Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

Uploading an image for use in a page under construction

Hi there- I have hit what appears to be a catch-22. I have a page under construction and I need to upload an image for the page. Using the Upload Wizard, there is the required field: "This file will be used in the following article:" but when I enter the name of the article, I am confronted with "This article doesn't exist!"

So what is the mechanism for uploading an image for use in a page under construction. Not that it matters - I think - the page is "Vasily Konovalenko".

Thanks!! Gene McCullough Gene McCullough (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gene McCullough: If you need a page name, then in this instance you can use "User:Gene_McCullough/Vasily_Konovalenko." -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate suggestion , but apparently I can't upload the image until the article has been moved into mainspace. Seems an odd way to do things. I have tagged the image "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and this is leading to the rejection message:

This is not an actual encyclopedia article! The page User:Gene McCullough/Vasily Konovalenko is not in the main article namespace. Non-free files can only be used in mainspace article pages, not on a user page, talk page, template, etc. Please upload this file only if it is going to be used in an actual article. If this page is an article draft in your user space, we're sorry, but we must ask you to wait until the page is ready and has been moved into mainspace, and only upload the file after that. Unless you or someone else can suggest a way around this, I guess I'll just have to insert the image after posting the article. Gene McCullough (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Gene McCullough (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

article review

Can someone please review my article and tell me if the subject meets the Wiki criteria for notability and references? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scott_Nute thanks Spacestar7 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Spacestar7: This isn't the best place to ask this. It would be better to click the button at the top of your draft that says "Submit your draft for review!" That will send it to Wikipedia users who are better versed in reviewing drafts. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate suggestion , but apparently I can't upload the image until the article has been moved into mainspace. Seems an odd way to do things. I have tagged the image "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and this is leading to the rejection message:

---

This is not an actual encyclopedia article! The page User:Gene McCullough/Vasily Konovalenko is not in the main article namespace. Non-free files can only be used in mainspace article pages, not on a user page, talk page, template, etc. Please upload this file only if it is going to be used in an actual article. If this page is an article draft in your user space, we're sorry, but we must ask you to wait until the page is ready and has been moved into mainspace, and only upload the file after that.

---

Unless you or someone else can suggest a way around this, I guess I'll just have to insert the image after posting the article. Gene McCullough (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Verbatum quotes from a German statute

Hello teahouse. What are the wikipedia rules governing the use of verbatum quotations from a German statute? Can you simply cut and paste from the sections you wish to use and then attribute it? Or do you need to set the text in quotation marks as well? I suppose it comes down to the copyright status of such statutes? Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robbie. It's not a copyright issue but a fidelity of attribution and plagiarism issue. (German statutes are in the public domain, per (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG [translation].) If you are quoting verbatim, you indicate that with quote marks, and provide an inline citation. However, you don't need quotation marks if you set out the text as a block quotation (do so if you quote "more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or [it consists of] more than one paragraph, regardless of length"; see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Many thanks for your quick and informative reply. I see from the translated Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection page that there is a "prohibition of changing" the content. I need to work up the material I am using with some care then. Many thanks. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What all tasks can i take in the beginning

Hi Everyone,

I am Sonia, I just wanted to know how can I start working on Wikipedia. I mean as a beginner what all I can do?

45.121.101.254 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sonia and welcome to the Teahouse! I have left you a welcome message on your talkpage with several links that you should read about getting started as an editor. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You will have several privileges available by creating an account that you do not currently have. Please considered registering an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

An example of something that you can do after creating an account is this:

You can edit semi-protected articles once the account is four days old and has edited at least 10 times. Users who edit without an account can't edit those kinds of articles for various reasons. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Template?

I want to know if there is any template available to edit the pages. Like for adding a new section and citing web pages and scientific review/research articles? Thanks EN14.139.95.68 (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to know if there is any template available to edit the pages. Like for adding a new section and citing web pages and scientific review/research articles? Thanks ENEduca.Neurosci (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Educa.Neurosci: If I understand you correctly you are asking for three different templates? One for adding a new section, one for citing web pages, one for citing scientific articles? If so, then there isn't really a template for creating a new section (as far as I know), but there is the {{cite web}} template for citing sources found on the web. However, for scientific sources, you should take a look at WP:SCG as it has a host of guidelines for citing scientific sources. I hope I was able to answer your question. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 19:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Educa.Neurosci. I'm guessing you mean "template" in the usual sense of some sample text to copy (we use Template to mean something a bit different in Wikipedia-land). As far as I knowm, there are not such templates; but there is is information about how to lay out articles. The Manual of Style has a lot of information about it, and I think some Wikiprojects do as well, so if an article you want to work on is within the are of interest of a particular WikiProject they may have some recommendataions.

In general, what I would suggest is to find a Featured article or Good article on a similar topic, and copy the organsation of that article.

There are some templates (in Wikipedia's sense) and other tools for managing citations: please see Referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My page keeps getting deleted by the same admin after another admin said the page was good.

My page keeps getting deleted by the same admin over and over even after another admin had approved the page. My page is setup just like 3 other organizations that have pages on here and they same admin keeps sending it up for speedy deletion. What do I do because I am starting to get pissed.(Mbrown79 (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mbrown79 and welcome to the Teahouse. For an organization to have an article in Wikipedia it already needs to be well known. That means it first has to have been written about outside of Wikipedia by people independent of the organization. Delta Omicron Alpha Sorority, Inc. is very new, founded May 15th, 2016!. There hasn't been time for it to become well known; it is much too soon for an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got to be *&%$*%^ kidding me. Well thank you. At least you have been helpful. Mbrown79 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You can request that the article be moved to your user space via a Request for Undeletion. However, the article will not be undeleted if the reasons for deletion included copyright violation. One of the deleted copies was marked as violating the copyright of the sorority on its web site. Many new editors don't understand that Wikipedia enforces copyright very strictly (even if other web sites do not). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Another point that newcomers to editing Wikipedia often don't understand, Mbrown79, is that no organisation in the world has an article in Wikipedia: Wikipedia has articles about organisations. The difference is important, because such an article does not belong to the organisation: the organisation and people connected with it have no control over the article, and are discouraged from editing it. The article is required to be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the organisation have published about it: what the organisation says or wants to say about itself is of almost no interest to Wikipedia. If follows that until several people unconnected with the organisation have thought it worth publishing substantial material about it, Wikipedia cannot have an article about it. Soirry. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Quick edit for personal use

