Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 378

Archive 375

Archive 376

Archive 377

Archive 378

Archive 379

Archive 380

→

Archive 385

question about the michael cole wrestling biography page?

I want to know if the Michael Cole Wikipedia page was really created in October of 2004?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So the history shows, Freshmangrandcaravan. Is there a reason why you question it? Is ther a problem? Doe sthe exact date the article was created matter to you anyway? Some of the very early article histories on Wikipedia have omissions, but I don't k now if this is one. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Cole (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes, here's the very first version of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Page History and User Contributions

Hi, Wikipedia teahouse i just want to know if an administrator can remove content from a page history or user contribution?Freshmantruck (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Freshmantruck, you seem to be asking a very similar question to Freshmangrandcaravan further down the page. Can I ask whether you're the same person? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

yes i am the same person i guess i am doing sockpuppetry.Freshmantruck (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking this isn't sockpuppetry unless the accounts were used to appear to be multiple persons in a discussion or poll, or to evade a block or ban, or in some other abusive way. However, with very limited exceptions, a given person should use only a single Wikipedia account. Please link each of your accounts' user pages to the other, choose one, and stop using all other accounts, Freshmantruck, Freshmangrandcaravan. DES ^(talk) 23:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to your question, Freshmantruck/Freshmangrandcaravan, I refer you to the answers to your previous questions about this, here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal Info Box/'career' page

I'm planning on making a page for a football coach/scout who is yet to have a wiki page, and I was wondering how you insert one of those ' personal info ' boxes that you see on the side of articles about people?

For example, on Cristiano Ronaldo's page, he has a section that contains: 'Personal Information' 'Club Information ' 'Youth Career' 'Senior Career' and 'Honours'

I'm new to editing and don't know what the official term for this 'box' is nor do I know how to make it, I would be grateful if anyone could help

TommoNewton1 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the documentation at {{Infobox football biography}}.--ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, before spending any time on the article, please read the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (just the lead, first section and then the football subsection) to find out if the article can be on Wikipedia. We have fairly strict inclusion criteria. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Process for killing a stub and merging to another article

I've been an editor for a while but took an extended break. Things change and memory fades so am looking for some help in deleting an article which is a stub. I posed the question on that Talk page but doubt it will attract anyone's attention. I will continue to educate myself on the process, but if someone can offer any guidance, the help would be appreciated. --SlimJim^Talk 10:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi SlimJim, and welcome back. I'm not sure that the process you're looking for here is deletion (unless you think there are unresolvable original research issues or the subject doesn't meet the notability guideline) as much as a selective merge. I suggest that you propose a merge of the two articles by following the instructions at WP:MERGEPROP. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

An alternative, if you think that the stub really has no right to be its own article, is Articles for Deletion, in which case one resolution can be MERGE. For example, if there is an article on an elementary school, and they are normally considered not notable, a conclusion of AFD can be to merge it into the article on the county or independent school district article. However, as noted, Requests for Merge are the usual procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Inactive Wiki Project?

Hello, as I'm getting around and getting to know the place, I see a WikiProject that appears to be inactive, perhaps defunct. It is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Seduction. I see that it has linked itself to Social Psychology and I edited that talk page to ask the other editors about it. Is there a time to consider a project Inactive and maybe delete the project? I looked around at Wiki articles and got confused, so here I am back at the Tea house for advice and suggestions. I did offer the opinion that the project may endorse philosophies that are considered offensive to some, but on the other hand it's a big world and I claim no superiority of opinion. Any advice, direction or suggestions would be welcome. Cityside189 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cityside189. Tough question. What follows are my personal opinions as one editor, rather than something based on policies and guidelines. First of all, we need to remember that Wikipedia is not censored. I consider the behavior described by this set of articles to be immature and exploitative, but at least some of the topics are notable. We should have neutral encyclopedia articles.

Ten years ago, when Wikipedia was expanding rapidly and there were major articles still unwritten, it was cool and easy to edit here. Wikiprojects proliferated, some of them straying into promotionalism of dubious articles. Many of these projects are inactive. Long-term, productive editors interact in other ways.

