Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 837

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 830

←

Archive 835

Innocent Pictures Deleted :(

Hallo! It's Tathariel Amluglain, and I uploaded photos of book covers made by an author I was making a page for. I also uploaded her author photo and a picture of her favorite book character, and they were also deleted.

The claim was potential copyright violation, but I listed the links I got the images from, which were from the official sites of the author and fan art artist. I also listed who made the cover images and what books they were on, as well as the authors name in the description.

I don't know what I could have done to prevent potential copyright issues. Thoughts? Maybe I could've unknowingly done something wrong, or didn't know to do something because I'm so new.

Thanks for your time, TA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tathariel Amluglain (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tathariel Amluglain and welcome to the Teahouse.

You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding about copyright. You can, at least currently, link to, describe, or otherwise refer to a photo or image or book that is available on the web without violating copyright. But copying, as you did, still violates copyright. Wikipedia is extremely sensitive to copyright violations - if we were not, it could become the basis for an action that would shut us down. Only a very limited set of web content has been licensed in such a way that it can be copied to Wikipedia.

The best advice to follow, for the moment, is to only upload photos that you have taken yourself of natural objects. Taking photos of buildings, people, books, record covers, and other art works is, in some part of the world, going to not be compatible with uploading to WP or to Commons. As you get more experience, or as you get to a specific task, you can ask about what's allowed or not, but it can get very detailed and only a few people on WP can claim to be an expert on every aspect. It's also possible to use non-free content in very limited ways, which you can begin to explore at NONFREE. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Willow Marie Perrin It has been rejected for multiple reasons. The most important is that no one has written ABOUT Willow Marie Perrin. Only if there are sufficient numbers of independent, published articles about a person can they potentially meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and hence an article. David notMD (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

jmcgnh, it is perfectly acceptable to take photos of buildings as seen from public places, and people appearing at public events, and to upload those photos to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: True in the U.S. and a lot of other places, but in some countries Commons doesn't know what the c:Freedom of Panorama status is and will take down the photo. I've had it happen to me when I picked up a Flickr photo of a building that otherwise looked eligible but was taken in one of those countries. This is an example of why I've said "copyright is too complex for mere mortals". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I conducted a newspaper search for "Willow Marie Perrin" and came up empty. Anobium625 (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Administer, crat

I have a doubt. When a user become admin, do he lost his other user rights in wiki(rollback, reviewer, etc)? Is Beurocrat has the right of administrator?--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Path slopu. All these other rights are included in the administrator toolkit, and so there is no need for a user to have them if they have the administrator permission. The Bureaucrat right is a separate right entirely, and while it is not required by policy that a crat be an admin, in practice, all crats are also admins, since the standard for obtaining the right is similar but with a higher threshold for community consensus. GMG ^talk 14:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:I have one more doubt. Which one is higher position- admin or crat?--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Path slopu. Bureaucrat is overall the more advanced permission, as they are the individuals who may assign and remove administrator rights. GMG ^talk 14:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Path slopu, there is no hierarchy of "higher" or "lower". Admins are people who have been given rights to perform certain operations, because the community has decided they can be trusted with those rights, that's all. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Umm...I mean, crat is the more advanced user right, as it is the user right that adds and removes sysop, and with a higher standard for entry. Just as steward is the more advanced user right than either, with all of the access of the previous two, but with additional access, and access across projects (even though community norms preclude them from using that access in many situations). So long as de jure or de facto policy makes sysop a prerequisite to crat, OS, CU, TA, steward...umm...global sysop...(is that all of them?) then these are all de jure or de facto more advanced permissions. GMG ^talk 18:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's not 100% correct. Being a local crat is not a requirement to be a steward. So they're not strictly hierarchical in that respect. But being a local admin is. GMG ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo and ColinFine:Thank you for your valuable advice.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 01:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Problematic edits

(Are experienced editors allowed to ask questions here? If not, please move this somewhere more appropriate.)

I was doing a search for "You Tube" (incorrect formatting) and came across two edits by Notthebestusername which cited https://www.youtube.com. This, of course, is incorrect, because it's the YouTube homepage. (Both edits were no longer recent when I reverted them.) I have had to re-revert after my edits were undone in both cases: on Mukesh Ambani, because the link was restored without correction for some reason; but also on Tobacco, because the link to YouTube was replaced with a link to an old Reddit post which links to a page that no longer exists. (I provided edit summaries in all four of my reverts; see page histories.)

Furthermore, the talk that's mentioned – presumably [1] – is completely inappropriate as a source (and especially in this context), because although Noam Chomsky could be used as a reliable source in some contexts, in this video he was speaking at a lecture, in 1995; was actually talking about the American federal government's regulation of marijuana; and didn't cite his sources for claiming that tobacco was "the second-most lethal substance". Finally, parts of the text that was cited were clearly directly lifted from the video without attribution, and I removed all of the cited text because it didn't really contribute any actual information to the section.