I need to view multiple wikipedia pages without the citation needed and the [1], [2], etc. reference links. I want to cut, copy, paste the parts that are useful to me and would like to remove the clutter. Is there any easy way for me to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo Nott (talk • contribs) 13:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Halo Nott: Hello, in order to remove the references (and other things that might get in the way of printing), you can use the Print Page link that is found in the sidebar under the Print/export section. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 19:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Kindly guide,if any article has been deleted with a title several times,due speedy deletion,how can it be requested for a restoration,without recreating it, if it needs to be improved Junosoon (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Try requesting that the article be moved to your user space via Requests for Undeletion, and then submit it for review via Articles for Creation. However, you say that the article was deleted "several times". What was its title, and who created it? This is your only non-deleted it, and you don't have any messages requesting speedy deletion. Did you create it using a different account name (which is deprecated)? Was it created by someone else? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

How come Wikipedia administrators focus more on keeping articles they know about personally and delete others, instead of being willing to learn more about verifiable articles about other notable people and brands? And why are there no serious penalties for Wikipedia's administrators acting recklessly and deleting articles for faux unreliability, even when it only has trustworthy sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin2424 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Devin2424. If you have a dispute with any other editor (whether or not they are an administrator) your first step is to engage in discussion with that person. If you cannot reach a resolution, then report it at a noticeboard such as WP:ANI. Nobody can answer your questions unless you point us to the specific instances, and show that they support your aggressive claims. While it does occasionally happen that an administrator behaves badly, in general they are hard-working and conscientious people who freely give their time and effort to make Wikipedia operate. (I am not, and have never been an administrator, by the way). --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I link to reference links on 'gated' sites like The Times?

I'm assuming not but, if my best references are 'protected' like this, is there a solution? Many thanks?NewtonsPetBat (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you can use them. see WP:PAYWALL for more information. -- GB fan 13:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How to assume consensus

we've been discussing on the talk page for weeks. the opponents have refused to continue talking. and this policy says "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." so what should we do? --HamedH94 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

One possibility would be to edit boldly and see if you are reverted. A better option would be to use a Request for Comments. Do you have a specific example? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

actually it's about the case that you opened at drn and then made an rfc. the first/last name stuff. since polls aren't binding, and I still find the opponents' arguments illogical, I'm confused what to do now that they don't respond while some of them revert my edits. is it considered disruptive editing so that I can complain at ani? --HamedH94 (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You are in the minority. Consensus is against you, which is why your only remaining option is the RFC. Your only real option is to wait for the RFC to run its course for 30 days. It isn't clear to me why you even ask whether you can report them at WP:ANI for disruptive editing. They are trying to maintain a consensus, and you are editing against what is at this time a consensus. If simply continuing to try to discuss further would stop the editing, then that would encourage editors in your position (that is, in a minority) to filibuster. By the way, the statement that polls are not binding is not really correct. If an RFC reaches consensus, that consensus is binding, and that is the one way that binding consensus is established. So just wait for the RFC to run its course. You do have the right to report them at WP:ANI, as anyone has that right, but please read the boomerang essay before reporting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple dots in ref link

I have added ref 9 to the candle article. The link breaks off atbthe multiple dot section

http://www.pewterbank.com/Joseph_Morgan_Pewterer_..A_Light_in_Victorian_ England....40.pdf

How do i fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringlet (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved this question to top here. — JoeHebda • (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Stringlet, and welcome to the Teahouse! The only problem was that there was a space in the web address that shouldn't have been there. I've gone ahead and fixed it. (You can see what I did here.) All should be well now. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the reference from the article, Stringlet, as I see no evidence that [1] meets our standards as a reliable source. It looks like a hobbyist or enthusiast site run by one person to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble formatting my signature.

I want to be able to format my signature to have colors and be italic and link back to my user page, and I'm having trouble. Sage (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sage, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want it to look like in [2] then you can add the required link with '''''[[User:TheSageOfNE|<span style="color:Green">Sage</span>]]''''' to produce Sage. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I tried it before and apparently you need to order things correctly or it turns out weird. Sage (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note, you can create a subpage in your userspace and transclude it into the signature box in your preferences if you want to be able to use the editor to create your signature (like I did here). -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 19:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: Sage created the account yesterday and may not know what subpage, userspace and transclude means. None of it is required knowledge at this point and can be ignored for now. Transclusion of signatures is forbidden by WP:SIG#NoTemplates. What you actually do is substitution but it's discouraged and you still break WP:SIG#NoTemplates by using {{nbsp}} and {{tlx}} in the substituted signature. At Special:ExpandTemplates you can see what code the signature produces but it's more than 255 characters so you are not allowed to use all of it by WP:SIGLEN. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Sorry about that, I should have checked his user page before writing (along with my vocabulary). And regarding my signature, it should now conform since it substitutes and the final length is now 189 instead of 277 and it uses no templates. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 00:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

My page was being deleted due to G11, A7 regulations, Can wiki mates assist on this?

The page on "Global Halal Data Pool" was being deleted, can you review again or give some guidance on how to write the right wiki page? Thanks.. Martinkhu (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Martinkhu, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, be sure to check what those deletion reasons mean: G11 means that the article was written like an advertisement. This has got to do with what kind of facts you present about the topic, and how you present them. A7 means that the article did not have enough context to determine why that topic is important in its field. Both of these together must mean that you have probably written the topic by using adverts or other source material that is not reliable, and have tried to replicate their tone which is not neutral. You have probably also assumed that the reader knows what the topic is about, even when they've come to read the article to find out. You should give the reader enough context. You should read this help page to learn how to write proper articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Kayla Day

I found many reliable sources for this player. Does it actually fails WP:NTENNIS?

