Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 314

Archive 310

←

Archive 312

Archive 313

Archive 314

Archive 315

Archive 316

→

Archive 320

Name change

I recently created a page, but the subject has asked for his middle name to be added. Can the original page be moved please, or do I have to delete the old and create a new one? Thank-youRamblin' Ronnie (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Move" button is a bit hidden, but it's there for all autoconfirmed users.

Hi Ramblin' Ronnie, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you can absolutely move pages to new titles without having to delete the old title. To do so, use the "Move" tab (see the figure to the right). Help:How to move a page describes the process in a bit more detail. If you become stuck, or have any further questions, feel free to leave a follow-up question, and I or another Teahouse host will be happy to answer! Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ramblin' Ronnie, please note that what determines an article's title is our policy Wikipedia:Article titles, not what the subject of the article wants.
Furthermore, if the subject of the article is asking you to change the name, it sounds as if you have a potential conflict of interest so should not be editing the article in any case. - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict Hello, Ramblin' Ronnie, and welcome to the Teahouse. Mz7 has solved the immediate issue, but please also take a look at the notability guidelines for politicians, and whether or not the relevant sources use the middle name. It seems to me Mr Rahman is barely notable; the sources you've used verify he exists and what he's done in office, but they're not particularly extensive in proving his direct notability. Local polticians don't often qualify for articles unless they have had major coverage. You need to find significant discussion of his career in independent reliable sources, and add them to the article - please don't just use party or council websites or video sites showing promotional primary sources. At the moment, it looks very much like an article created to promote Mr Rahman rather than asserting why he is a relevant figure for Wikipedia to include, which needs to be improved ASAP.

I'm going to make some changes to make sure the article conforms to Wikipedia style. Meanwhile, please add some of the necessary sources to the article. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 18:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

moved to correct thread I think using the middle name is a cultural thing - I notice that most Mohammed's listed in Wiki include their middle name.

Mr Rahman's term as mayor has ended, so the article is purely recording fact and history.

I am confused that the external links have been removed as I thought these were encouraged. Any help you can give me in that regards will help my future contributions.Ramblin' Ronnie (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ronnie. A couple of points: firstly, please note the conflict of interest issues above; if Rahman asked you to add it, then that's going beyond what's proper for Wikipedia anyway. It doesn't really matter what most Mohammeds do on Wikipedia; we need to cover Mr Rahman as the reliable sources cover him, so if he's Mohammed Rahman in the sources, then he needs to stay Mohammed Rahman in the article.

Secondly, regarding the external links, they are mostly if not all what should really be incorporated into the article as references (if they constitute reliable sources). External links should be very limited in scope - please have a look at the relevant guidelines. They should be (at a maximum) one or two entries such as a subject's official website or other biographical source, rather than a collection of news stories about the subject. But they generally need to be kept to a minimum. I put the list on the talk page of the article so if it remains on Wikipedia, what is written about him in the articles can be included in his biography, again assuming the contents are relevant and constitute information that demonstrate why he's actually notable. (For instance, the first Asian mayor of Corby mention would probably be OK as a source since it's something that distinguishes him from other mayors of Corby; the fact that he welcomed the Queen to the town on her Diamond Jubilee is probably not something particularly relevant to a Wikipedia biography; it's probably the mayor's job in a lot of cities to do that. This is all assuming he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article of his own, of course.)

It doesn't really matter whether or not Mr Rahman is a current mayor or not; what matters is his general notability and that his article doesn't appear to be promotional of him. You do need to digest some of the guidelines/policies regarding articles before creating any more, as generally speaking new articles are closely scrutinised on creation and they do need to conform to the various Wikipedia guidelines, rather than what the subject necessarily dictates. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 21:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to submit my draft

I originally did not understand that I should have worked offline on my article "draft" before putting it up as a wikipedia "draft". I thought my wiki "draft" was truly a draft that could be worked on over time on wikipedia. I was using the draft as a repository for snippets of copied information that I was planning on rewriting in my own words eventually. I was looking for advice and information and the contents of my draft were deleted by an admin editor...so I started over again. Now I have a draft that I want to submit but I can't see how to do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:U.S._Committee_of_the_Blue_ShieldImachrischan (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Imachrischan, welcome to the Teahouse! You can submit a draft by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top and saving the page.

You can continue working on it while it is waiting for a review. I suggest you check out the cheatsheet to spruce up the formatting. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict Hello Imachrischan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Anon126 has given you some technical help. Let me make a few comments on your draft which probably should be fixed before you submit it again for review. This will save time later if the article gets rejected.

When your draft was deleted, there should have been a note from an administrator telling you why it was deleted. The normal practice is, in fact, to work on drafts on-site so you can preview formatting and mark-up, so I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Huon commented on your talk page that the article was copied from another website and therefore was in violation of copyright. Even if you own that copyright, then you cannot reproduce the text here on Wikipedia - firstly, by copying it over you're releasing it under a free licence (anyone can take it and use it anywhere else, anyone can change it, with the only condition on its use being a citation back to Wikipedia), so you may not want to do that. Secondly, text from an organisation's website is usually not written in the perspective we need for Wikipedia, which is a detached, independent POV. Therefore, even if you want to release the text under a free licence, it's probably not appropriate for our aims. This is nothing personal; quite often, non-profit orgs feel that they're not writing an article with commercial aims, so it's OK to promote their work, but 'NPOV' applies to all writing here.