In another of their recent edits, they were reverted by SamHolt6 for adding incorrect information, using incorrect terminology, and breaking the flow of First Opium War's lead section. (Other various edits: unnecessary talk page creation; general formatting/capitalization issues, citation of primary sources and introduction of obscure and unexplained acronyms.)

Does Wikipedia have a formal process for handling this sort of somewhat problematic editing, other than raking people over the coals? I don't really want to do that if it's not warranted, and I've never really had to deal with this sort of thing before. (Notthebestusername joined in 2013 and has never been blocked. I believe they generally edit in good faith and not all of their edits are like those above, but I'm concerned that errors like these are being made fairly regularly after five years of editing.) Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jc86035 (1). Anyone can ask a question at the Teahouse, it's that most of the people asking questions tend to be newer less experienced editors so the corresponding response tend to be more general explanations/guidance than super-detailed response.

As for your question, basically my approach is to Wikipedia:Assume good faith as much as possible and try to engage the other editor via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if it's a general content dispute, but also make use of one of the more topic-specific noticeboards listed in Wikipedia:Noticeboards when I feel feedback from others might help resolve or clarify things; in some cases, you might even find out that the other editor is correct. Serious policy or guideline violations (for example, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Copyright violations, etc.) often require an immediate response, but this can be followed up with a post/Wikipedia:User warning on the user's talk page explaining what the problem was and why it needed to be fixed. You cannot control how others respond to your edits and your posts; so, all you can do is be Wikipedia:Civility and try to explain the problem the best as you can. If the other editors doesn't respond or responds in a Wikipedia:Battleground type of way, there is unfortunately often no alternative other than to seek out administrator assistance at one of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or by posting a request on an administrator's user talk page.

In this particular case with respect to this and this, it looks like a simple misundertanding that should be able to be easily resolved through article talk page discussion. You're correct that linking to YouTube's main page is pointless; so, just use the article talk page to explain this and request that a link to the actual YouTube interview be provided instead. YouTube content can be a reliable source in some cases per Wikipedia:Video links and interviews also can also sometimes used per Wikipedia:Interviews, but a link to the actual interview is needed to assess it's suitablity as a source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jc86035 (1), just a note here. I am notthebestusername [It is just one person :00]. I live in China, and whenever I find interesting interviews made by reliable sources, I often make an edit in the relevant Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, since you tube and many such websites are blocked in China, I use a vpn to access the same. Trouble is - you cannot log into Wikipedia with a vpn as it's algorithms imagine it to be a suspicious device! My practical solution (used by many of us wikipedans in China) is to do Wikipedia edits on a separate computer and use a vpn on a different computer. While this usually works well, this prevents us from giving the exact url (of you tube / google books) for the citation. Hope that cleared this matter. I can give the you tube url with a little extra work (copy it into a file, then paste it on logging off from the vpn, using the file as a sandbox) - it is a pretty pointless arduous chore for what is a voluntary service being provided by us Wikipedia volunteers.

Hope that clarified the above. Incidentally, often I am able to find better citations which I then use instead of interviews (example: from Harvard, Columbia, Jstor, WaPo, Guardian, and many others, all of which are openly available in China), but sometimes, I look forward to other wikipedans to fill in the gaps by adding the exact url and thus helping each other :) Notthebestusername (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Notthebestusername: While your situation might be a bit difficult, the WP:BURDEN is still upon you to provide a proper citation in support of content you're adding to articles (particularly BLP articles); otherwise, there's a good chance that it will either be tagged as a problem or removed by another editor. Moreover, while it might be easier to just simply link to YouTube's main page, that really doesn't help at all per WP:V. So, as arduous as it might seem, you should try to clarify the citations you add better, so that at least others can figure out what is actually be cited. If you have problems adding certain web addresses, try to avoid using {{Cite web}} since that requires a url be added to work properly; perhaps instead you can use another template like {{Cite interview}} or {{Cite AV media}}, or even just follow WP:SAYWHERE. You can also always add a clarification as a hidden note to the article syntax or post something on the article's talk page which explains what the actual url address is so that perhaps someone else can add it instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly - Yes, your suggestion of using {{Cite interview}} or {{Cite AV media}} sounds much better. I will do that. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit blitz?

Hello, Rebestalic here (again).

I feel that it might be time for a big editors' event; maybe it should be in the theme of a one-day or one-week edit blitz in where every editor that has seen the alert is challenged to edit as much as possible, in the same manner of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout and blitz chess.

Is this the right place to ask or should I go to the Department of Fun?