When should tennis bios be created.? Rainbow Archer (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

AFD templates on articles say that the article should not be blanked while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For athletes, there are two types of notability, sports notability and general notability. Sports notability is a form of what I call ipso facto notability. There are particular achievements in particular fields including sports that, in themselves, qualify as notable, such as being on an Olympic team. For sports notability or other ipso facto notability, the reliable sources are needed only to verify the achievement. General notability is based on in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. It appears that Kayla Day does not qualify for tennis notability, such as in Grand Slam play. As a result, she is only notable if she qualifies for general notability guidelines. The real question appears to be whether she has been covered in sufficient depth for general notability. Those are my comments at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Blanking the article while a deletion discussion is in progress has the appearance of a tantrum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want the article moved to user space, please put a request in the deletion discussion requesting userfication in place of deletion rather than interfering with the AFD by changing what space the page in question is in. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Help implementing edits

Hello, I have suggested some changes to Centre Point's page. I have been transparent that I am associated with the company that own the property. I have made suggestions but I haven't received any comments nor are there are any recent users for the page. What are the next steps? I don't want to make any edits as I am associated with the company but would very much like the factual inaccuracies amended. Many thanks Property2016 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Property2016 - Firstly, thank you for not editing a page where you have a conflict of interest
Looking at the page information for Talk:Centre Point here that page has "Fewer than 30 watchers" which could mean that no-one (possibly other than you) is watching that page.
You did not include a {{request edit}} template with your request, so it will not have appeared on the list of requested edits - a centralised list for such edits - although even then it can take some time.
Normally, I would try to deal with this, but am due out shortly, so please add {{request edit}} to your request, in case no other editor picks up this thread - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and both put your post under a section header and added the {{request edit}} template. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Gestrid and User:Ariayay , thank you very much for your help Property2016 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement template

I would like to add the ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement template to one section within an article, not the entire article. However, the template refers to the entire article. How can I direct it to only one section?

{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}

Thank you. KamelTebaast 16:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the above post so it only links to the template instead of displaying the template and adding the Teahouse to the ARBPIA category. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kamel Tebaast, and welcome back to the Teahouse. The template you mentioned is actually meant to be used on talk pages of articles, not the articles themselves. As for mentioning a specific section, I don't believe that's possible, as there is no |section= parameter, according to the template documentation. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast: I can confirm what Gestrid said, the template is not for use in articles, only on article talk pages. Its placement is better left to those who know the ArbCom case. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, yes, I meant section within a Talk page (not article as written above). However, if I place this template, it outlines that the entire article falls under the 30/500, which is not my goal. What is my solution? Thank you. KamelTebaast 21:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast: Edit in another area with less conflict? What is it you want to accomplish and in which article? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the section: [[3]] The article should not be ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, but that section has become. I'd like to highlight that on the Talk page. Thank you. KamelTebaast 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

General sanctions are used in high conflict areas. Hank Johnson and the little section regarding what he said about Israel and how other parties reacted is just a matter of discussion and collaborative editing. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast and Sam Sailor: More to the point, only administrators can use that template as it implements editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.... maybe not. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions says it's an admin task, but the arbcom decision has, "Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Interesting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How to upload a picture and add necessary copyright information

I am new to writing articles for Wikipedia and I am currently working on developing an article for something that I thought needed to have an article on here. I have run into a problem in terms of adding a picture into an infobox. I read the articles on here about this topic, but it still makes no sense. So, how exactly do you upload a picture? Also, when doing so, how would you provide the necessary copyright information for said picture?

Metternich1815 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Metternich1815, and welcome to the Teahouse! To upload a photo, just go here, read the instructions, and upload the picture. The upload wizard will ask for which copyright you want to use. However, if the name of the article currently starts with "Draft:" or the article is in your sandbox right now, you shouldn't put copyrighted photos in it until it actually becomes an article. Also, if the image is copyrighted, make sure you have permission to upload it or, better yet, ask the copyright holder to upload it. (The latter option makes the process on Wikipedia much easier for you.) Make sure the copyright holder is ok with uploading it under one of the licenses available here. I hope this answers your question. If you have any more or you want some clarification, be sure to reply here for help. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Metternich1815. It very much depends on the picture, its licensing, and depending on that, on what page it is intended to be used. There are essentially two paths: 1) The image is in the public domain or retains copyright but bears a free copyright license that is suitably unrestricted for use at Wikimedia Foundation projects; or 2) the image is non-free copyrighted and so could only be used here under a claim of fair use, if it meets our stringent standards for that exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law.

The link Gestrid provided above is to an upload wizard at the Wikimedia Commons, which only allows upload of public domain and suitably free images. No non-free images intended to be used under fair use may be uploaded there, and must be uploaded, if at all, to this wiki – the local upload wizard is here.

If, as I suspect, you are seeking to upload a video game cover, then that might meet fair use once the draft you are working on is ready for the article mainspace (do not use or even upload it until the article has been accepted in the mainspace). Once you are ready, you might consider using the template {{Non-free use rationale video game cover}} to provide your rationale. Note that the image must be reduced to a relatively small size to meet fair use. If you provide the detail on what you are seeking to upload and where, we can tailor our advice to those specifics. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid, it is essential to make a clear distinction between the type of images that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and the strictly limited non-free images that can be uploaded here on Wikipedia. The first group of images are free of copyright, or have been freely licensed by the copyright holder for use by anyone for any purpose. Only the copyright holder can execute that license, and it must be in writing in a legally acceptable form. Asking them if it is "OK" as you said is simply not adequate.

The second group of images which are uploaded here to Wikipedia, are described in our policy on use of non-free images, and are irreplaceable images, and include book and album covers, movie posters, portraits of people who are dead, images of artwork or historic photos in the context of critical commentary, company logos and so on. We use them quite restrictively under the legal doctrine of Fair use and in compliance with our policies, only in one article per each formal written rationale, and in low resolution form to protect the copyright holder. If the rationale for their use is correct, then there is no need to obtain permission from the copyright holder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, Cullen328. I should've been clearer: When I said they should get permission from the copyright holder, I thought it was implied they should get legal documentation, as copyright permission even outside of Wikipedia usually requires it. As for the rest, it's clear to me now that I need a little more experience in the "File:" namespace, as well as Commons, to be able to answer a question like this. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow

Whoa, i wonder. Someone a bot invited me to Teahouse, and i wonder that its the place to meet other editors like me. And i also wonder that how wikipedia's other users are soo much active, as they suddenly reverted my edits.FxdhMxdh (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, FxdhMxdh! If you want to meet other editors – some new and some more experienced – you've come to the right place. You were probably reverted so quickly because some editors had those pages on their Watchlist. Having pages on your Watchlist lets you easily an instantaneously see if a page has been edited. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Referencing problem

I am not able to use this with proper ways in this page Kayla Day

http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=100203304

The page is nominated for speedy deletion. I tried to add it properly instead of bare URL, but always it showed error. Rainbow Archer (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Refil could not generate a cite, but Yadkard could, except for the title. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The article's speedy deletion was declined, so the article is now being considered for deletion. You have a few days to revise the article. Note that the main reason it's being considered seems to be this, so I suggest you revise the article with that in mind. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:Upload - post nonprofit logo and pics?

