rights, I created an article about a model actress called initially titled as Yaashika Aanand which was later changed as Yashika Aannand as of June 2018. But the article title was moved by other editors due to the confusive spelling of the actress mentioned by different references when I initially searched to create the article (known as Yaashika Aanand/Yashika Aannand/Yaashika Aannand/Yashika Anand/Yashika Aanand etc). Due to these page moves of this article by others, the article has been mentioned as an unreviewed one and also my Article List page revealed that the article with the title Yashika Aannand was deleted by an editor and later recreated by the same person himself. So I wanted to clarify that whether I would still be the actual author of the article or not? Please help me to clarify my doubts regarding this subject. Abishe (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "authorship", Abishe. This, like most Wikipedia articles, has been written by several people. Each of you have contributed bits of text and code to it, some small some large amounts. Each of you is the exclusive author of your respective contributions and a collaborative author of the whole.

Depending on how renaming articles is done, the article's history page usually retains the author record faithfully. If you go to the history page: Yashika Aannand, and click "oldest", you'll see that you are the first author of this article, even if you didn't start it under that name, because the renaming was done correctly.

In practice, who the author is does not matter. Each of you have agreed to the same license to your text that.

I'm a little curious as to why you're asking. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

New or existing Wikis

Do the following Wikis exist?

I would be happy to create the first one [ 1). ]; and I am asking if the second [ 2). ] is appropriate as a Wiki? I am wishing to further the cultural acceptance and change laws for the cause [euthanasia], and envision a Wiki as a central repository for scientific writings, anecdotal accounts, editorials, pleas, grass roots organization and Organizations, information about existing resources, and movements, and jurisdictional legal variations and successes, and real time easily editable and 'update-able' data. If a Wiki is not the correct approach I am asking for references to existing hubs where I can find more information about euthanasia for my friends with ailing parents, from you all reading this?

1). WikiRecovery: [Or WikiSupportGroups] A list of online support groups, for individuals who are dealing with both 12-Step Type issues, and diseases, or family with diseases. Also and group support for people link to locations and schedules for F2F meetings. In addition, it could be a place where new groups could be be requested and developed.

2) WikiEuthanasia: [Or WikiDyingwithDignity] -- Ronald A. Neff D.D.S. (talk) 11:56 am, Today (UTC+9)

Hi Ronald A. Neff D.D.S.. It's not clear what you mean by "Wiki". Do you mean an Wikipedia article? In Wikipedia speak, the term "Wiki" is often used as explained in the article Wiki to describe a particular type of website such as Wikipedia, but its not really used to describe individual articles. So, if you'd like to create you own "Wiki" for those particular subjects, then you probably can; however, Wikipedia is not really intended to be serve as a free web-host for projects such like that. If that's what you want to do, you should look into things such as Wikia, etc.

Now, if you are interested in creating Wikipedia articles on these subjects, then I doubt they would be considered appropriate for Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not just from the way you're describing what you want to do. Basically, an appropriate Wikipedia article is as described in WP:GOLDENRULE. Wikipedia already has articles about Euthanasia, Support group and Right to die, so it doesn't need more general articles on those subjects. You're more than welcome to try and improve/expand those articles if you'd like as long as adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particulary Wikipedia:Five pillars, when it comes to editing. If you do that, you'll probably be fine; if not, you'll probably start having issues with others fairly quickly. I can also see from your username that you are doctor (dentist?), so you actually might be able to help contribute to improving Wikipedia in quite a lot of different ways. At the same time, as explained in Wikipedia:Expert editors, you need to make sure not to assume that your opinions or knowledge should be given more weight than those of other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project with people from all over the world contribtuting, and all members of the Wikipedia community are basically the same and expected to adhere to the same policies and guidelines. Finally, your signature should go at the end of your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do that, please refer to WP:SIGN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ronald A. Neff D.D.S.. I'm pretty sure you meant the first of the possibilities that Marchjuly suggested: a completely separate wiki, with its own pages, contributors etc. If so, you can certainly do that either on something like Wikia. But here (or anywhere on Wikipedia) is not an appropriate place to discuss this, and certainly not to request help or appeal for members. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I contribute a photograph?

Re the information on Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) I want to contribute a photograph of a leucistic (white) mule deer that is frequently seen on our neighborhood in the Parker Colorado area. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookCrafters (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi BookCrafters. Wikimedia Commons is the central media repository for all the Wikimedia projects. Their upload wizard will guide you through the process of contributing your photo. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Redirects reverting without reason (?)