Rebestalic (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Rebestalic. There are fairly often such edit-a-thons hosted throughout the world. These are often sponsored and organized by individual WikiProjects, like WikiProject Military history or WikiProject Women in Red, and focus on getting groups of like minded editors together to work on subject areas where they share interests and experience. If you're interested in such events, finding interested editors from an active WikiProject is probably a good place to start. GMG ^talk 10:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPP/S

Hi! Are there only two trainers at new page reviewer school, or are there some other unlisted ones as well? Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Knightrises10. Yeah, it doesn't look like that idea in particular ever really got off the ground. But I've reviewed a few thousand articles, and I'm sure others here have as well, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. GMG ^talk 11:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Hi! Thanks :-) I'll ask you if I need some help. Thanks again - Knightrises10 (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Make real article from draft

How to make real article from DRAFT: I do not see any possibility to move page in another "namespace". It looks like ability to "move" pages is disabled forme Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamTheFirst (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi LiamTheFirst, and welcome to the Teahouse. Most pages can be moved by any editor who has the access level autoconfirmed, that is, has been here for four days and has made 10 edits. Sam Sailor 06:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

LiamTheFirst you have only been here for 11 hours. You can't move anything until your account is autoconfirmed (4 days) and you made 10 edits. Feel free to always ask 6Packs (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Range block

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi administrators.

I clicked on the treehouse because I didn't know what page to tell you what i'm about to say on.

So basically I have been editing a wikipedia page from my laptop, which is the only page I have edited on with it. Then on Sunday, when i was logging on to continue editing my page, it said that my ip had been banned from editing wikipedia pages and that the ban was in place until August 2019, and that i couldn't edit any other Wikimedia article until 2021. I didn't understand what was going on, so i emailed one of the Wikimedia stewards, who explained some things about that my ip had been used to edit other pages and vandalise pages, as well as that lots of innocent users are caught out by this.

He also told me to ask you whether or not i am eligible for the 'ipblock-exempt' group, and that when I am added, that i should check if i can continue to edit. Then the story took another twist.

Today, just before I started writing this help question, I checked the page to see if I could edit, and it turns out that I could, and there were no signs of anything to do with a ban. So I am really confused about what to do.

If it is just my location of where I am now to where I was on Sunday, or any other reason that I am still banned, can you check if I am eligible to be on the list, and add me if so, even if my ip is not blocked anymore.

Basically can you just help me get back to normal on here.

Many thanks,

TheKnowledgeMaster1738 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKnowledgeMaster1738 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, TheKnowledgeMaster1738. I am not an expert on this; but what I know is that your IP is not you, but the address of where you are currently connected to the internet. (If you only ever edit from a single computer, which is hard wired to the network, you might always have the same IP address, depending on how it is set up; but even then it might change from time to time. And if you move around and connect to different networks, you will certainly have a different IP address each time). So it is not you that have been blocked, but the network you were connected to on that occasion. Last week I was using an open network at the Eden Centre, and was a bit miffed to discover that I couldn't edit, because the IP range was blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is some place that you will edit from on a regular basis, you can ask for an IP block exemption (what the steward was asking about) by following the directions at WP:IPBE. shoy (reactions) 17:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Creation of an article: Akihiro Yamada -Wikipedia

Dear Administrators/Friends/Ammarpad/Stormy clouds,

I have found in a 'Teahouse' page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Teahouse/Questions/Archive 835#Creation of an article: Akihiro Yamada -) the following: 'Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.70.66 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Here is the archived query in question. Essentially, the IP asked about the creation of an article about themselves in en.wikipedia.org, translated from their entry in ja.wikipedia, but was aware that they could not create a translated autobiographical article themselves owing to the obvious conflict of interest. They were subsequently advised to refrain from editing matters related to themselves, and advised of the potential pitfalls of an article about one's self. Finally, the ultimate advice given, which still stands, is that, if a subject is notable enough to merit an article, someone else will create it. If this is not satisfactory, consider requesting a translation. Given the existence of the Japanese article, the inertia to create an English one, given sufficient coverage in reliable sources, is likely lower than from scratch, but such a request would still be heavily scrutinised, and the downsides of an article would still persist. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)'

In my original message is as follows: 'I am glad to find online a Japanese entry about me: ‘山田昭廣 - Wikipedia’. However, I think that an English entry would be of more use since I am a specialist of English literature, especially Shakespeare. I know that I am not entitled to create an English entry titled ‘Akihiro Yamada – Wikipedia’ myself. So I wish you to be a host for it on your website. What I would like to state in it is very short and the text would run as follows: Akihiro Yamada (born 1929 in Nagoya) is a Japanese scholar specializing in English literature and bibliography. He published some twenty books on Shakespeare and his contemporaries. For more information, visit him at http://researchmap.jp/yamada-akihiro-6002/?lang=english'