I want to add a logo and three pics to Wings of Hope (charity). In doing this, I want to protect these images from use from others. c:COM:OTRS allows broad access for anyone, so is there a way to use special:upload to upload some of them only to the English Wikipedia as fair-use?WoH62 (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The logo should be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, under a claim of fair-use - see Wikipedia:Logos for the reasons, rationale and how-to. The other photos would almost certainly not qualify for "fair-use", so your choice is either to freely licence them, or leave them out. We do not have "only for use on wikipedia" licences. - Arjayay (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WoH62 I see you have already had 6 files, three logos ??, and three photos, deleted from Commons. The article only needs one logo, and as stated above, this needs to be on en.wikipedia, not commons.
I note there are several "Wings of Hope" pages, Wings of Hope about a Werner Herzog documentary, Wings of Hope Children's Charity and Wings of Hope (charity). Although a hatnote on the documentary points to the (charity) page, there are no other interlinks. I think there should be a disambiguation page, be that Wings of Hope (disambiguation), or by moving the documentary to Wings of Hope (documentary) and using the straight title as the disambiguation page. I am not clear if the documentary is the prime subject, - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Strike my suggestion as I have created Wings of Hope (disambiguation) - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arjayay Thanks for all of your help, and thanks for creating the disambiguation page.WoH62 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi WoH62. Notwithstanding Arjayay's comments above, I think there are other issues with the article that you would best focus on before worrying about images. The tone of the article is a bit promotional sounding with a few sentences such as "We work in Africa, the Americas and Asia, partnering with communities to improve their:" not really written according to WP:NPOV, and the "History" section you added here is completely unsourced, so it may be removed per WP:V. FWIW, much of the information in the article is not supported by citations to reliable sources, so any such content too may be challenged and removed by another editor. So, instead of trying to add images, it might be best to focus on finding better independent, secondary sources which allow verification of the article's content and show how the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. As it is, the Wikipedia notability of the subject is not clear, so the article seems like a candidate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Finally, it appears from your choice of username that you are somehow connected to this particular organization in some way. Although Wikipedia does not expressly prohibited conflict of interest editing, it is something highly discouraged. If you have a COi, then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to familiarize yourself with what is expected from COI editors. Please understand that even the appearance of a COI can potentially lead to problems. So, if you are completely unconnected to "Wings of Hope" and just are interested in improving the page, then you might want to consider changing your username to avoid any misunderstandings with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How to create pre-filled "new section" edit form

For once I'm asking a question instead of answering it. Anyway, I'm currently working on improving the look of my talk page, and I'm wondering: How do I create a pre-filled edit form (such as those generated when using the AFC wizard or on other user talk pages)? -- Gestrid (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Uhm, what would you want to preload on your own talk page? Why not just use a plain link with &action=edit&section=new added? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: At the moment, I'm trying to think of ways to reduce the clutter on the talk page, and having each conversation (not including the section header) inside the {{cot}}/ {{cob}} templates would be one way to do that. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you should do that per default; I'm just going on my gut feeling here, I have never seen pre-emptively collapsing of discussions (or "hatting" as it is also called, cf. {{Hat}}) done this way, it's normally something we do exactly as a bit like you have done it here, with big chunks of text that are e.g. OT or just tl;dr, see WP:TPO. Your talk page looks nice and tidy. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Addendum: The cot/cob on your talk page could maybe have been for only the long list of references. Leaving just the editors greeting and signature visible might be misunderstood. They were very friendly. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: I also think the suggested use sounds problematic. For the technical part, you cannot do it for the new section tab but you can display a link like New section elsewhere on the page. This will preload User:Gestrid/Preload and display User:Gestrid/Editintro above the edit box. You can change the page names at preload= and editintro=. You can omit one of them if you don't want both. Depending on their content, some users may find them annoying. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. After your input, I probably won't do that. Perhaps I'll just request via Edtnotice that long lists like those references be placed inside it. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Complex reference: Did I do this right?

One of the examples listed in Scunthorpe problem § Refused web domain names and email addresses revolves around the string CUM, which was the initials of a community in Montreal (Communauté urbaine de Montréal, in French). The English slang meaning of that string was defined, but with no citation. The best source I found online was of uncertain reliability, yourdictionary.com, but it credited its definitions to the reliable Webster's New World College Dictionary (1910), with permission "Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc." The definitions were listed under "come"; "cum" was listed simply as "variant of come".

I used {{cite book}}, putting yourdictionary.com in the url and via parameters, and the definitions and permission in "quote". I put the cross-reference from "come" at the end, inside the ref but outside the cite book. The result:

come. Cleveland, Ohio: Wiley Publishing, Inc. 1910. Retrieved 31 July 2016 – via YourDictionary.com. INFORMAL to have a sexual orgasm: somewhat vulgar. ... SLANG: semen: somewhat vulgar ... Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Cross-referenced from cum: "Slang come (): somewhat vulgar"

Is this a good way to cite such a reference? --Thnidu (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu. Another possible source is Green's Dictionary of Slang, which is a more contemporary source published by Oxford University Press. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, that looks like a good source to bookmark. I'll try to remember to switch to it next month in the morning.

Still, such complex cites are apt to come up occasionally when obsolescence is not an issue. So is this a satisfactory treatment?

ETA: Make that, a good source if you can get it. Full access seems to be paywalled. And at least the first page of that link, with items 1–10 out of 130, has ONLY examples, no definition.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu, If you click on each of the first two listings for the verb form and the noun form, you will get definitions which are not behind a paywall. There is no restriction on sources behind paywalls, partially in this case. I prefer a more contemporary academic source for slang usage, and doubt that the unambiguous slang spelling "cum" was in use in 1910. Of course, I could be wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Cullen328. Yes, a modern source will be much better. And I'll take the next steps from my laptop instead of my phone, so I can see those pages better.