Regarding your current draft, please note the following:

• External links should not be used to reference things in the actual main text.
• The current text is way too promotional. You're not trying to establish a social media presence for the organisation here or promote its work. This is an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view requirement, so tone down any promotional language. If you are a member of the organisation or work for them, it's probably not a good idea to write an article about them because you have a conflict of interest - you will find it hard to detach yourself from their work and aims enough to comment on their work in a neutral voice. This isn't a conventional social media site; we work hard to keep Wikipedia as a formal, scholarly encyclopaedia, and new articles are scrutinised very closely.
• Huon has commented on the sources you've used and explained that they're not reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Take a look at the relevant guidelines as to what we need and why blogs etc aren't actually reliable indicators of the organisation's notability.
• Don't use first person language such as 'we do this', 'we aim to do that'. Use third-person writing, such as 'the organisation works in disaster zones...' and 'it was founded by Abc Def in XXXX'.

Lastly, if you look at your talk page and read through a lot of those links that have been left for you, then things may become clearer. If you have a conflict of interest here, it might be sensible to declare this on your user page and allow someone else to take over the creation of your article. You can monitor it later on and suggest edits to it but it may well be difficult to edit it directly. Right now, it also might be a good idea to go back to Huon and ask their direct help as I'd like to give some assistance with the draft but am on a break from editing due to a head cold making it hard to work effectively on article space. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 21:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Anon126, thank you for your response. I will do that!

LouiseS1979, I will go back to Huon and ask him to review my new draft to get his input on the things you mentioned here. I am not sure about a couple things you said, so I will clarify it with Huon. I cannot see what is promotional about my article. It states what they do and I changed my citations to news sources, as Huon suggested I do differently than my previous draft. If it makes them sound good, I supposed it's because they were created by the Hague convention to DO good. I'm not understanding, so maybe someone can point out specific things that are "promotional". Also, I am not a member of this organization nor am I an employee, nor am I recruiting members here. I do agree with the premise that created them, but I really feel that I have presented the organization in a neutral light and have spoken of them in the third person. But I may be missing something...Anyone who wants to help me is very welcome to indeed!Imachrischan (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Imachrischan - I left a message on your talk page going into a bit more detail. Best of luck, LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

LouiseS1979, I have done a lot of work on the article. I would like to submit it so that I can get help from a grad student to do more research and editing. I don't have time to do any more, so I am hoping that it is good enough to pass the wiki scrutiny ;-) If you could take one more look at it, I would appreciate it.Imachrischan (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User create multiple separate Wikipedia articles at same time, each in own separate sandbox?

Is there a way for a user to create multiple separate Wikipedia articles at the same time, each in its own separate sandbox, or is there another way to go about this? Thank you.Tqiwiki (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tqiwiki I have created a second sandbox at User:Tqiwiki/sandbox2/ and I will follow up on your talk page. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 23:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate all your help, info, tips, & so on. All the best. TTqiwiki (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing a Website Properly

Hi All, I am new to Wikipedia. I made a few edits to a page adding census information and information from a draft registration that I obtained from Ancestry.com. When I finished my edits and hit "Save", I noticed that there was an error by my citation but before I could research the problem, the citation and all my edits had been removed. Any advice on how to cite Ancestry.com or is this not a reliable source (do not know anyplace else to obtain actual census records). Thank you.Deborahpo3 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Deborahpo3: Welcome to the Teahouse. Ancestry.com is actually usually considered an unreliable source. To answer your question, though, I typically use {{citation}}, filling in the author parameter (if available), the url, the title, the date (if available) and the access date. Other people prefer to use {{cite web}}; I don't think it really matters which one you use. --Jakob (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply Jakob. To clarify, should I not use Ancestry.com at all? Deborahpo3 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Jakec, my understanding is that Ancestry.com and similar sites may be used to locate reliable sources (such as archival records), but the website itself should not be used as a reliable source, as much of it is user-generated content. I hope that's helpful. Keihatsu ^talk 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Deborahpo3: Hi Deborah. Applying the above (which I agree with) to the specifics as you've stated them, as I've used Ancestry to locate sources and know that it allows you to view scans of the actual documents from government databases, if that is the case (as opposed to just being told by Ancestry the information), then the source you are citing is the draft registration, and Ancestry is just the vehicle that allowed you to access that public record, primary source. As such, absolutely, use Ancestry in that manner, but then change around your citation to show the source as not Ancestry but the actual thing (though keep ancestry as the location of access). So for example, in your citation to the U.S. Census at George Freeth, the information you provided is all a bit backwards, in that it's giving primacy to Ancestry, rather than the actual source. For an example of a U.S. Census citation see here and see also {{Cite census}}. Be aware of course that when using primary sources, they may be the best source for non-interpretive facts, but you must be careful not to use them to enggage in analyses, make interpretive claims and so on. See WP:PRIMARY. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Fuhghetaboutit! Deborahpo3 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some specific guidelines to help with the situation Fuhghettaboutit describes (where you saw Source A, and it reproduced something from Source B) at WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

List of unreliable sources?