Many thanks for your comments. English-speaking specialists will find the Japanese version of little use, so for their benefit (and mine) I am proposing an English version, though very short (which you may expand by visiting me at the provided URL). The English version will be of great use to them who would share academic interest with me in order to advance scholarship, simply by clicking the Wikipedia. I am afraid that a mere translation of the Japanese version, primarily addressed to Japanese scholars, will be of no use to English-speaking specialists. I do not know if I am 'notable enough to merit an article' but may I mention that you will find me in various editions of Marquis *Who's Who in the World* (U.S.A.) as well as in various publications of International Biographical Centre in Cambridge, U.K. I really hope that there will be a volunteer willing to be a host of this entry. Best wishes. Akihiro Yamada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.70.66 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Page Name

how do I edit the Wikipedia page name? I can see how to edit the content within the page but our event has been re-branded so we need to change the page name as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoagclassic (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Per comment on your Talk, you must change your User name away from the name of the event (golf tournament) before you can be unblocked. And then you will need to comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I need help on a new article. Am I doing things correctly?

Your First Article - Intro says "Biographies of living people are among the most difficult articles to get right."

I want to make sure that I'm doing things correctly. Thanks. Here's the link: Draft - Mark Alpert.

AltoStev (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, in some ways, AltoStev, but not really. The very first step in writing a new article is to find several places where people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write at some length about the subject, and been published in reliable places. Unless you can find this, it is not worth your time writing anything, because the subject does not satisfy our criteria for notability, and no article will be accepted, however written.

It is possible that Alpert is notable in Wikipedia's sense, but nothing in your draft establishes this. Note that Goodreads is user-generated, so not regarded as a reliable source; the bio on Freshfiction.com appears to be contributed by the subject themselves (see http://www.freshfiction.com/faq.php#FAQ12); I'm not sure how teenreads works, but I doubt that the bio there can be shown to be independent, and in any case it's not very detailed. I think Kirkus reviews is regarded as a reliable site, so the review would help to demonstrate that the book reviewed was notable, but there's not enough there to do that for the author, in my opinion.

There are one or two minor issues about your draft: what somebody is noted for is a matter of opinion, so an article should not say it in Wikipedia's voice (though it can quote an independent source that says this). Also, we don't use chatty expressions like "it's" and "right now" in articles. But these can be fixed. The question of notability needs to be addressed before anything else. --ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is where I would really focus: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Primarily, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. and drill down from there. The coverage bar is high. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I publish a picture on Wiki

I have heard you have to add a source but I don't know to edit the pictures of other people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibudaqueen (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sibudaqueen. Generally, the images we use here are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. To upload a photo, it has to be licensed under a free license, where anyone can edit or use it, as long as they provide attribution – say who created it, and in most cases publish it under the same license. You'd either have to take the photo yourself, or convince the photographer to upload it to Commons.

If the photo already is on Commons, you can find simple instructions at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. /Julle (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Verification

Hi there, how do you add a verification in the footnotes or reference list? How do you verify a reference given? Thanks.

Hello. Please read Identitfying reliable sources and Referencing for beginners. If you have more specific questions, please come back to the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

How to remove redirect

I want to know the information regarding how to remove redirect for a page.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram444 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sriram444 and welcome to the Teahouse. It might have helped if you had linked to the page you're asking about, and explained the reasoning behind your request. Because you didn't do that I can suggest two scenarios, and you can read more at WP:REDIRECT and especially the sub-section within it called "When should we delete a redirect?".

Firstly, if you simply wish to create an article on a topic whose title is currently a redirect to another page, it is possible simply to remove the redirect text and replace with new content. This creates a completely new article. But you should expect some resistance to that, and possibly quick reverting of your edit. So the best way is to go to the talk page of the article and explain what you want to do, and why. Leave it a week for feedback/discussion, then you can be bold and make the change.
If you simply believe a redirect is wrong, and that it should be deleted, we have a discussion forum for this type of page. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion - also known as WP:RFD

I hope this helps. Oh, and in future could you please sign every one of your talk page posts by using four keyboard tilde characters, (like this: ~~~~) which automatically adds your name and timestamp. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

time taken

how much time does it usually takes for a draft to get reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonreever (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

As it says in the brown box on your draft "This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4097 pending submissions waiting for review.". The age distribution of the 4000+ drafts awaiting review can be seen at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

My First Edit

What is the best first edit question you have been asked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketboynj (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rocketboynj. The best first question I have been asked consisted of five elements. I wish every one of them did. These are:

A clear explanation of what the user needs help with
A link to the Wikipedia page they're having problems with
An indication which of our two editing methods they're using (Wikitext or Visual Editor)
Whether they're working in mobile mode on a phone, or classic 'desktop' view as on a computer
Their signature/timestamp (very simply added with four keyboard tildes, like this:~~~~)

We rarely get all of this, so we reply as best we can with the information supplied... ...or we ask for more.

Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this worthy content - a photo of a handwritten poster from Bar Camp 1

BarCamp1 poster

I have a photo that might add value to the following page: BarCamp. I removed the poster from the walls of Bar Camp 1 - I know the sponsor, Ross Mayfield - I don't know how to handle the copyright questions. File:BarCamp1 poster.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahekatros (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Vahekatro. Interesting question. I'm not sure I know chapter and verse on how to handle this. We don't give formal advice on copyright here at the Teahouse, as images are handled by the totally separate Wikimedia Commons guys. My own view is that I would be happy to photograph and to use this on Wikipedia, as you've done. The good folk over at Wikimedia Commons are much stricter on images than we are at en.wiki. So sometimes, because we allow fair use whilst Commons doesn't, it can be better just to upload certain images directly to Wikipedia, and not to Commons. But I see this as an anonymous poster - a sign on the wall, if you wish, OK for fair use here, not a copyrightable piece of intellectual work. I'm not sure of its merits within the article, but that's a completely different issue. If you want further opinion, you could ask over at c:Commons:Help desk. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this one at all. But I could be wrong, of course! (Oh, it's also worth mentioning that knowing someone involved in organising an event who says it's OK to use something they've copyrighted is not sufficient permission for any image to be uploaded. They'd need to upload it themselves, or grant formal permission via the OTRS system. But I doubt that applies to this handwritten notice.) Don't forget to sign your talk page posted with four keyboard tilde characters in future, (like this ~~~~) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Writing and Editing Pages on Related Themes?

Hi there,

I am quite new to Wikipedia, but I have some knowledge of the Expressionist art movement, and mid-century art in general, so I've recently edited pages (stubs in most cases) on Philip Pavia, Marianna Pineda, Arthur Polonsky, and American Figurative Expressionism, as well as created a draft on the figurative expressionist Mel Zabarsky. I've read a good deal about Wikipedia best practices over the last several days, but I still have a few questions about the process:

1. How much do I repeat information that is relevant to several articles on separate but overlapping and related subjects? Obviously, I don't want to copy and paste from page to page, but some of the information overlaps, and I have yet to find any best practice reference for dealing with that.

2. Is there any way to call for someone more expert than me to do some edits on American Figurative Expressionism, the most important of these pages. It seems in my estimation to get quite a few page views (~600 in 30 days), but it was very incomplete when I took it over — more semi-formatted notes than not. Ideally, someone more knowledgable than me would do a round of editing, too? What are your thoughts on this sort of thing?

3. Finally, I also wouldn't mind someone peeking at these pages to give me some feedback to see if there are any errors I'm making in a patterned way. Most of the stubs were in very threadbare condition, not all of them seemed to be publication-ready, so I did the best I could to improve them, and still keep picking at them. The long and the short of it is I want to make sure someone more knowledgable than I thinks I'm on the right track.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditGirl99 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

EditGirl99: if you want people to look at an article, it's helpful and polite to provide a link to it, like this American Figurative Expressionism. I've had a look at the article, and my only comment is that it fails to start by saying what it's about. I think it's an artistic movement. Maybe it's a form of Expressionism. The article ought to say, preferably in its first sentence. Maproom (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you look at Charles Demuth as example article about an artist. David notMD (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi EditGirl99. Regarding issue #2, I have modified the lead of the American Figurative Expressionism page to describe more what it is about. You can message me or do a revert if you feel it is inappropriate. Left a comment in the Talk page as well. Regards, - Darwin Naz (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have two or more consecutive references, do not insert a "/" between them. And consider gallery format if you want to show several images by an artist. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Need help in creating page about our company

Can you please help me out about the below message as I received it from Wikipedia regarding speedy deletion of my article published by me earlier.

A tag has been placed on User:Giridhar Surisetti/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Miracle-Software-Systems-EI_IE15484.11,35.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you also please help me out on how to get our company page got publish on wikipedia,,?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridhar Surisetti (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Giridhar Surisetti: Welcome to Wikipedia! Glad you want to add to the articles here. Before you proceed, you should be aware that Wikipedia has rules related to conflicts of interest and editing when you're paid for your time. You need to clearly disclose the latter. In general, creating a page about one's own company is not a great idea – it's difficult to be neutral.

Should you nevertheless want to proceed, you need to:

Clearly state your conflict of interest and that you're editing while paid to do so.
Write an article with your own words, not copy it from somewhere else.
Refer to good, reliable sources. This is core part of Wikipedia and how Wikipedia works.