Since the 1910 Webster's New World College Dictionary cross-refers "cum" to "come", with the usage tag "somewhat vulgar" (see above, in the ref as I pasted it), I think we can be confident that the unambiguous slang spelling "cum" was indeed in use in 1910. But since I intend to switch to Green's, that's neither here nor there. --Thnidu (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing family section of information

I would like to know my responsibility in adding a child's name to the family section of informationLadyliz2000 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks MaryLadyliz2000 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ladyliz2000, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your question is a little vague. Could you please tell us the name of the article you're talking about? -- Gestrid (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If in doubt as to whether to add the name of a child to the biography of a living person, remember that the child is also a living person, and probably not notable, so exercise even greater care than is required in biographies of living persons in general (and a high standard of care is required in biographies of living persons). I am trying to find a guideline or policy that specifically has to do with information about children in BLPs. Can some other experienced editor help me? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ladyliz2000 and Robert McClenon. Although children are not mentioned specifically, I think that WP:BLPNAME is relevant here, which says: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

Also relevant, I believe, is that we have had no biographies of the famous minor children Malia and Sasha Obama over the last eight years, who are instead covered in an article about the Obama family. Malia Obama became an adult a few weeks ago, and is receiving increased media attention, so perhaps an editor will now take on that task. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Are refs archived by bot?

Hi, does internetarchive bot automatically archive links in references onto the wayback machine? Think it means that at User:Cyberbot II but not positive Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at present. If you mark a link dead explicitly or if the behind-the-scenes database considers a link dead, Cyberbot II will try to patch things up.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will make sure ones I add are archived Atlantic306 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I need to find some editors to help with an article on a forensic psychologist

I need to find some helpful editors that have written or contributed to articles about psychologists in the academia world and where to put or which boring papers presented, written, dissertations chaired and those who have cited his work and keep the article from not being deleted but also keep it from being boring. I am using Google Scholar and WorldCat. Right now the article has a big red bordered tag of: It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: "there's still nothing actually suggestive of his own convincing notability..."

I have added a lot of notes on the talk portion from Google Scholar and now need help on which ones to add to article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_S._Lipson

Thanks,

Joey JoeyD2010 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi JoeyD2010 and welcome to the Teahouse. A person is notable in the Wikipedia sense if the are already well known enough that other people have written about them in depth in reliable sources. Strangely enough what a person has written does not show that. How others have responded to the person's work is what is important. Before you put Lipson's work into the article you need to find material that is written about him. So far he just looks like an ordinary person doing his job, supervising students and writing articles, and and giving expert testimony. Has he had an impact on his field? Or has he done enough in famous cases that someone has written an article about him? StarryGrandma (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Only real thing I can find in text books and other books are people thanking him for all the work he has done that allows them to build on it and expand the field more.....

He gives a lot of interviews etc. in the San Diego area. I got interested in him because of his Dateline interview almost a year ago and then started researching all of his accomplishments and how journalists, etc. seek him out for his opinion.

I am guess that people "peers and successors" that build on his work does not make him notable. I honestly thought the fact he was cited as an important writer and even thanked in other books by peers for given them a foundation to build from made him notable...

So you are saying I should just remove the article?

05:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs)

I guess I am lost here, if a text book is cited 249 times in others work as he is a must read expert in his field of interest or other psychologists have thank him for helping them as in "notable" because his peers and succesors" cite his work in their work.... Strange you can be so well thought of in the world of academia that even the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) has asked him to develop course for others in his field to become certified..... I have spent hours on this doctor, and if he as a who's who in the work he does and in the writings built from his work is not notable then I am totally lost as to how many text books has to be based off of his research before he is notable in the academia world, which is why I added how many times he has been cited in others writings....

Frankly, I don't want to put another 20-30 hours on any person, no matter how many other psychologist build from his work.... he'll just have to be happy he's a who's who in his world of academia....

JoeyD2010 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

JoeyD2010, it is hard to find good information on academics, and I know it can be frustrating. I also have spent a lot of time on a person without having been able to find good sources. An analysis of the person's work and impact on the field has to be written up outside of Wikipedia first. There is no time limit here. An article can always be written later. Sometimes editors of books write an analysis of the contributors in the introduction which can be used. Then I found a woman who had made such a rapid impact on the field that she was editing the books and writing introductions, not being written about by someone else! I never did figure out what to do about her. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

StarryGrandma

Thanks, I have found 3 text books he has written chapters on and have included those and what the editors had to say about his contribution to the field with even that he mentored one of them. I have found forwards and acknowledgments in books talking about without his work they current book could not have been completed and thanking him for laying the path for their later writings.

However currently that and papers he has written that have been cited including one chapter in a text book still being used today at graduate schools has been cited up to 247 times in other work.

The nice editors helping me say even that is not enough to get him there.... I am now dropping the professor and going for notability as an author because his work has been cited so often and used to write other books.... I don't seem to be getting very far with that either with the editor that wants the page deleted.....

If it gets deleted I will redo what I have in my sandbox and work on it again after something significant comes out... This guy is even the director of his department at the college for students of forensic psychology and he is one of about less than 10% of all of them out there practicing that has been certified as a diplomate and that does not get him through this rigor test....

Thanks so much for your encouraging words and sharing you have been working one one project yourself for a very long time.

Now finally I have it posted correctly,

JoeyD2010 (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

JoeyD2010 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For some reason my remarks are being posted above the discussion and not with my original post.

JoeyD2010 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

StarryGrandma or anyone else that can help. Is there someway to remove the nominate to delete the page and get it back into my sandbox while I go through newspapers.com archives? Or will it be deleted automatically on August 6th and then will have to start over again?  ::StarryGrandma "Sometimes editors of books write an analysis of the contributors in the introduction which can be used." This is a great suggestion. All three textbooks he has written in the contributors part in the introduction all have great things to say about Dr. Lipson and how they built on his work. Three may not be enough to save the article but it is how I found that the NIH funded one of his research projects.

Thanks,

JoeyD2010 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think, and another editor will correct me if I am mistaken, that you should be able to move a page that has been proposed for deletion to user space as User:JoeyD2010/Glenn S. Lipson or draft spac as Draft:Glenn S. Lipson. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing 'retrieved date' when fixing dead link?