I am an electronics technician by trade. Recently I discovered the page of Requested Articles for electronics. As suggested, most of these just need a redirect to the right article. But often, when I put in a redirect and come back the next day, the redirect is gone and the link is red again. What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipveres (talk • contribs)

@Chipveres: Special:Contributions/Chipveres shows many redirect creations and you have not edited any deleted page since 2006 (by the way, your 12 years between edits is the longest I have seen). You failed to give an example so we can only guess what you refer to. My guess: The unidentified redirects are still there but you think they are gone because the old links are red. Pages are cached for performance reasons and may have to be purged to update between red and blue links. In this case you are not doing anything wrong. It's not a requirement to purge pages with old red links. It will eventually happen by itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

How to answer for an administrator's question?

How to answer for an administrator's question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixela (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you figured it out on Boleyn's talk page, Nixela, although Boleyn is not actually an administrator, just a very experienced user. On Wikipedia, willingness to communicate with other editors when needed is required. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Nixela Hi, good day. To reply / send a message to any editor, please insert {{ping|user name}} in any talk pages except on that editor talk page. In this case if you want to reply to Boleyn, just type {{ping|Boleyn}} (pls type manually and dont copy and paste). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Nixela Do note that ping does not generate a notification unless you sign the talk page comment as part of the same edit. Adding a ping to an existing comment does not work. You can also use {{tb}} (or the talkback feature of twinkle) to place a message on a user's talk page, alerting that user to a comment elsewhere. If a user has turned off "mention" notifications, this will still alert the user. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating taskforces of WikiProject, getting assessment stats etc

Hi all, I've started setting up taskforces for WikiProject Computational Biology, for regulatory and systems genomics and computational biology education so far: I've added a single article to each taskforce just to check that my modifications to the WCB template were successful, more articles will be added in due course.

The WP:USMIL task force cited in the taskforce examples suggests that it should be possible to get separate assessment statistics for each taskforce, I assume as a subset of the assessment statistics for the parent WikiProject - is this correct? And if so, what do I need to do in order to create the assessment statistics tables? I've attempted to update the project data for RegSys as a test, but the assessment tool says that RegSys is not in the database. I get the feeling I'm missing something quite basic, any help appreciated. Thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Amkilpatrick, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a response, though I can't offer you any guidance. You are to be congratulated for taking the initiative to enlist editors and promote topic improvement. I fear your question may be a little too technical for this forum and could perhaps be directed towards either the Help Desk or Village Pump (technical). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes, no problem, thanks for getting back to me! I'll try posting on WP:VPT, appreciate you pointing me in the right direction! All the best, Amkilpatrick (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please Help me find a botanical term and an existing page

There is a terminology for when due to secondary growth a tree engulfs surrounding foreign objects . But I forgot the term and can't recall it back. There was an Wikipedia page about the term; which contained an image of a tree engulfing a barbed wire fence; upto best of my recall. (The image was from side view, and not from oblique view). Today I searched a lot of page; but could not find the page. Please help me to find the term and the page. Thanks in advance.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome @RIT RAJARSHI:. The Teahouse is a forum to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, you may want to try the Reference desk. There are volunteers there who try to answer questions like yours. Hopefully this helps. Coryphantha Talk 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Coryphantha: I will ask it there.

Uploading new images to existing entry

Hi, I am having trouble adding a new image to the Stone Soup Magazine page. When I try to upload a more recent cover of the magazine (to replace the existing very old one), I get a message saying the wikimedia can't determine whether or not it is suitable content. There is no advice given on what to do next, or how suitability is determined (it is a children's magazine with appropriate cover material!). How do I go about getting this resolved? Grateful for any advice. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. E. Levi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

New user...spam or not?

Hello, I am new to Wiki and want to post this question to the community on what I feel may be a grey area and am looking for some direction.

I am related to a publishing/media site (not a paid editor) but also see myself as a genuinely caring person about the topic and content. As a result I try to add content to Wiki pages which I think are lacking in information and/or citations. Only having done a few posts and still not very familiar with the interface, I've already been cited and *warned* by another editor for posting a spam link. Naturally I will at least initially post references to the site I work with, but do not directly try to promote or discuss the site/company itself or myself. All posts/edits are made in relevant articles and on topic, content is unique to each article and no links are put in line (only as references).

I also understand and appreciate that links are nofollow and don't pass any "link juice" or affect any external page rankings. I understand the COI aspect of Wikipedia since you don't want to degrade content with irrelevant contributions which simply seek to get links up to poor quality sites/pages. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if this discourages people who are passionate authorities on a subject from contributing...especially when there are armies of editors out there slinging around opinions on what's "good" content or not. Aside from a time or quantity of edits, what establishes someone as a good editor? It's like not every Yelp reviewer is a professional food critique.