You would probably also want to read WP:NCORP before you spend any more time, to see if the company is notable, according to Wikipedia's understanding of the word. Wikipedia is a publication like any other publication: not all information is indiscriminately accepted. Otherwise you risk wasting your time. I understand that I'm throwing a lot of links at you, and I apologise, but you're doing something that requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies, so there's really no simple way around it.

Welcome. /Julle (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Archive my talk

Hi. I have lots of old discussions, and I would like to archive them. How do I do that? I would like to know. Thanks. Huff slush7264 17:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC) Huff slush7264.

See instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page. The cut and paste method described near the top is the one I use myself, because it is the simplest. GMG ^talk 17:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Help me find special article

The article is about predictions as to what the last article on Wikipedia will be. Does anyone know what article specifically I am referring to? NoOneCaresTBH (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi NoOneCaresTBH, welcome to the Teahouse. You may be thinking of Wikipedia:Last topic pool. It's not an article but a humorous page in the project space. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Assistance sought

PaulThePony (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)I've tried to do some minor editing of a couple of pages before and tried to enter new sections in two pages. I often come up against a problem that I then correct only to find out there's still a problem. I'd like to set up a new page for an author/artist. I can guarantee I'll need some major hand-holding from start to finish. Is there someone specifically I can work with, who can set up the page with me?

Thank you!

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulThePony (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: Read the guidance at WP:YFA on how to create an article. There is a wizard there you can use to create a draft to work on that you can later have reviewed when you are ready. If you are connected to the artist/author you also need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

PaulThePony. I'd like to suggest that your choice of words implies that you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. Rather than "setting up a page for" (which is appropriate to social media, or a business directly), I suggest you think in terms of "writing an article about". The word about is the important one: the article should not be based on what the subject does, says, or publishes, but on what people have written about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

PaulThePony (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Thank you, User:RudolfRed and User:ColinFine

Unable to upload content into wikipedia

Hi,

We are from Chennai, India. We run a k-12 school for students we wanted to upload content about our school in wikipedia but we are unable to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.219.206.194 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You already asked this at the help desk. Please keep questions in one location. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

As well as being asked at OTRS.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Forgot the name to certain template

Hello, once again, fellow Wikipedians! This is regarding an article I found to have a list of sources, but not put in the proper places. I forgot the name of the template for such a thing. Could someone please link the template to me? Thanks :) Biscuit-in-Chief — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biscuit-in-Chief (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Biscuit-in-Chief: You're probably looking for {{More footnotes}} and its sister {{No footnotes}}. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I reopen a concluded merge discussion/ review decision made

Just come across this [2], all correctly handled but I feel the consensus reached was inadequate as it was not mentioned on the WP:SHIPS board and goes against their policy of what ships are notable and deserve their own article. Obviously it's not right to go against a previously made consensus (albeit a consensus of 2) and just undo it so how can I start a review of the decision? Lyndaship (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: I am afraid, actually there's no place to contest merger discussion result AFAIK. But I think since they're just two people you can talk to them directly or be bold and undo the merger if you're confident on the need for separate articles. But if there's any place for merger review may be someone may show us the place here. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

PJLink (remote display device control) English page for wikipedia

I noticed there was no PJLink page listed in english, but there is a German page listing a basic description of the PJLink standard: German wikipedia PJLink reference

While looking at the rules, there was an explicit rule stating "... 3 notable references ..." with the inference that a webpage-only may not be an appropriate reference.

I was thinking about adding a PJLink reference page in English, but was concerned that the effort I put into creating the wiki page would be deleted since the only reference I have available is the JBMIA (Japan Business Machine and Information System Industries Association) webpage that hosts the PJLink standard: PJLink Standards home page

Should I be concerned about the wasted time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonken1 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alisonken1. I think that is safe to say that most experienced editors on English Wikipedia will agree that an acceptable article will have at least two or more references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. A site that hosts the technical standard is not independent and also simple hosting of content written by others is not significant coverage. Please read Your first article for additional information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The apparent problem, then, is almost everything I can find is either from the JBMIA website for PJLink, or from manufacturers indicating specific models of their projectors support the PJLink standard. I read Your first article before posting this, and am getting the impression that a PJLink english page, although desirable for a lot of people with questions about PJLink, would not be considered up to Wikipedia standards, so at most would publish as a user-only page. Would I be correct in that thought? Alisonken1 Ken Roberts 20:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Starting a page