When you fix a dead link, should you leave the retrieved/access date the way it is or change it to today's date? AmaliaJansen (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi AmaliaJansen Check that it actually verifies the information it is cited to in support of, and then change it to today's date. The purpose of retrieval dates is to provide information that "at least as of X date, the source cited verified Y". It is for sources that may change – and may allow someone in attempting to find a replacement link once it goes dead (just as you are doing), to search for a version of a source as of a particular era. (That is why you don't need retrieval dates for fixed sources, such as citations to paper books). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it better to request a redirect or request deletion on a redundant, potentially useless article?

I recently created a discussion on an article's talk page to discuss whether an article which was redundant should be deleted or redirected. Of the four users I pinged, two responded. One suggested redirecting the article, the other suggested doing away completely with the article. What would be the best way of going around this? I've allowed time (one week) for other users to contribute, but there have been no other contributions; I'm thinking now is the time to take action on the article, only thing is, what should I do?

Also, who do I go to to request the article to be redirected/deleted? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ElectrodeandtheAnode, and welcome to the Teahouse! In general, it is better to redirect an article. As for the second question, it would be best to let the discussion play out. To draw attention to the discussion, you can post about the discussion in relevant places. However, you should be careful that you don't notify people in inappropriate places because you might then be accused of canvassing. For help about where you can and can't notify other editors of the discussion, see WP:CANVASS. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

First, in my opinion, it is generally better to redirect an article, if there is a reasonable redirect target, such as an article with a broader subject, than to delete it. That way, if readers type in the name, they will get something rather than nothing. Second, as to how to request a redirect, you don't need to request a redirect, because you can turn an article into a redirect by editing it yourself and replacing it with a redirect. (If the article has readers, turning it into a redirect will be controversial and should not be done without consensus.) Third, you ask how to request deletion. Read the deletion policy. There are three procedures for requesting deletion. We can discuss which one to use in more detail if you think that the article should be deleted, but, in my opinion, redirecting is usually better. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Read the deletion process guidelines as to the three deletion processes, but a redirect is usually better if there is a reasonable redirect target. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you please tell us what the article is, and we can offer our opinions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid, Robert McClenon thank you both for replying so quickly to my question! I'll look into canvassing now. There is a broader article which it redirects too, so I'll just double-check with the other editors involved in the conversation and ensure that the decision is a mutual decision and not one made on my behalf. Thank you both again. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I do sincerely apologise for replying to this so late – I didn't see your second reply! This is the article: List of Casualty cast members. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

original sources vs. research

Sometimes I see a page criticized because it has too much original material (primary sources) and does not cite any references. Other times a page is criticized for the opposite. Why?

What is wrong with simply stating what you know from personal experience? 2601:285:400:B26C:94BC:6A8C:E073:49CB (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The basic reason is that, unfortunately, your own personal experience is not considered a reliable source. I assume that you personally are a trustworthy source, but, if we allowed information to be added based on what an editor said was personal knowledge, a few dishonest editors would use this to insert lies. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work which is successful because of its three core content policies. Those are verifiability, writing from the neutral point of view, and not allowing original research. Adding your personal experience to articles violates all three policies. There are many places on the internet to discuss your personal experiences, such as Facebook, Twitter and blog platforms. But not in Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Besides the reason Robert McClenon gave, there is the issue that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Even if you are completely trustworthy and the information you put in is impeccably true, next week or next month or next year somebody may change it: because they think your data is wrong, or because they make a mistake, or because they're vandals. It doesn't matter what the reason is: anybody can change it. For this reason, the content of Wikipedia is never entirely trustworthy; but in a good article, every piece of information will be referenced to a reliable sources which a reader can check (it might take some effort, but they can do so). Articles without reliable published sources are, in a sense, worthless, because the reader has no way of checking their accuracy. (We do have many thousands - probably millions - of substandard articles, from before we were as careful as we are now). --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Two edit summary questions

If I make an edit, and save it but forgot to write in the "edit summary", is there any way to go back to write the edit summary ? How to handle this?

How do I put in the edit summary which section of the article I'm editing, e.g., "Early Life"? I know there is some wiki markup somewhere.

Thanks Eagledj (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The second is the easy question. Usually the section that you are editing is inserted automatically for you between slashes, and you just have to add a general comment in addition to the location. As to the first question, you can't modify an edit summary, but what you can do if you forget to put in an edit summary is to do a dummy edit and include an edit summary for the previous edit. (The fact that an edit summary can't be modified after the fact, by the way, is one of the reasons why uncivil edit summaries and personal attacks in edit summaries are even worse than incivility and personal attacks on talk pages. Edit summaries, in extreme cases, can be redacted by an administrator, which is occasionally done if the edit summary was purely disruptive or grossly degrading. However, you weren't asking about insulting edit summaries, but about forgetting the edit summary.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find answers to both questions at Help:Edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not too much ?

Good day !

As my first experience, I began to create pages for a Charity organization (Caritamo Foundation). I'm still struggling with the way that someone arrives and threatening of deleting the page. So far the job was not easy for me as a volunteer and it took me hours of doing such simple job that probably takes 5 minutes for a programmer or an expert of Wikipedia. I experience now a huge deception. You understand the feeling that you do a job for a charity organization as a volunteer and suddenly all your efforts disappear ?

The message says : It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: No additional reliable sources other than the organization's own website.

When an organization is recently resisted, what it could have except the act of constitution in Canadian law (the number is provided) , a phone number that Wikipedia doesn't need really, a website with a domain name and four extensions (.org, .net, .com and .ca) This is not too much that you are asking more sources ? I'm honestly giving up the idea of helping Wikipedia. You don't understand the anger that you cause for the public. If this happens again, I stop editing and I will definitely boycott Wikipedia's family. That's my last word. I hope that someone takes my complain seriously and helping us to solve the problem without being threatened again !

Best regard, A deceived volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontrealEditoring (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@MontrealEditoring: All articles must be based on multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are unaffiliated with the article's subject but still specifically about it. See WP:GNG for more information. This is true even for articles about charities. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It isn't clear why you think that you were deceived. Not all corporations are notable. Maybe you misunderstood what Wikipedia is and thought that all corporations are notable, but, as you know, any group of people can create a corporation. (At least I assume that the law in your province is similar to that in most US states.) You may have misunderstood, but I don't think that you were deceived. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel deceived, MontralEditoring. It sounds as if you have a (very common) misconceptioon that one of the functions of Wikipedia is telling the world about something new. It is not. It is for summarising information which independent writers have already considered worth writing about. You have also (again like many people) joined Wikipedia and plunged straight into one of the most difficult tasks there is: creating a new article which will be accepted. I see somebody has added a number of useful links to your User Talk page: I recommend you read Your first article, in particular. --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is standard of English Wikipedia now too HIGH? Or is the attitude of admins here sometimes too arrogant?