Question is, am i wasting my time? Regardless of any good intentions I may have to add information to Wiki, should I simply just not contribute because it will constantly be labeled as spam? I'm sure there are social adjustments/expectations when there's a system that allows any editor to edit anything....this would be a nightmare situation for a standard publishing practice. Maybe just need more patience or a thicker Wiki-skin?

Any thoughts appreciated. What's the best course of action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotoLoco76 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello MotoLoco76 and welcome to the Teahouse. Welcome to Wikipedia as well!

The value of passionate experts is that their expertise informs them where to find reliable sources on a topic. Contributions out of their own authority, based on the expertise in their heads, is not verifiable by interested readers, so cannot be used on WP. We expect every bit of information added to be something that can be verified. It's a central pillar of Wikipedia.

I haven't looked into your contributions in detail, but from your description of what happened you were considered to be in violation of the "external link" policies WP:ELNO. If you were adding links to the publisher you are connected with, whether or not you were explicitly paid to do so as part of your job, that would likely be considered a violation of our conflict-of-interest policy. There are plenty of areas where you can contribute that do not bring up conflict-of-interest issues, so I suggest you focus there as you gain a better understanding of what the community expects. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@MotoLoco76: I have looked a little more closely at your contributions, to be able to comment on them. Every edit you have made so far has involved adding links to the same website. Three different editors have, independently, reverted all those link additions, which means that you would almost certainly be wasting your time (and that of other volunteers) if you add any more links to that site. You said that [n]aturally I will at least initially post references to the site I work with but there is nothing obvious about that - and it looks very similar to the kind of editing where a user looks at an article to find a place to add a specific link, rather than finding a place in an article where information or a reference is missing, and then finding an independent reliable source for it. Finally, please read this policy which is vital, as is WP:CIVIL. This kind of thing is not acceptable. --bonadea contributions talk 19:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and quick responses! Learning a lot about the Wiki community. FWIW I went back to my talk post to apologize and clarify why I reacted the way I did only to find it was replied to with profanity. Said sorry anyway, but it looks like the short format of editor communication can lead to some miscommunications...especially without use of emoticons or other type of communication aids. Definitely something that would take a lot of getting used to and not for everyone.--motoloco76

You had titled your talk page addition "Content Gestapo?" It is no wonder they replied using profanities!! Theroadislong (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I left some notes for MotoLoco76 on his talkpage; he hadn't even been welcomed yet. Let's give him some slack, we could always use a great contributor in the WP:WikiProject Motorcycling space. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing Company Page as Employee

Hi!

I'm a marketing copywriter employed by Surescripts.

On my to-do list is working on the Surescripts Wikipedia page.

As an employee, I am obviously a COI editor.

However, if I adhere to Wikipedia's standards - verifiable third-party sources, stick-to-the-facts, non-promotional edits, etc. - can I reasonably update the page as an editor?

My plan is to make proposed changes in the Talk section of the company page, at first, rather than on the page itself. That way my proposed edits can be vetted.

Thanks for your feedback!

Sincerely, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbradley 81 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Cjbradley 81, You need to read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and follow the requirements there. ~ GB fan 20:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbradley 81 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Cjbradley 81:, I have also added a COI info tag to the article's talkpage. Clicking on "request corrections on or suggest content" it'll automatically add a template to your message to put it in our review queue for requested edits. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sounds great to me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbradley 81 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Two unrelated questions

First, how do I link to something with brackets in the title? And how do I disable this new editing interface with the colors? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi A lad insane. If you mean an external link with square brackets in the url then see Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters. You can replace [ by %5B and ] by %5D. I guess the colors you refer to is syntax highlighting. Click the pencil icon to the left of "Advanced" in the toolbar above the edit area. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Name/Signature: How do I make/edit this?

I’ve seen many different times that users have their username under responses in talk pages, like this one. I have also seen that these are usually very colourful and would possibly require large amounts of editing to put there by hand.

I would like to know how I can edit mine, which is very boring at the moment.

DragonSlayr^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again DragonSlayr15001; We're glad to answer your questions here at the Teahouse.

The page that describes what you can do with your signature is at WP:SIGNATURE. The place where you can change how your signature looks is on your Preferences page, "User Profile" Tab, under "Signature". Adding a signature is just a matter of adding four tildes or clicking on the signature box in your wiki editor. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That was pretty helpful. Now I would like to know how to color the text in the signature.

DragonSlayr^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you, though, I figured it out! Thanks for that! Now, I just need to change the background color...