So, what's the protocol. I have yet to see mention of it, but please point me in the right direction. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:527F:F766:0:6646:7B21:90B7 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Wikipedia:Your first article is a good start. /Julle (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hi there, I had a page deleted before I even had time to put it up properly. I had a long argument with the deleting editor. In short (very short!), it appeared that by declaring a conflict of interest, I had doomed myself to immediate deletion - no quarter given, no questions asked. I feel this is unfair, there was no interest in the content or suitability of the article, the only stumbling block was my own conflict of interest. I have subsequently learned that - despite Wikipedia asking you to do so - declaring a conflict of interest leads to immediate deletion with no discussion. This is really bad. What made it worse was that the deleting editor was rude, insulting and contemptuous, there was no attempt to discuss the merits of otherwise of the article, it was all about attacks on me personally and my own ethics and honesty. I felt as if I had been caught selling crack to pre-schoolers. It was a horrible experience. I still feel, however, that the article has merit as an encyclopedia entry. How do I fix this? Obviously you are going to want more information, but I really just wanted to get the conversation started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niki Moore (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Niki Moore: I'm assuming you refer to The Foundation for Professional Development? I cannot see you having contacted TomStar81 (talk · contribs), the editor who deleted this article. You should try that first. Having reviewed the deleted article, I agree that it was probably incorrectly deleted as unambiguous advertising but probably also met the requirements of not indicating the significance or importance of the subject. If you like, I can restore the article as a draft and you can work on it in peace. Then you can submit it for review once you are done. Regards So Why 13:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy, Thank you for your nice reply! I did not have a discussion with TomStar81, the deletion (and the subsequent argument) was with someone called Cabayi. I agree that it most likely did not meet the requirement of your 'not indicating the importance'... etc, but that was because it was taken down before I had the chance to do so! The mistake I made, I think, is that I decided to put the introductory paragraph up first, before I put in everything else. I would be extremely grateful if you could put it up as a draft and you could let me work on it and get it right. Niki Moore (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping User:SoWhy. GMG ^talk 15:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. @Niki Moore:

Done, you can find it now at Draft:The Foundation for Professional Development with instructions what to do when you are done. Please remember to follow WP:PAID and declaring on your userpage if you are paid to edit this page and if so, by whom. Regards So Why 16:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Niki Moore, repinging since I forgot to sign. So Why 16:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Niki Moore (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I was pinged here by SoWhy (talk · contribs) (thanks for that, by the way, otherwise I'd have never known about this). I find it very disheartening to have my interaction characterized as "..rude, insulting and contemptuous"; all the more so since Niki Moore (talk · contribs) never reached out to me. If you had, you'd have seen this. I lean toward an inclusionist mindset, and if you had asked I would have userfied the information or put in the draft space for you - I already replied to one such request yesterday. If you had given me a chance I'm sure could have had discussion on the matter and reached an agreement, it wouldn't have been hard. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I think from her post above that she meant Cabayi, the tagger, and not you.

Regards So Why 07:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

TomStar81 (talk · contribs) Dear TomStar81 - You were not the person I interacted with. I put in a request to find out why the page had been deleted so fast, and the response I got was from Cabayi, who was quite abusive. It disheartened me completely, and I decided not to go near Wikipedia ever again! Then I read a few articles , as well as the ones on the Wiki site itself, (because having had some previous experience on Wikipedia, I found it hard to believe that the Wiki culture had changed so much) and I decided to give it another try. That is when I contacted the Tea House, and I have found nothing but support and encouragement, it has made SUCH a difference! I have spent the entire day fixing the problems with the page (it is hard work but stimulating) and I am now a confirmed fan again. Thanks for your note so that I was able to clarify this. Niki Moore (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

PingTomStar81 (talk · contribs)

@Niki Moore: Thanks for the clarification. As an FYI, there is an understood distinction between the those who tag an article for deletion and those who actually delete an article, in most cases the former group is composed of community members who can only add csd or afd tags to articles to indicate that they may be eligible for deletion. The latter group (the editors who actually carry out deletions) is the admin corps, and if your material is deleted its the admin corps you want to be communicating with because they are in the position to both explain why your material was deleted and to restore deleted material if editors ask nicely. In this case then, contacting Cabayi (the tagger) would only have resulted in your learning why the article was tagged, you would have needed to talk to me (the deleting admin) in order to get the article back. In any case in which your material was deleted, there should be a notice on the top of the deleted page that provides both a time stamp of when the material was deleted and the name of the admin who deleted the material, which is how editors know who to get in contact with if they want copies of the deleted material restored. Keep that in mind in the event that an article you developed on Wikipedia ends up deleted again: its not the tagger you need to talk to, its the deleting admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Help me with my article

would anyone like to help me with my article? its about Charles Moerdler who is a board member of the MTA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Moerdler

let me know if youd like to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Knish (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, Lork Knish, you could start by remembering that there are probably billions of people in the world who, like me, have no idea what the MTA might be. Either use its full name in the lead, or at list Wikilink it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've disambiguated the link in the infobox and added a link in the lede. Rojomoke (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I have someone help me understand what I did wrong with my edit?