Does Wikipedia have a list of Websites that are considered unreliable?

I Have wondered this before now, and I was prompted to post the question after reading an earlier Teahouse item regarding Ancestry.com. I encountered something similar when I used Imdb.com as a source in some of my early articles. A helpful editor pointed out the problem with Imdb.com, much as the responses to "Citing a Website properly" helped the person who posted that item, and I stopped relying on that site.

I realize that a comprehensive list of unreliable sites would be unrealistic, but I suspect that some sites (such as Ancestry.com and Imdb.com) are used often by people new to Wikipedia. At some point, those writers learn about the sources' unreliability and must revise their articles accordingly. The experience for new writers would be more positive if they could be directed to such a list, especially if the list contained explanations like the comment under "Citing a Website properly" that tells how to use Ancestry.com to locate reliable documents and then cite those documents. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eddie Blick you will get other responses to your question, but WP:RS gives you a guide. IMDB is generally not regarded as reliable because it is user edited (like wikipedia), but in some cases for undisputed basic information it might be reliable. It really depends on what it is being used to support. Hope this is of some help. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There is also a discussion of this topic at WP:NOTRELIABLE. It's not a list, but it might go some way to address what you're after.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eddie Blick. There is no comprehensive list of reliable sources that I am aware of, but an essay found at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites discusses a few that come up frequently, including Ancestry.com and IMdB. The number of unreliable sources cannot be estimated accurately, but it certainly must be in the millions. Or more. So, Wikipedia editors cannot expect to be able to consult a list, but must develop the ability to evaluate the reliability of a source themselves. One thing to remember is that no source is 100% reliable and no source is 100% unreliable.

Here are two examples:

I consider the New York Times to be a highly reliable source most of the time, and have cited its articles many times. But citing the original version of an article thst they have later corrected is wrong. Their reliability comes in part from their willingness to admit their mistakes. And the New York Times does not meet our especially stringent standards for medical articles, described at WP:MEDRS.

At the other end of the continuum, the Weekly World News, which reports on aliens in Congress, bat/human hybrids, and other foolishness, is unreliable 99.9% of the time. But it is reliable for the name of its "senior editor" and the city where its offices are located.

The bottom line is that the reliability of every source needs to be evaluated in its specific context. Routine assertions can be cited to middling sources, if those are all that are available. Person X was born in city Y on date Z. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Doctor X at Clinic Y discovered a 100% effective cure for cancer Z.

If you are in doubt, please ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback.Eddie Blick (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Help please

On my user page under the section "Notes about Wikipedia" I have a note about users accounts and IP addresses. I am trying to link to a page and have it say "this" like this. That link there is to a page but it says "this". See? Can someone tell me how to or changed the link from saying [1] to "this"? Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec ) Hi, yes, it is simple enough. Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions (a URL) can be put in square brackets [1] to make a weblink.

Alternatively just the page name "Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions" can be put in two pairs of brackets. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

To make the link "this" you need only add the word after a space in the first case

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions this] shows as this.

For a page link you need to use the "|" symbol as a separator.

• [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions|this]] shows as this

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

Or there is another way, without reverting to using the URL. If you change the underscores for spaces, and change the code at the end to a question mark, you get [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 305#Why are some people here anonymous?|this]] which displays like this.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ratatouille Ride

The picture on the Ratatouille Ride article needs to be replaced, as the camera is tilted and not very good lighting. Where can I find a free picture of the ride. Tom the Bergeron (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tom the Bergeron. Have you looked in Commons? There are 56 pictures in commons:Category:Ratatouille: The Adventure at Disneyland Paris: all of them are freely available, though I don't know if you'll think any of them are better. --ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Commons is blocked on my computer. Add some of the better ones on to this page, and I'll tell you which one, if any picture is better, should replace the infobox picture. Tom the Bergeron (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why was my first page deleted?

Hi, I have been regularly studying and trying to understand the Wikipedia First Article or New Page Guidelines. However, my first article got deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suraj_Gowda. I even gave 2 references of newspapers covering this person. Would someone please guide me as to how can I modify/edit/recreate this page.

Nakulmehra (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nakulmehra, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem with the article on Suraj Gowda was not to do with how it was written; the problem was that there was no evidence that the person was "notable" (in the special Wikipedia sense of the word). In order to have an article on Wikipedia, the editor needs to show that the person meets the criteria listed at WP:NOTABILITY. Mostly, this involves gathering significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are some general criteria for everybody, and some specific criteria for people in particular fields - they are all listed at WP:NOTABILITY. If you can't find enough evidence to support notability, then the person cannot have an article on Wikipedia yet.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I check how many edits I have, and how old my account is?