DragonSlayr15001 ^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I did it. I finished my signature, thanks to you, jmcgnh, and a few others on the Teahouse. I will keep my old signatures here, just so you can see what it used to look like.

DragonSlayr15001 ^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 22:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix Spelling mistake

On the article Firebomb Kite I tried to correct the spelling of the word connected, spelled conected, which is in the description of a picture. When I did this, it created an error. I undid the correction, however, the word is still spelled incorrectly. I still don't understand how to edit properly. Maybe someone else could fix the spelling. Thanks.CalliopeMuse (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi CalliopeMuse. I clicked the "View history" tab at Firebomb kite and then the "prev" link at your edit to see the diff [1]. You also changed two file names but then the software cannot find the files to display them. You have to use the actual file name even if it has bad spelling. If you didn't make those changes yourself then your browser must have a spelling correction feature you should watch out for. "conected" is in a caption and not a file name so it's fine to change that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The error was caused by your changing the spelling in the file name itself. I fixed the typo you were referring to, but typos in file names can't be fixed without breaking everything. They're not visible to the average viewer, though, so it doesn't really matter as much. Thanks for being a WikiGnome, though! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.CalliopeMuse (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Bold, Italics, Underlines, and Strikethrough text

Does anyone know how to make text bold, italic, underlined, or striked?

DragonSlayr15001 ^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 01:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@DragonSlayr15001: See Help:Cheatsheet for how to do all that and more. RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Review my draft and please leave any comments or tips that you think will improve my paper. Thank you!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bchen1100/sandbox

I am trying to improve the current wiki cupping therapy page. Bchen1100 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bchen1100 and welcoem to the Teahouse. Here are a number of comments, in no particular order:

First of all, a Wikipedia article is not the same a s a traditional academic "paper", and this should be kept in mind.
When you refer to a scientific or medical study, you should mention in the prose the institution and/or researches who carried it out.
Source citations should provide full bibliographic metadata, including title of article, author, journal/newspaper/other periodical, date, page number if printed, and often publisher unless redundant with name of work. See Refrencing for Beginners.
The lead section never has a title
The article subject should appear in the lead sentence in bold.
When dealing with current medical topics (as opposed to historical ones() cited sources should comply with the strict WP:MEDRS guideline.
Is this a school project by any chance?
Other Wikipedia articles should never be cited as sources.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel,

Thank you for the feedback! Yes, this is a school project. I will make sure my final product reflects your feedback, it is insightful.

Bchen1100 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be part of https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Nor/ENGW_3307_Advanced_Writing_in_the_Sciences_B_(S) I'm not sure what the User:Bchen1100 intends to do with this sandbox, but comments on their experience editing Wikipedia are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If the sandbox is a proposal to change or add the contents of Cupping therapy then the appropriate venue would be Talk:Cupping therapy, when they have posted, albeit at the top of the page, not at the bottom, per WP:BOTTOMPOST, so their request for feedback may have been overlooked. Vexations (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Vexations. I had just spotted this from Bchen1100's contributions. It appears that the plan is to copy parts of this sandbox into the article, in multiple small edits. Thagt could be ok, but only if the citations are improved, and the soures are of good quality (which i haven't checked yet). Bchen1100, if you would like further, more specific assistance, feel free to post here or on my talk page. I was for a period an online course volunteer, but have not resumed since the new Education Dashboard was rolled out. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft of Cardiac Amyloidosis Addition Feedback

Hi! I would love it if someone could give some feedback my draft for an extension of the article Cardiac amyloidosis. The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patel.nikita17/sandbox. Thanks!Patel.nikita17 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Patel.nikita17, it isn't at all clear what you are asking. There is some content there that is obviously meant to be some sort of content in development, but it's unclear if it is supposed to be a re-write of an existing article (if so, what article?) or a new article. There is also considerable "talk" content intermingled there. If the talk is specific to what you are doing in the sandbox, please move it to the sandbox talk page. If there is more than one work in progress, please make a separate sandbox for each. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I have removed the 'talk' from the sandbox and am improving the existing article Cardiac Amyloidosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_amyloidosis. I would appreciate any comments or feedback for the additions I propose. Thanks Patel.nikita17 (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Book covers for article on related subject

Hi, I'd like to put some more images on the chaos magic page. The "founding text" of chaos magic, if you like, is the book Liber Null by Peter J. Carroll (1978). Am I allowed to take a picture of the book cover for Liber Null from Google images, upload it to wikimedia commons, then use it as an illustration on the chaos magic page? Also, what are the rules for using illustrations from inside a book in the same way -- off limits? Rune370 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rune370 and welcome to the Teahouse. Book covers are normally copyrighted, generally by the publisher. Therefor they cannot be uploaded to Commons, which only accepts content that is free of copyright claims, either in the public domain, or under a free license.