My instinct is to leave an inactive Wikiproject alone, unless you hope to revive it. Trying to formally delete the project may bring unwanted attention to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are wise words. If one did want to risk drawing such unwanted attention, I believe the process would be to list the WikiProject page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Focusing on the WikiProject being both inactive and serving no purpose, would likely be more effective than focusing on any potentially offensive aspect of its existence or topic area. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you user:Cullen328 and User:Arthur goes shopping. I appreciate the time, energy and patience that you have to write back to me on the Tea house. I hadn't considered the cliff I was approaching. 4 years from now I am going to propose that all new users be given three "get out of stupidity free" cards (like the old "get out of jail free" cards). Wait a minute... I've already used more than that... maybe 20 cards.... Cityside189 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How do we include Yvonne Craig's passing among the two or three recent ones on the main page?

News stories of the passing of the original Batgirl have made the case for her status as a very special pioneer among series television actresses, an early female action star and positive role model for young girls, and early crush for boys of all ages, who also was one of very few actresses to play opposite Elvis Presley more than once, and was a favorite guest star on "Star Trek" and other classic shows, keeping in mind her millions of fans would surely have more to contribute along this regard. But since the time limit to make it on that main page spot is one week after someone's death, I don't have much time to put together a proper request, also currently having some unfortunate time restrictions myself right now. Can anyone put the request forward for me, and pay tribute to this great lady who also brought fan interaction to a new level, always talking directly to any fan who approached her at conventions or through her website, before there was ever a Twitter?67.84.59.120 (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a process for proposing "In the news" deaths - please see WP:ITND.--ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How to invite editors to review my article for suggestions?

I just created an article draft with suitable notability, it would be great if someone can see my article if in case there is any changes required.Rwadhaawa (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Rwadhaawa/Shriram Automall India Ltd. Rather than create a separate article about this entity, why not include your text in the Shriram Group article? The latter article is short and has notability issues so your text may help improve it.--ukexpat (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rwadhaawa. At the top of your article, there should be a button that says "Submit your draft for review!". Clicking that button should submit your article to the Articles for Creation process, where other users can review your article. ~GottaGoFast ^Stepitup

Copyright violation?

Hi everyone, I just reviewed a page (Painted Hall, Greenwich Hospital) which appears to essentially be a synthesis of multiple copyrighted pages, with phrases lifted directly from a copyrighted website. I'm not sure if this meets the criteria for speedy deletion, as it could make a good article, but there are so many issues with the content that I just don't know what the next step is.

Could anyone offer their opinion? Thanks! :) Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rambunctious Racoon. Since you have looked into the matter, you are the person best able to solve the problem. I suggest that you rewrite the copyright offending passages in your own words, and cite the website, if it is a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rambunctious Racoon. I did a partial rewrite (while logged out by mistake), but it would be well for you to check against the site(s) you have found, and make sure that any content has been rewritten so it is no longer a copy or a close paraphrase, and then, as Cullen328 suggests, cite the source if it seems reliable. If you need help with that, feel free to ask again. IN my view this wasn't a speedy deletion candidate when i saw it, and is even more clearly not in need of speedy deletion now. Note that a list of simple facts, ordered in an obvious way (such as chronological or alphabetical) is not protected by copyright under US law, but any originality in phrasing those facts will generally be protected. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you stop a user from Undoing Edits without understanding them?

Wikipedia is a free forum and we all strive to provide as much accurate information as possible. I often end up editing a lot of articles on India, since I hail from there, and also because these pages have a lot of inaccurate data based on unverified sources, false information, and a lot of grammatical, spelling and syntactical errors. Over the past few days, this one user named Bongan has been undoing my edits without understanding them! For someone who talks like this "I thing u are not follow Wikipedia protocol", it is obvious that he is not going to understand a grammatical correction on a page. How do I report something like this? I don't want Wikipedia to suspend my account because of a miscreant reporting every edit of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronakshah1990 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The first thing to do is attempt to discuss with the other user, probably on their talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with an aggressive editor?

Hello! I'm frustrated and not sure where to go with it. Could you point me in the right direction? I mostly want to figure out how to get him to stop posting to my talk page because he's being bureaucratic and heavy-handed.

The longer version is that I made a lengthy update to a stub article (Crossing the Quality Chasm), which included a list of authors (because the paper had numerous contributors). Another editor deleted the list citing WP: Not a Directory. I read the WP, didn't think it applied, and reverted the change with a note to discuss further on the talk page to come to a consensus. While I was writing up the talk post, he almost immediately reverted my revision and made his own talk entry.