How can I check how many edits I have, and how old my account is?

EditorGuy2 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi EditorGuy2 welcome to the Teahouse. You can check your Wikimedia statistics here. If you want a detailed report about your edits to English Wikipedia then you can use this tool. Also there are some useful links at the bottom of your contributions page. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

EditorGuy2 - Provided you have Navigation pop-ups enabled (Under Preferences/Gadgets/Browsing) a quick way to obtain that basic information is to hover over your signature in a post. Hovering over yours above shows "22 edits since 2015-02-26" - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Arjayay - that's brilliant, thanks! I have to set aside some time to look through all those options under Preferences... --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Am i allowed to add a picture

Am i allowed to add a picture to anything? And if i am then how? I wanna add a picture to atleast something . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellokitty1000 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hellokitty1000 welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can add pictures to Wikipedia articles. In order to do so, first you have to upload them to Wikipedia or it's sister project Wikimedia Commons. Either way you must have a proper copyright license to picture/s you are uploading. Your upload/s must fall in to one of the four copyright categories mentioned here. Please note that fair use content are not accepted at Wikimedia commons even though they are accepted here on English Wikipedia. After ensuring that your upload/s has a valid copyright license follow the steps on this essay to add image/s to articles. Furthermore when making an inquiry about something please provide a title along with it. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Hellokitty1000, for Wikimedia Commons, there is a search tool to check for any already uploaded images. It is at Search at Wikimedia Commons. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

teahouse in other languages?

Are teahouse made for any other languages also? aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 11:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Acagastya. Another editor asked the very same question not long ago. You can read all the answers here. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can i have link for hindi wikipedia teahouse please?
waiting since morning!

aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 11:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For that you have to ask an editor that speaks Hindi. ;) But if you go to the Hindi Wikipedia and look in the left-hand column with all the links, you should be able to find something that resembles the link "Community portal", that is usually where you start looking for the equivalent of Teahouses on other Wikipedias. w.carter-Talk 11:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Am i supposed to write my query in hindi there?

(please don't say yes: my hindi typing is horrible for "formal" things aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 12:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No, no Hindi here please! :) I think that you should try to look at the HindiWiki yourself as I suggested above. Or if you can't do that, ask a Hindi translator for help on their talk page. They are listed here. w.carter-Talk 12:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: There is a help forum, roughly equivalent to a help desk or Teahouse, at hi:विकिपीडिया:चौपाल. I have no idea if asking a question there in English would result in a response. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I helped the Hindi Wikipedia out with some stuff many moons ago, they were most helpful with my total lack of the language. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

Thank you all!
aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 13:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

wikilink

while linking in wikipedia, can a phrase or word in an article in English language link to a page in other language? aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 17:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You will find advice at Help:Interlanguage links. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 17:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Creating Articles from another source randomly

Hi Teahouse, One of your users, Cable 3, is cited as posting these two articles on Wikipedia that are from the NIDCAP organization. The links are listed below. NIDCAP is wondering how they were posted because no one from their organization did so and what would be the reason for Cable 3 to do it? Cable 3's user page doesn't have any information as a regular human user. Is it a bot the randomly posts articles? I would like to understand the process and appreciate your guidance.

Without graphic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Synactive_Theory_of_Newborn_Behavioral_Organization_and_Development With graphic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synactive_Theory_of_Newborn_Behavioral_Organization_and_Development (TeriThompson1 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TeriThompson1. User:Cable3 is a human not a bot. He/she wrote the article as a concise summary of research, presumably because they thought it would be a good addition to the encyclopedia. Doing so is not unusual. Why do you ask? Is it a copyright violation? Wikipedia does not allow copyright violations, but Cable3 says here that it is not copied (except the figure, which is used under fair use).

Wikipedia:Synactive Theory of Newborn Behavioral Organization and Development appears to be an early version (placed in the wrong namespace) of Synactive Theory of Newborn Behavioral Organization and Development. An early draft was a copyright violation, but it appears to have been corrected. —teb728 t c 08:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TeriThompson1. If somebody from your organisation had written the article, that would be a cause for concern. Wikipedia articles should be written almost entirely from reliable published sources unconnected with the subject, and in a neutral tone; both of which are difficult to achieve for a writer close to the subject, so people are discouraged from working on articles where they may have a conflict of interest. Having said that, I don't believe that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia at all, as it is entirely based upon primary sources. Only if the theory has been significantly discussed in secondary sources should there be an article on it in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone to view my draft article for publication on Wikipedia

I have created a draft article. I have just self-published a book of poems written by my great grandfather - Thomas Grey. As people will probably want to look on Wikipedia to see who he is I have written an article about him. I understand that family are not recommended to write articles but I have tried to be objective and need someone to help me get this article on Wikipedia please. I also dont understand how to sign with the four tildes. Everything is so confusing!(Limetree1 (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Limetree1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but I doubt that your great grandfather satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for notability. This is not about how important or well-known he was; it is about how much people have written about him. It is possible that the Berwick Journal and Berwick Advertiser articles you cite will contribute towards this, (I haven't been able to look at them), but judging from the facts that you cite to them they are very little about him as a poet. The census and death records are primary sources, and do not contribute to notability. What you need is substantial published articles about him as a poet, or about his poetry. If these do not exist, then I'm afraid that no article about him will be acceptable to Wikipedia however it is written.