Book covers can be uploaded to en.Wikipedia, to be used under a claim of fair use. However each such use must comply with the Non-free criteria, which are rather strict. Book covers are often accepted for articles about the book, but usually not for other articles where the book may be mentioned, unless the cover image itself is discussed in the article. And of course all the other criteia must be complied with. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] The cover of the book and all of its contents will be copyright (unless the copyright owner, presumably Peter J. Carroll, has released them under a suitable and compatible licence, which seems very unlikely). Using illustrations from the book in any way would be an illegal breach of copyright, and would be very swiftly removed from Wikimedia Commons (where useful, non-copyright images are uploaded for use in (any language) Wikipedia).

An image of the cover could be used under the "fair use" criterion, but only to illustrate an article on the book itself (which we don't have at the moment). In that particular case only, a suitably low-resolution image could be uploaded to that article directly. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for a more detailed explanation.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rune370. The answer to your first question is, almost certainly not. Images uploaded to Commons must be free for reuse - either in the public domain (explicitly or by reason of age) or explicitly licensed with a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. It is very unlikely that a book cover from recent decades will be free for reuse in that way.

There are circumstances in which non-free images may be used; they must be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, not to Commons. In fact book and album covers are among the most common instances of this. But I don't think you will be able to avail yourself of that provision for this purpose, because if you look at the non-free content criteria you will see that criterion no 8 is

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

It has generally been held that this can apply to a book-cover in an article about the book itself, but not in another article which mentions the book (even an article about the author). --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not quite accurate that An image of the cover could be used under the "fair use" criterion, but only to illustrate an article on the book itself. If in an article about an artist, a book cover created by that artist is discussed, the cover might be usable there. or if in an article about an event, if the image of a book cover became symbolic, and was widely used to represent the event, and this was discussed in the article, an image might be used there. In general, if the cover itself is a topic of discussion in the article, supported by reliable sources, then it could be used as far as NFCC #8 is concerned. But that does not seem to be the case for chaos magic. (Unless the publisher/copyright holder was willing to release a version of the cover image under a free license, which seems quite unlikely). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Damn. Well, thank you for all the detailed responses, I appreciate the help. Always good to check these things. Rune370 (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a question. I have a comment about Ishmael in Wiki

The original Hebrew/Yiddish name for the above name is YSMAEL. That is the Hevrew/ or Yiddish form of that particular name. The Arabic form is with an I. The Jewish form is with a Y. Thus that name was originally Ysmael from the beginning and the Muslim Arab changed the first letter from Y to I, the Arabic form, that is how it is translated in Arabic. The name Ysmael means Israel. How do I know this? My name is Bobbi Ysmael. The family name is Jewish and that is the history of the name as WE know it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.108.232 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Because the history of Yiddish goes back less than 1000 years, it is of no relevance to the origin of the name Ishmael, which goes back to antiquity. As for the spelling in Biblical Hebrew, that of course should be discussed in our article Ishmael. Neither Hebrew nor Yiddish nor Arabic has a letter "Y" though they have various equivalents. Many scholarly sources tell us that the name Israel was a name originally given in his adult life to the Biblical prophet Jacob, while Ishmael was the name of one of Abraham's sons. Abraham, another prophet, was Jacob's grandfather in the Bible stories. Ishmael was therefore Israel's uncle, and they are not the same people in these ancient stories. These are two different names. Your family lore does not belong in Wikipedia. We rely on summarizing what reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Bobbi and welcome to the Teahouse.

While we love to answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia here in the Teahouse, we generally cannot help answer or respond to off-topic posts. The best policy-based answer I have for you is that the names of articles are based on how a thing is predominantly called in the relevant sources. Origins, subject's preferences, and other considerations may be given some weight, but overall we are supposed to follow WP:COMMONNAME. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe what my family tells me. I believe this to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.108.232 (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It may be, but personal knowledge is not a source accept here. See Wikipedia:But it's true!. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Query

1. How to close a talk page discussion just like AfD pages? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Harshrathod50. Most talk page disucssions don't really require a formal closing and the discussion typically continues on until people stop posting. Some talk page discussions, such as a WP:RFC, may require a formal closing which is done as explained in WP:CLOSE. In other cases, a discussion may be collapsed or hidden if it's deemed inapporpriate per WP:TPG#Off-topic posts, but usually it's not removed altogether except when there is a serous policy violation which needs to be removed. I suggest being careful when trying to close a discussion, especially if the discussion is contentious and you are one of those participating in the discussion. In such cases, it's probably best to just as for assistance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