Since then, we've had a mostly productive conversation on next steps, and I think I worked out a compromise solution that will satisfy his concerns. When I went to implement it, I put the deleted content back in to be edited with a note explaining why. He, again, immediately reverted it and put an "edit war warning" on my profile. I went back to the talk page to explain why I don't believe this qualified as an edit war, and then removed the warning from my talk page with a request that he not be so trigger-happy in doing so in the future; we're all on the same side here. He's now replaced it with a post on my talk page explaining why tags aren't shameful or something to be embarrassed about.

A) I disgree. B) He keeps telling me to read various policies, which I do, and then I explain why I think he's misreading them or being FAR too aggressive in the literal and immediate application of them. C) He's not giving me any time to make changes or respond to anything before laying down the hammer. We're volunteers. I'm busy. I'm contributing in a positive way to the community. I like our compromise solution, if not the work it'll take for me to do it, and I kinda wish he would have taken that initiative rather than removing content that has value and may not have been formatted in the best way at first. Mostly, I want to put it behind me, but I know if I keep deleting his notes on my page, he'll keep doing it. I respect the rules, but I legitimately think this is an unnecessary and public shaming and that he's trying to use his weight as a long-time editor to punish rather than work with me to get to the best answer. How do I best disentangle myself from the mess I'm in? Alaynestone (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alaynestone. Looking at the discussion, it's not clear to me that you have really reached an agreement on how to post the material. @Jytdog says "I am really not opposed to adding encyclopedic content about any of the members of the group", which leaves open the question of what would make it encyclopedic. One approach would be to edit your content in your sandbox until you think it is acceptable; that way you can take as long as you like. As for the tags on your page, an edit warring tag is useful because new people may not realize that they could get blocked for it. It's easier than having to write out an explanation, and it's not very public - only five people are watching your page. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Alaynestone. I pretty much agree with the other editor in this matter. That lengthy list of contributors seems excessive to me, especially when you add the lower level staffers. I suggest a single sentence to the effect of "Contibutors to the report include . . .", listing the four notable blue linked people. If biographies are written of other notable participants in the future, then they could be added to that short list.

The best way to avoid such conflicts is to negotiate and then implement compromise solutions. Once material has been disputed by another editor acting in good faith, it is best to keep that material out of the article until consensus has been reached about what to add. Edit warring is never a good tactic for any party in a dispute. I see no evidence that the other editor is trying to shame you. Such notices are pretty routine here.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I love the Sandbox idea; it probably would've avoided everything. 99% of this boils down to that and misunderstanding the revert policy (I thought that when someone makes a bold edit you disagree with, you revert it and start a Talk discussion - which is what I did. I missed the "don't show content unless everyone agrees with it" clause. Just saying, that's DEFINITELY not been consistently the case with other discussions I've seen on less, uh, strict talk pages.) On the flip side, and please take this for what it's worth because I know I'm newer here, but as a new person, I disagree pretty strongly with the idea that throwing tags on people's talk pages is a casual act. It may be in per Wiki culture, but it's super unfriendly to see a big red sign on your talk page - especially in this case when it was a misunderstanding, not an edit war - and then to have it repeated when you try to get rid of it. Something to think about on behalf of other newbies who may be going through similar issues. Appreciate all of the input. Alaynestone (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Alaynestone, I agree with you that the red sign was too much. Jytdog should have used the gentler Template:Uw-ewsoft warning. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Nneutrality banner removal

I’m trying to get my neutrality banner removed. I’ve gotten help from two fellow Wikipedians, and am now turning it over to the community in hopes I can get the article James Lorin Richards back to “neutral”. Any and all advice/suggestions are welcome. And then, who has the authority to actually remove it? Thank you. Jtlanghorne (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue with someone undoing my edits on a page. I am editing in official capacity for a college and know all of the current information, but someone keeps undoing the edits I make. How can I stop this?

Thanks in advance,

Holly 216.38.188.173 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No one should be editing in an "official capacity". I have also reverted a number of recent edits to Ringling College of Art and Design because they were unreferenced and extremely promotional in tone. Because you have a conflict of interest you are strongly advised not to edit the article, but rather to leave a message on its talk page requesting the changes that you think should be made (with reliable third party references). If you add the {{Requested edit}} template it will attract the attention of other users who will review your request.--ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Two best practice options for removing "Neutrality" banners. 1) find the editor who added the banner and ask them to review the page to see if the concerns have been addressed. 2) look at the talk page for where issues of "neutrality" have been discussed and see if they are still applicable to the article. If not, you can remove it. If you are unsure, contact editors who expressed concern on the talk page and have them review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a forum of Wikipedians who are interested in helping with non-Wiki projects?