A couple of details: when you cite the same reference several times, you can avoid repeating it by using named references: see referencing for beginners. I suspect you must have worked out how to sign, since your posting above is signed. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright?

Hello, I have a query relating to content that I wrote here on Wikipedia, being used elsewhere. Of course I hold no claim or ownership of anything I edit on Wikipedia, I edit for the greater accessibility of knowledge, despite this I am uncertain as to how to respond to what I found on a certain Theophilus F.'s profile. Theophilus claims that "Unless otherwise explicitly stated, all things contained under my profile, all papers, all research and all writeups are my property, and are copyright". However, [2], is identical to my edit on the Moses of Mardin page, [3]. That edit is my own wording and although it is based on a translation of the corresponding German and French articles, it is not a direct translation.

This leads me to ask what is the appropriate response and if this is problematic or not. Mugsalot (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mugsalot: under the Wikipedia licence, they are entitled to use the material in any way, but must attribute it. If they are not doing so, suggestions for how to proceed are at Mirrors and forks, especially the section "Non-compliance process". --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

using in sources

i understand that wikipedia use names using in sources for article title. this make sense. some user seem not to like title using in sources at talk page i read. what to do about that? there is wikipolicy about when to use name using in sources and name not using in sources? please show. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Toghashi Yuuta. I'm not clear quite what you are asking and why. I see you have contributed to several "proposed move" discussions already so you seem to understand the issues. Are you simply asking where the policy is? It's at WP:MOSNAME. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you for giving me link. much clearer now. users cannot defy wikipolicy. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy is policy, Togashi Yuuta, but please remember that Wikipedia works on consensus. Policies sometimes have varying interpretations, or are even inconsistent with other policies, so please go into a discussion with the attitude "Let us reach agreement based on the policies", and not with the attitude "This is what the policy says and I am right and you are wrong". --ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Refused for copyrighted information?

Hello,

I have recently submitted a simple article about the Professional Actor's Lab based in Toronto. I attend this school and I am doing this in order to record its history for myself and for my teachers.

The article was refused for copyrighted information infringement. I don't actually know which information was considered copyrighted and since this is my first time writing an article for wikipedia, I'd really appreciate some assistance in figuring out how to get it accepted.

You can see the article, as it was submitted at the following link.

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

I'd appreciate any thoughts and assistance.

Much thanks,

Aaron Theloniousjanke (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aaron Theloniousjanke. According to the deletion log you copied it from http://davidrotenberg.com/biography.htm. That is a copyrighted page. —teb728 t c 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) @Theloniousjanke: Hi Theloniousjanke. Please don't post copyrighted text again, as you did before and then did again by reposting to your sandbox. Neither page was refused, they were deleted as illegal. The issue is that you copied and pasted other people's copyrighted text, thereby infringing on copyright. Articles should be made up of information that can be cited to reliable (and for the most part) secondary sources, unconnected with the subject, e.g., newspaper articles, and the like, to verify the content and demonstrate the notability of the topic. But, and this is crucial, you must say it in your own words. Information is not copyrighted – creative expression is, so you can't just paste material you find somewhere. With regard to your statement that you don't know what material was copyrighted: everything that you copied and pasted, (unless it was in the public domain, which is unlikely to be case here). There are ways that copyrighted material can be suitably released for use, but it must be a copyright release to the world, and not just a dispensation for use here, as our licenses do not allow that. If relevant, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does the Teahouse do this?