2. After I upload a free image here? And I add another cropped revision of it. What is the hack (source code) for using either of them? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: Please post a new thread next time you want to add another unrelated question. Does Help:Pictures answer your question? (It is hard to give you more detailed instructions without details.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

online addictive

How can we help our up coming generation from additive of using internet.For now there are millions of people who visit different website and only for joy,seriously this is weakening our mind and making us lazy even if its useful to us....??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccanotha (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mccanotha: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This forum is for asking questions about using Wikipedia only, and is not meant for general discussion. Your question would be more appropriate for a website designed and intended to discuss societal issues; this is a website that hosts an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Review Draft

Hello, I'm a student Wikipedia editor and I would appreciate if anyone could review my draft before I post it to the main space. Here is a link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joannaberg4/sandbox My article begins at Section 9. Thank you! Joannaberg4 (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A little thing - punctuation goes before the start of the reference.

A big thing - for medical and health topics, Wikipedia STRONGLY prefers meta-analyses, systematic reviews and reviews over primary research, the latter including individual clinical trials and animal research. All that has to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles WP:MEDRS for referencing guidance.

Another big thing - some of your sections have no citations.

Rather than create content on probiotics, I recommend providing a hyperlink to the probiotics article. That way, you can have a short summary in the article you are creating.

Any mention of prebiotis orsynbiotics is a reach. Delete all.

Although this all sounds harsh, I feel that in general you have the core of a good new article. David notMD (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Concerned Intern: Wikipedia Photos and Citations

Hello, internet! I am interning at a non-profit this summer and one of my tasks is to work on their Wikipedia presence. I need to upload a picture of a witness to her corresponding Wikipedia page. How do I do that?

I have another question about the page about their archive (The Memory of Nations archive). The article keeps getting rejected because I don't have "enough" reputable sources, but the issue is, most of the sources I can find are in Czech, therefore, I cannot read them. I need to get this Wikipedia page published. What are some tips? Why is it that my sources aren't enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinley.knowles (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Brinley.knowles: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, if you haven't already please review and formally comply with the conflict of interest policy. If you are a paid intern, you will also need to review the paid editing policy(that is mandatory per Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid).

Also, please understand that Wikipedia is not concerned with any organization's "online presence". If you (and your organization) are only interested in spreading the word about what you do, that should be done on a website owned by your organization, or on social media. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell the world about things. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, that indicate how it is notable. Primary sources like any materials put out by your organization can only be used in certain, limited circumstances(mostly for things like location, number of employees, etc.).

From what I see, your draft was rejected not because the sources are in Czech(which would not be an issue by itself), but because they are not independent reliable sources and did not indicate how the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines it. You may be able to use Google Translate to help you read the sources. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Maybe the word presence wasn't the right word. There are Wikipedia pages about them in existence but as by no means fully accurate, especially in English. I am also unpaid so that shouldn't be an issue. Would you mind maybe explaining how images can be uploaded? I'm not sure I understand all the copyright requirements and the steps to uploading said images. Thanks so much for the help! Brinley.knowles (talk)

@Brinley.knowles: You will still need to formally comply with WP:COI; a good place to do so is on your user page(click your username) and it's a good idea to do so on the article talk pages of articles you are interested in changing. You have acted properly in creating and submitting a draft; if you wish to edit existing articles, you should submit edit requests.

Information on uploading images can be found at this page. Others likely know more about it than I do, but you will have to make sure that you have the authority to grant use of any images from your organization here(I'm not certain, but I suspect as an intern that you probably don't have such authority). Uploading an image here means that you grant certain rights to Wikipedia for use of the image, depending on the license of the image. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Okay! Thanks so much! Let's say the organization wants to upload the image themselves how would they go about doing that? Brinley.knowles (talk)

@Brinley.knowles: Someone in your organization with the authority to grant permission to use images needs to register an account here, comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID(if paid) and review WP:DCP to learn what donating an image for use here actually means, and then following the procedure described at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Brinley.knowles Interns, even if not actually paid, are all considered to be paid editors because their internship evaluations and thus their future job prospects may be at stake. You must comply wiht WP:PAID and make the required disclosures, preferably using the template {{paid}}, before you do any further editing on this topic. Otherwise you will be blocked from editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

New musician

Hey hi there I’ve come across a U.K. musician I think deserves a wiki page he’s also verified on Instagram I searched his name on goodlgle and realised a lot of people have been looking for his wiki page but he currently does not have one. I’m new to wiki could any one help me out in publishing a page for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandie20182018 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sandie20182018: Verified on Instagram doesn't matter. People looking for a Wikipedia article about him doesn't matter. What matters is notability, which is whether or not there are multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject (not just mentioning in passing or primarily about something else) but still not affiliated with nor dependent upon the subject (so the musician's website does not work, nor would a page on their record label).