Hi, today, I write article finger fork which contains 2 sentences, 2 references (1 from a magazine) + stub template and 2 categories. But after 5 minutes, KevCor360 give me speedy delete template when I were writing. That's make me frustrated and my decision was to delete this article. I remember how THIS WIKIPEDIA WAS BUILD AT THE BEGINNING WITH EVERY SMALL BRICK of contributors who came from everywhere in the world. Do we need to change the speedy template looks more friendly? Why we can easily accept this bad quality article Hicoria, Florida but immediately want to delete the article with 2 sources? How do you feel about admins of English project? They sometimes like a robot, come and delete or follow orders instead of thinking what is good for Wikipedia or they stayed here too long to recognize how they changed compared with when they first came to Wikipedia? I don't think many ppl care about my case, even Jimmy Wales never never know if I still want to write here to say that English project may be too mature now so nothing to contribute here. Alphama (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alphama: You may want to develop your article in your own user space rather than in public article space. One way to do this is to create a "sandbox" by clicking on the Sandbox menu item at the top of the page (or it may be hiding somewhere else if you are using a non-standard skin for WP). Once you have the article in what you believe is the proper shape, you can submit it to Draft space and request a review by other editors.

It's entirely proper for an editor to recommend deletion of an article that does not appear to meet WP's standards for notability and reliable sources. An article in a sandbox, or in draft space, however, is considered a work-in-progress and people who look at it are more likely to help improve it.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I proposed for deletion the ghost town article about which you complained, and someone promptly added sources and removed the tag. So articles actually do get improved. Also, please read about Articles for Creation, which allows you to submit draft articles for review so that they will be declined for future work rather than deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Alphama, Wikipedia is a very different animal now from what it was when it started. Many articles were added then which would not be accepted today, qand there are many substandard articles still around, because nobody has improved them (or deleted them). There is now a well-established path for creating articles and getting them reviewed before they are moved to main space: please see your first article, and Articles for creation. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll add to that that your Finger fork article gave no indication why the topic was noteworthy (Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything that ever existed, but only of things where it can be demonstrated the topic is significant), and the reference was to an article in the Daily Mail which read—in full—When grasping cutlery with flexed fingers becomes too much hassle, a finger fork insists promises add to simplify the eating experience. Designed as more of a novelty product than a serious revolutionary invention, the finger fork resembles a metal elongated cuff that wraps around the finger, and has a four-pronged utensil at the end. Available in the UK, the diner uses their finger to jab lasagne, twirl spaghetti and pursue other fork-related endeavours. If you can demonstrate that there has been non-trivial coverage of finger forks in significant academic or press publishers (which definitely doesn't include the Daily Mail, a dubious tabloid with a well-documented history of fabricating stories and of reprinting press releases verbatim and unquestioned), we'd be glad to host an article on it. ‑ Iridescent 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Here [4]. It's OK? Alphama (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I make an existing article into a Template and still retain the article ?

I am creating articles for Indian olympic athletes. I have created the first one and several more of them will have run the same races with different timings / positions. Thus citations, references etc. would be similar, and I'd like the overall look to be consistent.

Is there a way for me to take the first article that I created and make a template out of it, while still retaining that article ? Currently the way I'm understanding it has to be done is to request the article to be "moved" into the Template namespace (ie, moving it to be renamed as Template:Name). But if I do that, I assume that the original article will be lost as it will become a template, and then presumably after I'm done I'd have to re-request a move of the Template article back to being a regular article ?

I'm not sure I'm thinking about this correctly and it could just be that I don't even have the terminology to ask the question correctly. I thank you in advance for help. Shortindiangirl (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You can copy-paste the wikitext of the first article into a new one and make necessary changes. Ruslik_Zero 18:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, Shortindiangirl. No, what you are talking about is a template in ordinary speech, but a Wikipedia Template is something a bit different: it is a bit of a page which is included as a whole in different pages, but you can't then change bits of it unless that possibility is programmed into the template in the first place. So an Infobox, for example (the box containing standard information that appears at the top right of many articles) has built into it parameters to specify all the individual data for the subject. If one particular part of each article you write is going to be the same or nearly the same, you could create a template for just that part, and include it in each article, perhaps with specific parameters. But I don't think it's likely that a whole article will ever come from a template, if only because if the information on the individual subjects is so similar, I doubt that most of them will meet the criteria of notability required to have an article on them in the first place.

So Ruslik0's suggestion is probably the best for you - but bear in mind that if you copy material within Wikipedia, for any purpose you must attribute the source: see Copying within Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Why was my content deleted?

I wanted to notify and inform about a Tv Channel which started in Australia on 15 July 2016 but it was removed saying unambiguous advertising Simarau7 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Simarau7. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which have already been written about at some length by independent commentators in reliable published sources - we call this test "notability". New things - products, companies, bands, channels - hardly ever qualify. When several independent writers have written pieces about it (not based on interviews or press releaseas), then there can be an article, based close to 100% on what these independent writers have said. Please see WP:Notability and WP:TOOSOON. --ColinFine (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Behavioural Optometry Page Edit