Hello. Right now, I am wondering why the Teahouse invites vandals. I don't like it because it might lead to the Teahouse being vandalized. In addition, the Teahouse invited the person in the example while he/she was blocked. That is pointless because when you are blocked, you cannot edit the Teahouse. So, I think the Teahouse should stop inviting vandals and blocked/banned users. —ApparatumLover (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey ApparatumLover. You're right that it's not a good idea for us to be inviting obvious vandals and users indefinitely blocked for vandalism to the Teahouse. The invitation are sent out by a bot and the issue is probably as simple as that it has not been programmed to avoid placing invites when certain traits are true. It's good you've opened up this dialogue about it (though the Teahouse's talk page might be a better fit for a discussion of this in more depth). The bot at issue is User:HostBot and its human overlord is User:Jtmorgan, who will now be pinged about this discussion. It's probably a relatively simple issue for the bot to be programmed to check whether a user is indefinitely blocked, or maybe to check whether any of certain indefinitely blocked templates are in use on the talk page but not others, and then not invite those users (we might not want to check just for if a person is blocked, because it might be, for example just a username block). It may or may not be so simple to keep it from inviting vandals, where that may require human nuance to determine if they really are. You certainly would need input from someone more tech savvy than I am for any implementation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That invite was added by User:HostBot. Perhaps @Jtmorgan can stop by and comment on it. RudolfRed (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ApparatumLover, RudolfRed briefly (and we can take this to the Teahouse talk page if you'd like to discuss it further) because: a) this user only received a level 3 user warning; HostBot does not issue invites to folks who've received level 4 user warnings, but level 3 is not currently blacklisted. b) the user was blocked 2 minutes before the invite was delivered. If they had been blocked 10 minutes before, they wouldn't have gotten an invite. But the blocking table is not updated instantly, and my invite code runs in real time, so this particular block was missed. It's statistically inevitable that this will happen occasionally, and I've seen it before. Fortunately, it's such a strange juxtaposition (angry red block notice and smiley-happy invite message) that I almost always hear about it from someone ;) So I have an inkling of how uncommon it is! Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How to avoid speedy deletion of a biography of living person?

Greetings! I am new user of wikipedia - I have recently given my time and efforts to create a page for biography of Sakshi Chopra an aspiring singer in my city - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshi_Chopra Although within few minutes I have receive a message of speedy deletion. I need assistance to retain this page. Please advise and help. Thank you very much, Cheers Zuripixel (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My advice is to copy the article immediately from article space into your user space. In my opinion, it will take you longer to fix the article than the time before the article is speedy-deleted. The article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for at least three reasons. First, it doesn't have any reliable sources indicating her notability. Second, and related, it doesn't have enough neutral references. Third, the article has an overly promotional tone, such as the use of the word "passionate" (as one example). I suggest that you save the article to user space, because it will take you longer to fix the article than the time when an admin will delete the article. I know that you expected a more optimistic answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Zuripixel. Have there been any articles about her in reliable published sources, such as major newspapers? (Not listings, not press releases, not social media or blogs, not anything on her own website, but solid articles about her). If not, then she is not yet notable, and there cannot (yet) be an article in Wikipedia about her, however it is written. Your description of her as an "aspiring" singer makes me think that this is likely - see WP:UPANDCOMING. If there are such writings, then there can be an article, which must be based almost entirely on them. If a reliable independent source describes her as "passionate" then that may go into the article; otherwise the word should not appear in the article. And so on. --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I need to thank you guys for your advise and suggestions. And I believe there is so much for me to learn to write an article in wikipedia.

Reason I wanted to create this page were -

• I really liked Sakshi Chopra’s live performance in Mumbai. She is young and talented singer.
• She has large fan following at various social media platform and many people seeking more information about her. Thus with her permission I thought of writing her wikipedia biography page so that it will help people who are seeking genuine information about her.

Currently I have not found any related articles about her in any newspaper or other reliable sources as specified in wikipedia. And this will be case for many such talented people. I found there are few articles in newspaper about some of her personal issues although its not related to her biography.

The concern page has been deleted. And yes I am disappointed. Although I must say it was a challenging and nice learning experience for me. I love creating my first article in wikipedia.

When time permits, I may write this article again after getting required knowledge to write biography of talented living person who is not famous enough to be on newspaper.

Can anyone suggest any such case study / video tutorials / articles which can help people like me write such wikipedia article? Or I would be more happy if anyone could assist to rewrite the article of Sakshi Chopra that will be listed in wikipedia. I will provide all required information. Thanks very much. Cheers! Zuripixel (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Zuripixel, but all information in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable by references to published independent reliable sources. So there is no way to write an article about a subject unless and until such sources exist. —teb728 t c 10:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It might help if you read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - If there is no extensive coverage in independent, reliable, sources, there can be no article.
All you can do is wait, hope she becomes better known, and eventually gets such coverage. - Arjayay (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Language and Copyright issues

A wiki page in English language has use of a photo with a word mentioned "Fair use". Does this means that for the same article with another language, that photo can't be used? Does it depends on the language or the region? aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 04:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Acagastya, welcome back to the Teahouse! "Fair use" photos exist on this language (English) of Wikipedia, so they cannot be used on another language. But, they can be copied over if they meet the rules of that language's Wikipedia; each language has different rules. (Some don't even allow fair-use photos.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So is there a list or something to know if a particular language meets the criteria of fair use photo?aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 08:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Our page on the subject (WP:NFCC) has some interwiki links in the left margin. If the language you're interested in is listed there, the link should take you to a relevant page on that Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Means should i look up in the "languages" section @DeoraGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 12:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I Improve my page to be published?

I have written a draft about Meridia Capital Partners but it's not published because it reads more like an advertisement. It's a page about a company, and I thought I was using neutral text, could you give me some indications about how I should write the article so it could be interesting for the wikipedia users?

Thank you very much for your help.