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, :Sandie20182018, I would agree with the above, except that due to recent rule changes I now advise new editors not to use the Articles for creation process, but rather to simply post in draft space and ask one or more experienced editors for an informal review. Due to recent revisions of WP:NMFD the rule now is that A draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy. There is no standard for how many submit/decline cycles is too many, or what constitutes "substantial improvement". One editor who participated in drafting this change has stated that two re-submissions (three total submissions) is enough. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No rights for IP

Why can’t IP users create pages or use Userboxes? 71.219.141.37 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't use userboxes. What error do you get when you try to use one? Only autoconfirmed users may create a new article. You can use the article wizard at WP:YFA to create a draft article to be reviewed. RudolfRed (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

None. The edits were reverted. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The userbox question comes from thie edit by Ponyo. ~ GB fan 19:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP was adding the userboxes to an IP user talk page, not their user page. Per WP:OWNTALK "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia" and the Userbox usage guidelines state they are "designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page" (emphasis mine). In addition, the IP is dynamic and when it cycles through to a new user the misplaced userboxes will be useless. When I removed the misplaced userboxes I noted that they could create an account if they wanted to create and personalize a user page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

But I can’t create a user page. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A user page is intended to be permanently associated with a specific person. IP addresses are not permanent, not even static ones, and dynamic ones may change quite often. If you want an user page you will have to create an account. An account is free, and does not require you to reveal your off-wiki identity. In fact, it actually protects your privacy better, because an IP address may reveal your physical location or geographic area, depending on your internet connection. An account also allows a continuing record of your edits, and thus a reputation here. However, if you do create an account, I advise you to supply and confirm an email address. It does not need to be your primary email. But if you ever forget your account password, an email is the ONLY way to reset it. An email is not required, but in my view it is foolish to omit one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A user page for an IP address would often be meaningless. Unregistered users may have a different IP address tomorrow or in five minutes while somebody else may get their old IP address, or many people may share the same IP address. Even a static IP address with one person doesn't last forever, e.g. when people move or get a new Internet connection. I had a static IP address, didn't move, and kept the same ISP but one day they sent me a new router (the old one wasn't even broken) and I got a new "static" IP address. It didn't matter because I never relied on the IP address for anything. If you want a user page then create an account. It's easy, free and has many benefits, and the user page is yours forever. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is favoriting registered users by giving them more rights. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that registered users have more rights. If you wish to avail yourself of them, you may register a username. It also hides your IP address from public view, which some find helpful. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Put yourself in my shoes. How would you feel about this if your me. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would feel that it only made sense to register an account. Many websites don't even allow anyone to post comments without first registering. But that is your choice. For a period of about 2 years i edited only occasionally, never logging in. I chose to accept the limits this put on my posting, although I had an account in perfectly good standing. I now choose otherwise. There is essentially no cost or burden put on you in asking you to register. Nor are you prevented from doing any of the key activities of editing if you choose not to. But a number of tools are not available to those who do not register and log in. In many cases, such as the user page issue, this is because there is no reasonable and reliable way to be sure that a person with a given IP address is the same person as the one who previously posted from that address. But those are the rules of this site. You can argue at the Village Pump to change them if you like. Or you can use an account. or you can live with the (quite mild) restrictions on those who do not. Your choice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd feel like creating an account and getting my own user page, and you can get one too. You're certainly welcome to create an account, all you have to do is sign up, and as PrimeHunter said, it's free. Coryphantha Talk 00:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We have 34 million user accounts. I don't know of any website where unregistered users can make a user page. It sounds like an oxymoron to me. Most (not all) benefits for registered users are only unavailable to IP's because they rely on the software being able to distinguish you from other users. You are not asked for any information to create an account. Pick a username and password and that's it. An email address is optional. We are not a commercial site looking to sell your data or advertise to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Flip that over and look at it, IP user. How would you like it if your IP address had a userpage, and another user of the IP plastered it with userboxes representative of a position diametrically opposed to yours? John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: When responding, bear in mind that OP was previously blocked with the rationale "if you weren't a troll, you shouldn't have acted like one." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No Ian, you blocked me for editing talk pages. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you just don't understand what you're doing. That or you're a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please review my article