I have been trying to work out how to edit this page. Technically no problem, but there seems to be considerable resistance from an Ed. The information on the page is outdated, innaccurate, and the intent of the original paper has been interpreted in a particular way. I have written an extensive rebuttal of the information backed by high quality references. Seems like every way I go there is a rule to prevent me altering the page (see the talk), and I am now thinking its not about the truth or facts. I have offered to discuss with the Ed but to no avail. WHere to from here? Loomis Ideology (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC) When I try to upload the document I get a message about an Abuse Filter??Loomis Ideology (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is now a redirect to another article. To see the history of the article before it was merged, see here. The talk page of the original article was not merged. This answer will likely require someone who is versed in WP:MEDRS. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Loomis Ideology. The article you mention has been merged with Vision therapy. Discussion on the talk page of the old article indicates that several editors, not just one, disagreed with your additions. Contested changes to Wikipedia articles must be based on consensus among interested editors so you must convince the other interested editors of any changes you want to make. We have very strict standards for reliable sources used in medical articles, and survey articles that give an overview of the range of published journal articles on a topic are among the preferred sources. I understand that you feel passionately about the theory that you espouse, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We summarize all the reliable sources, pro and con. You cannot upload any copyrighted document to Wikipedia. It simply isn't allowed. Provide a link instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328 and thanks for your reply. I understand the requirements for scientific evidence, and I do not believe the main paper quoted here by Barrett (2009) fits into that category for many reasons. Not the least of which is that it is now at least 8 years out of date. This is a problem with meta reviews. The paper has also been misrepresented and selectively quoted in the article, as it is often done in its public and professional use. For example, Barrett continually refers to the treatment of Dyslexia by behavioural optometrists. They do not treat dyslexia. They treat the vision problems ocurring concurrently with dyslexia. A study in 2015 in the UK showed that dyslexic kids have twice as many vision problems as normal kids. Their vision improves, and as a result so does their function. Its sure does not help to have dyslexia and poor vision. Might I suggest that you read the paper, then review the Wikipedia entry and I think you will agree it is completely misleading. The edit I did was intended to be balanced and fair, and provided close to 60 academic references from credible authors published in reliable journals. Some of these were missed and/or ignored by Barrett, and time has not helped. Barrett also confined his review to a limited scope of publications which caused some important omissions. To get this straight, I am not an optometrist, or any sort of health professional, and have not had or been involved in behavioural optometry treatment. I do not have a theory to espouse, just facts arising from published research that contradict this entry in a subsstantial way. Sure there is controversy as with all science, but this is not a form of complimentary or alternative medicine. It is taught in some of the best Universities in the world and has a vast repositiory of scientific evidence to suport it. Regarding the merged article, vision therapy is a treatment modality within behavioural optometry. All that has been done is to copy the erroneous text to the Vision Therapy article. Evidencing Behavioural Optometry is a bit like providing evidence for neurology. Its a broad subject with many aspects. All I am suggesting is a balanced article based on evidence, but there is pretty stiff resistance to even discuss the subject.Loomis Ideology (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Loomis Ideology. I am sorry but I am not going to read that article. I have no expertise in or even interest in optometry, except the mildest sort of interest that comes from being a patient of many optometrists over the course of 60+ years. The Teahouse is not a place for lengthy discussion of content disputes about technical topics. We do not resolve content disputes here, but instead advise newer editors about how to edit Wikipedia productively. The proper place to discuss the content of this recently merged article is the talk page for that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing

Hi! I am trying to add spouse information and I do not know how to do it correctly. I am trying to add a spouse to Kenny Glasgows Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillymealbizu (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't add a "spouse" to the infobox at Kenny Glasgow because Template:Infobox musical artist doesn't have a "spouse" parameter - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay and Sillymealbizu: From what I've seen in other articles about singers and other entertainers, I think such information would go in the article text, in a section on "Personal life". --Thnidu (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I also was wanting to do a minor edit to change a name of a musician in an article. This person has transitioned their gender and would like their current/correct name listed. When I went on the page and changed it, they removed my edit as vandalism which it isn't. I have a couple of published online sources I can reference to show the information as fact. How do I submit them? Sunnybunny5us (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My edits not showing on Nurburgring laptimes page

Recently I corrected GTR Nismo laptime and 650s spider lap time at that page but it is not shown in history or it is hidden.I want to know why because I don't think I have done anything wrong. ThanksAbc12345 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

Hello, AVP1234, and welcome to the Teahouse! Our server is currently having an issue where it shows an outdated version of a page to users who aren't logged in. It will eventually update the page on its own. However, if you want to update it manually, you can try purging the page. I hope this answers your question. If not, please let us know by replying here. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks,it s pulging solved my issue.Abc12345 04:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

who is the longest serving admin

im curious which person, aside from staff, still has his admin powers. i mean through an rfa 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:BB (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Try looking back through the archives at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship to see who is still active. Nthep (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That won't help, as originally RFA took place off-wiki so isn't logged. The oldest still-active admin whose RFA date is known is User:Enchanter (11 August 2002), although User:Magnus Manske—whose RFA date is lost—almost certainly preceded him. ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You asked that question two days ago also. It is still here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a different question; this one is about admins who didn't get the bit from being staff. ‑ Iridescent 21:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, there was no RFA because the original UseModWiki software didn't have admins, IIRC. When MediaWiki went online January 2002, myself, Brion Vibber, and Tim Starling (I believe that was the initial geek group) became admins by "software decree" (write access to the database). --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still here! I'm sure there are others who have been admins longer than me, such as User:AxelBoldt, who is still a very much active. Enchanter (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske: No, I wasn't around so early, I only created an account in October 2002. My RFA was done on wikien-l in March 2003. Maybe you're thinking of Lee Daniel Crocker. But I have studied the August 2001 UseModWiki backup, including the source code. At the time, administrator status was based on entering a shared password in the relevant places, so everyone who knew the password was effectively an administrator. The password was "aidepun", i.e. Nupedia spelt backwards, which was also the Mailman site password. Since the Mailman installation predated Wikipedia, presumably everyone in the inner circle (Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Tim Shell, etc.) knew the password from the outset. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hi, my name is Sturgeontransformer; please allow me to introduce myself. Currently, I have contributed three articles, the most recent being Environmental racism in Europe. I have also uploaded a handful of photos to Commons. At this point, I would say I have largely become familiarized with most of the basic finer points of image copyright standards here at Wikipedia. This said, I do have a question.

Two weeks ago, I uploaded an image using a fair use rationale. I provided a detailed explanation in the template. Now, it is my understanding that at a certain point, editors will peer-review the image and confirm whether or not the image has rationale by adding a special tag. I have noticed that other images I have uploaded to Commons--all under appropriate Wiki-friendly Creative Commons licenses--received confirmation of validity fairly quickly. Seeing that two weeks have passed, I am starting to wonder if the Fair Use photo I uploaded is scheduled for review, or if maybe I should let someone know that it appears to be sitting unreviewed. It's been on my mind, having an image posted without confirmation of valid rationale. In any case, here is the image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Essential_Oils_Distillery_Explosion,_Mitcham_March_30,_1933.jpg

Thank you kindly, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images are not routinely reviewed. 18:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)