Anamariabrcn (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anamariabrcn , welcome to the teahouse! It can often be very dificult to stay neutral. I suggest you reduce the amount of information about the 3 investment funds. Also use short words and sentences in general. Don't add more information than needed. For example "invested in premium hotel assets" can also be written as "invested in hotels". "who is also the economic and strategic vice president of Football Club Barcelona, and the vice president of Real Club de Tenis Barcelona." should no be in the intro. Also avoid words like "currently", instead state a year (2015). Moreover I miss alot of vital information about a company. Namely the amount of employees and the revenue. Finally, who is Javier Faus? Is he the founder, the owner or an employee? What does it mean that he manages the company. I hope this helps. All the best, Taketa (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Another related thing you will need to do is to find more citations which show independent coverage of the company, to demonstrate that it is notable. I think it will be helpful to read that link about notability, and especially the section about company notability. That concept of independence is important, because Wikipedia is not concerned about what the company has to say about itself (which generally sounds like advertising); it is concerned with what others have to say about it. For example the articles by PropertyFundsWorld and Aura read like they are taken straight from company press releases without editorial input, or possibly even paid articles. They can be helpful to confirm straightforward facts, but they do little to show that the company is notable. The Harvard case study is a nice touch although it would be more meaningful if you said WHY it was studied - was it used as a good example, or a bad one, or did it highlight a particular aspect of the deal? The citations should provide more complete details (e.g. author, title, work, date) where possible, and the text should make it clear why they are there. This is especially important for the foreign-language citations (four of the seven). Good luck.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much to you both. You helped me a lot. I will review my article in order to apply your suggestions and to improve it. Once again, thanks so much :) Anamariabrcn (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Where to request rollback?

Where do I poke to notify someone with rollback privileges to please go forth and employ them? This specifically in cases where a) there's a chain of small vandalisms that would be a pain to revert manually, and b) it's not a repeat/pre-warned vandal so it doesn't seem appropriate to report to Wikipedia:AIV.

(Case in point, if someone could wander by Mercutio and clean up today's mess, I'd be obliged :) Elmidae (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Hi Elmidae. If you don't have rollback it would take three clicks (instead of one) to revert, which correspondingly take about three seconds instead of one second to perform, which leads me to believe you might not know how to revert and are only familiar with undo. To revert, just click on the date of the revision in the history you want to revert to, click edit this page, and click save page (but I'd also fill out the edit summary with a reason why the edits should be reversed). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've reverted the vandalism at Mercutio - you don't need roll-back rights to correct multiple consecutive vandalism, especially if they are the latest edits - just pick the last clean version in the LH column of history, the current version in the RH column, compare versions and undo. - Arjayay (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Egad! I clearly did not understand that difference. Thanks guys! Elmidae (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

infobox?

Which infobox should be used for a .net website having facilities including a popular free web-based e-mail, messaging service, forums, shopping and news; have major revenue from advertisements?
aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably {{Infobox website}}. You can click edit at similar articles to see what they do. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding my Tribe to a page

Good Afternoon,

I am e-mailing in regards to the page on your website titled: American Indian reservations in Wisconsin. Your page does not list my Tribe. Our tribal website Mohican.com will give you any information you may need to verify our existence. Thank You. 173.84.32.18 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi 173.84.32.18, I see your talking about the category Category:American Indian reservations in Wisconsin and the Mahican (redirects from Mohican) tribe. I went to add the category to the tribe then found it is actually part of a bigger category Category:Native American tribes in Wisconsin Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Actually scrub that I miss-read tribes vs reservations (not sure why it isn't Category:Native American reservations in Wisconsin) - so I have added as it appears to be reasonable. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I beleive there is a Ho-Chunk reservation somewhere near Stephan's Point. Not sure, and not sure if that qualifies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC).
    
    • (It's tribal land, not reservation. Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC).)
      

HELP

I want to know if there is someone that I can pay to complete this page, I have been working on it for months. I would appreciate any and all suggestions or help. Thank you in advance for your time.

Draft:Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Sophia Sider

Brenda Brown Bbentllc (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bbentllc and welcome to the Teahouse. Asking to pay someone here for fixing your article is to really start off on the wrong foot with most Wikipedians. You can read about it in this article: WP:PAY. This is a project done by volunteers and paid editing is always treated with suspicion. If you had simply asked for help, that would have been a lot better. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone at all. 68.227.48.26 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC) bbentllc

Hi, Bbentllc. This draft was started by another editor last October. According to the draft's history, you made some edits last November, before it was first reviewed, and haven't done anything to improve it since, which hardly qualifies as working on it for months. I apologize for being blunt, but a lot of the material you added was not appropriate, and there is a message from the reviewer explaining what needs to be changed, which you haven't tried to address. Posting here for help in making the changes was a good idea, although offering to pay someone was not and may lead other editors to think that you may have a conflict of interest about this musician.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne, I have no conflict of interest this is a client of ours. Writing on this site is very difficult. I don't mind that you are blunt at all. When I said working on it for months I should have clarified that statement, we have been discussing it for months on how we can improve it. I have made 5 or 6 edits actually. 68.227.48.26 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)bbentllc