Hi! I've just published my first article, please review it and provide feedback if possible. The article is ROHHAD Clairemchugh (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Clairemchugh, and welcoeme to the Teahouse. Here are some quick observations in no particular order:

Wikipedia articles should not be titled with acronyms unless that is the most commonly used term, as shown in English-language reliable sources.
As this is a medical topic, sourcing should comply with WP:MEDRS. It looks to me as if some of these sources are PRIMARY, individual studies. Those are not favored for such purposes here.
Dates in citation tempaltes can use an all-numeric form only if a complete date in yyyy--mm-dd format is used. If only year and month is present, use words for the month.
|website= in citation templates should always give the name of the site, never the domain or URL, unless there is no name other than the domain.
Do not use the first= and last= parameters for roles such as "Super User" or "Staff Writer", only for the actual names of actual people. "User, Super" is not a helpful designation.

I hope these comments are helpful. Thank you for contributing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The article ROHHAD is ten years old, and the first editor is Dirty29er, I think Clairemchugh meant to say that she'd like her edits reviewed. Coryphantha Talk 19:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, Clairemchugh, I didn't look at the history of ther articel when i should have.

I see that in this edit you greatly expanded the list of symptoms and added sources, which is good. The cite to Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism had an invalid date, but that is easily fixed.
In this edit you removd the paragraph containing the text Paired-like homeobox 2B (PHOX2B) was confirmed in 2009 as the disease-causing gene in patients with congenital central hypoventilation syndrome (CCHS and the source citatiosn which supported it. it may be that these sources were not good enough, and the text should ahve been removed, but you did not indicate why you removed this, or even indicate the removal, your summary was added rest of content. That is not good enough. You included the text It is believed that ROHHAD originates from a combination of genetic and environmental or immunological factors without saying who believes this. Some of the sources added appear to me to be PRIMARY and probably not WP:MEDRS compliant.
In this edit you removed sme synonyms from the infobox without explaining why.

Various other changes look good to me. This is still a rather superficial review. I hope it is more helpful than before. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

.svg upload gone wrong

I uploaded File:Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario logo.svg, and the image turned all black. Here is the original image: https://www.richmondhill.ca/en/images/structure/logo.svg

Could someone tell me why this happened? If it's irreversible, I could probably just find a .png version. Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 00:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, VerifiedCactus, it's good to see you back at the Teahouse.

I'm not sure what you are seeing. That logo, as uploaded to Wikipedia, renders just fine for me. Just remember that, as a non-free image, this logo cannot be used in user space or draft space. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: "all black" sounds like it's just a big black rectangle. Comparing your links in Firefox, I guess you mean the text is black at File:Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario logo.svg instead of green in https://www.richmondhill.ca/en/images/structure/logo.svg. The originally uploaded file Media:Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario logo.svg has green text for me. Our software converts svg files to png files when they are displayed. I don't know why the color changed in this process. Maybe the svg file didn't follow some standard. You could post to Wikipedia:SVG help. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: Hello! The software that is used to convert SVG files into PNG files for display has some odd quirks to it. The SVG you uploaded was fine according to the SVG standard, but the conversion software is a bit more strict (Details are at c:Help:SVG#Stylesheet and phab:T68672. At this point, it's probably safe to call it a longstanding bug, but it appears that it will be fixed fairly soon. In the future, WP:SVG help is often a better place for questions about SVGs. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for changing it! The Verified Cactus 100% 23:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

My-custom-userbox.exe has crashed

Not literally.

My latest userbox, which I created myself, is not looking like it should, and some of the code used doesn’t seem to work. Can someone help me with this?

The userbox in its current state is found on my user page, and I have put a similar discussion on my talk page.

Thanks in advance, DragonSlayr ^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DragonSlayr15001. You have been an editor for a month. You have made thirty five edits to User, User Talk, and Wikipedia space, and given yourself an obtrusive signature with illegible links. I would like to suggest that you stop playing about with your user page and actually do some of what we are here for - help create an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I made some fixes [2] but suggest you use {{Userbox}}, and make some encyclopedia-related editing. So far you are just using the time of others without contributing anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I know what this site is about, but I honestly do not know what to edit. At all.

DragonSlayr^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@DragonSlayr15001: Since you appear to enjoy various games, both video games and other, you could see if there's any article in Category:game stubs or its subcategories that you believe you could improve. Or if you'd prefer, you could look through said category to figure out what game stubs are video game stubs and update the template at the bottom so they get sorted to the video game specific stub category. (Which is quite easy: all you need to do is change the {{game-stub}} at the bottom of those articles to {{videogame-stub}}) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)