I expanded this list to include a few hundred more manufacturers and attempted to use the format that the 'comparison of web browsers' page uses, but the page was reverted. What do I need to add for the edit to be promoted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schklerg (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at your contribution record I can't see any edits of yours which have been reverted. Can you please give us a diff to the edit in question? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And looking at the edit filter log, the only edits which a filter disallowed was when you twice tried to blank User talk:Arjayay. You may wish to explain why you were trying to blank that user's talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You probably saved the edit while logged out as this edit shows. If that's the case, the next thing is to go to Talk:List of bass guitar manufacturers and explain why the new format is better than what is there now. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright - somehow was signed out. I put the edit back in & added a note as to why the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schklerg (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And reverted again, for same reason - across Wikipedia lists the normal practice is to limit entries to names of people or companies that already have an existing Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

So, Schklerg, all you have to do is draft a separate new article for each of the manufacturers you want to include, get those drafts accepted as articles by demonstrating in each of them their subject's notability, and then add them to the list. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.65 (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Claim a redirect page

One of the page is redirecting to parent company page which I don't want to be. Please help how to reclaim the page as I am not able to find the page in my profile as well. --Sriram444 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sriram444: It would help if you posted a name of the problematic redirect here. You may also try to explain why you consider the redirect incorrect. --CiaPan (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This request seems a duplicate of a yesterday's question Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 837#How to remove redirect. --CiaPan (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

hello everyone i am trying to create pages for all online news channel related to sports category. so starting with the list i have created my first article, please check and give me suggestions on how it can b improved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sportsflashes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appu bhatnagar (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Appu bhatnagar and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have already submitted your draft for review. Rather than ask us to do the job of the reviewers, I suggest you wait until you receive feedback from the WP:AFC helpers. Then, having read and understood any feedback they do give you, pop back here if you then don't know how to proceed. But do recognise that only a small handful of companies and websites ever meet our Notability criteria. I'd quickly comment that name used int he text doesn't match that in the citations, some of which are promotional and insider news, but potentially it might be deemed notable. Spend your time digging around for more in-depth, independent reliable sources to help meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (web) and probably also WP:NORG, against which your draft's notability will be assessed. Oh, and do please sign all future posts with four keyboard tildes (like this ~~~~). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. well noted. {{Appu bhatnagar (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)}}

What's the best venue to seek an uninvolved editor to assist explaining policy to a new user?

I'm an experienced editor, trying to explain the purpose of article talk pages (i.e., to discuss how to improve the article) to a new IP user. They seem to want to stand on a soapbox and argue their personal opinions about the topic. My previous attempts to explain have not been successful. I've collapsed one previous comment of theirs per TPO, but they continue to harangue and I'm loathe to collapse the rest of it since I'm INVOLVED now, although it deserves collapse as it's verging on trollishness.

I don't want to be bitey and leap to ANI for a brand new editor, and in any case that would be premature as their behavior is not serious enough to be actionable; it just betrays a stubborn refusal to understand, or wish to go along with, our Talk page policy. But perhaps I'm not doing a good enough job explaining it to them, so I'd like to seek other experienced editors to review the situation, and perhaps lend their voice and explain it better than I have. Where would I post such a notice to seek an uninvolved editor? (None of the venues I've considered seems quite right for this: not 3O or DR, they're about content; not VPP; not Reference desk. None of the links at PNB seem appropriate. WP:WPTP seems like it could be the right place, but that project is inactive.) Not sure if TEA is the right fit either, but it's the closest I could come up with. If not here, then where?

If an editor here happens to be intrigued and would like to have a look, the discussion is here, although I'm still interested in knowing what the best project/board/other venue would be to request assistance of this sort in case it comes up again. Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: About that particular case: I am no admin, and not an ANI regular, but what I see is IMO worthy of a short block already. Violations of WP:NOTFORUM are not a big deal, but refusal to stop when expressed clearly and politely is disruptive (pick either WP:DNFT or WP:CIR). The topic does not help their case either (bayesian inference: the odds that a given misbehaving editor is redeemable get lower the more the topic is a troll magnet, and arguing that triple parentheses are not antisemitic is, let's say, pretty much on the troll side of the scale; hence, the leeway we should give is lower in trollish topics). On the other hand of the scale, I remember a lot of high-heat low-light arguing about whether zero to the power of zero had an "obvious" value, where multiple editors were given considerable leeway, probably because the topic is not a troll hotspot. However I could find only one drive-by redirect in the page histories. If someone remembers that episode, please add it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.

In general, I do not think policy needs to be explained by multiple editors (as long as the first to explain can be viewed as reasonably neutral). I would try pointing the editor to the Teahouse or Help Desk (if they do not want to go there, well, I see even less the point - discussion is required). As a last recourse, I guess posting at the Teahouse yourself is best. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)