Hello Bbentllc. Editing an article on a client of yours is a prime example of a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Please read that link. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again user with an IP who I presume is the same user that started this tread. You are not logged in so we have no way of knowing if you are the same person writing this. And, yes, you do indeed have a conflict of interest since you state that "this is a client of ours", that reveals that you have a commercial interest in getting this article on the Wikipedia. The next thing is that you say "we have been discussing it for months on how we can improve it". Either you are several people sharing this account, which is against the rules of the Wikipedia (one person, one account) or you mean that you have been discussing this with "your client", the singer, which is also a no-no. I don't know which is worse. The Wikipedia is not a site for advertising your clients. I would advice you to just back away from this promotion project you seem to be doing. If the singer is notable enough to have an article, it will happened some day, but then it will be written by an editor with a neutral point of view and no conflict of interest. w.carter-Talk 20:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dick Schaap biography

I was looking at my father's Wikipedia biography, and note that you Please note that our father's bio only list four of his six children - in order, his children are:

Renée Schaap Levin
Michelle Schaap
Jeremy Schaap
Rosie Schaap
Kari Schaap
David Schaap

thank you, Michelle Schaap 75.147.90.225 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Michelle Schaap, the only child of Dick Schaap mentioned appears to be Jeremy Schaap and unfortunately the rest can not be added without a valid source - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I had a quick Google and could find no reference. Assuming good faith that you are his son I know this may be frustrating, but what you know to be true we have no way to verify. If you know of any source please let us know. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: But Googling <"Dick Schaap" children> at least produced several articles [4] [5] [6] that states that he had six children. Surely that number can be added. The New York Times has a paid notice about the death of Dick Schaap where all the children are named. But since it is paid for, I don't know if it's admissible since it was paid for by the family, but signed by (read approved by) several other families and organizations. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• @W.carter: I didn't think to look for just the number, or children, i was looking for the names as given! That fact could definetly be added with those refs. However like you, I'm really not sure about the "paid notice"... but it would be a very odd thing for someone to pay to have a false notice added... so I'd be tempted to let that one be used for the family names. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: I think we can follow the advise I was once given by Yunshui: "To boil the rules on sourcing down to their bare bones: yes, you can use an autobiography as a source about its author, but: the information must be uncontroversial (children's birthdates are fine, unsubstatiated claims of acheiving cold fusion in the garage are not), ... The full relevant guideline is at WP:SELFSOURCE." Best, w.carter-Talk 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter:, @KylieTastic: - I expect the funeral notice can be accepted under the guidelines of WP:ABOUTSELF, where "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, ... so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources."--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the same link I had in my post. ;) So who will do the honors of including it in the article? I'm signing out now for the evening. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 21:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There's another consideration here. WP:BLPNAME states that (emphasis mine) "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." This frequently means that non-notable children are not named in an article even if we have reliable sources for the names. The number of children should still be accurate, of course. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Need editing advice

Hello, I wrote the article Cambridge Political Equality Association and it recently got approved for article creation but I'd like to improve it. I know that in the grading scheme, the editing advice it gives for a start level article is to improve grammar, spelling, and citations, and I know for sure that the grammar and spelling is fine. I'm wondering specifically if any experienced editors could help me with suggestions on how to improve citations. Should I add more? Are the citations not good? I'm just unclear on how to improve them. Thank you.Kristinnlizz (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kristinnlizz, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should be proud of that article, especially if it is your first. There is one minor suggestion I would make with the citations, concerning when a citation is used more than once (e.g. 10,11 and 12 all repeat the same citation). In that case you can re-use the citation as follows: Choose a name for it (say "Globe skit"), and change the first citation to be <ref name="Globe skit">{cite ... }</ref>. Then change the subsequent ones to simply refer that name, as <ref name="Globe skit"/> (note carefully that / at the end). This way, there is no need to re-enter all the information, and it simplifies the References table for the reader. Hope this helps, and others may have more suggestions.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks Gronk Oz!--Kristinnlizz (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay Gronk Oz, so I fixed one of the repeated citations in this way and it is clumping them together like it should, but now it's not as beautiful and the code is showing up on the published page and looks like this: {cite web|url=http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~sch01014 |title=Cambridge Political Equality Association. Records in the Woman's Rights Collection, 1896-1926: A Finding Aid |publisher=Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University |accessdate=6 December 2014}}. How do I fix this?--Kristinnlizz (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a missing bracket, I've fixed it for you. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Can administrator access my email associated with my account

Hi, I'm new here and would like to keep my email address private. I like being able to communicate with those that I choose to using email, and to receive updates when articles change via email. I looked around and could not find anything definitive either way- can administrators gain access to my email address if I do not make it publicly available? thanks Radicalacts2 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Radicalacts2, welcome to the Teahouse! Administrators do not have access to your email address but of course if you reply to an email through your email program then your address will be revealed to the recipient. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And if you send an email with Wikipedia's email interface then the recipient also gets your address so they can reply directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)