Hi!

(I'm not sure where to direct my question. I apologize if this is the wrong forum.)

Is there a particular forum of Wikipedians, in which I could find some folks who are interested in helping with a non-Wiki project? This project is developing a nonprofit parade float for the annual Pasadena, California Rose Parade. We need help that I think includes some key character traits of Wikipedians: making a difference, commitment, persistence.

Any thoughts will be appreciated. Thanks Omygoshogolly Omygoshogolly (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Omygoshogolly, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is probably not the place to do what you want to do. The Wikipedia community has a policy against using the website to recruit editors to a non-wiki project. The policy can be read at here. The reason this policy exists is because our goal is to build a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia that is written from an unbiased, neutral point of view. Users who use the website to advertise their business or recruit people to their organization aren't usually contributing to that goal, and in many cases, their contributions can actually be detrimental to that goal. Take a look at our introduction to editing to learn how you can contribute constructively. If you need any further help, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse again. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate Topic?

Hi! I have created a new entertainment company, MUKS ENTERTAINMENT. We have our first music / video release coming up and we just distributed our first press release. We expect our company to continue growing - we signed an artist earlier this year and we will be releasing three of his songs in September. So the question is...Is it appropriate for me to add an article about MUKS ENTERTAINMENT? Thanks for your time. Katy 107.197.245.194 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! We have a test called "notability" that potential article topics must pass before they can be accepted as articles. To pass the test, the topic (in this case your company) generally needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Reliable sources can include news sources, magazines, journals, etc. "Independent" means that the sources cannot be ones that are simply published by your company, such as press releases. If your company does not have this significant coverage, it is likely that it is too soon for your company to have an article at this time.

The second issue might be more important. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia whose content is built on three fundamental principles we call the "core content policies". They are that Wikipedia articles:

1. must be verifiable (readers should be able to check that what is being written is true),
2. written from a neutral point of view (meaning that all opinions and viewpoints on a topic are represented fairly and without bias), and
3. must not contain original research (meaning we write only about what reliable sources have written about a topic).

Jointly interpreted, these three policies form the backbone for almost every other content policy or guideline we have here, so it is important you understand them and keep them in mind as you edit.

Since you are professionally connected with your company, you have what we call a conflict of interest ("COI"). Editors with a conflict of interest in a topic area often have an unintentionally distorted view of that topic area, and this conflict of interest has a significant potential to go against some of our core content policies. For example, you might unconsciously overly embellish an article about your own organization or omit verifiable facts that may be negative or controversial—this would violate neutral point of view. Alternatively, you might inadvertently add details about the organization that hasn't been published elsewhere—a violation of verifiability and no original research. Because of the potential for disruption, the Wikipedia community strongly discourages editing in areas you have a conflict of interest in, and that includes creating articles about your own organization. If you truly wish to write an article, I would strongly recommend proceeding through the Article Wizard, which will help you decide if your company is notable, and if it is, it will let you submit a draft so an experienced editor can review it before it is published. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

page history and user contributions

Can an administrator remove a user contribution on a page history or is that impossible to do? Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Freshmangrandcaravan hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Oversight can be done be a limited number of users. It can be done if an edit reveals personal information about someone, or if there is copyright infringement, or in some other limited situations. There is also RevisionDelete which is similar but doesn't permanently remove the edit. And even after this takes place, a few people can still see what was deleted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@vchimpanzee So in other words oversight can be used if there is copyright infringement and what other limited situations?

Also, does revision deletion only result in having a straight line go across a user contribution?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Freshmangrandcaravan, your first question is answered at the WP:Oversight helpdocs that Vchimpanzee linked to... here is the money-quote: "used within strict limits to remove defamatory material, to protect privacy, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations". So in other words, oversight is used for Serious Legal Problems only, that could lead to real-world-lawsuits (libel/slander/harrassment/stalking/dmca/sopa/pipa). I think, but am not sure, that revdel is just a line through something. See WP:REVDEL, or the link given by vChimpanzee to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RevisionDelete , for all the details. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, person with an IP address starting with 75. I saw this with a Help desk question but you posted it already. And there is Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No problemo. :-)     I'll answer to 75.108 like a zipcode, a bit easier to type than the full internet-protocol thing, if you like. But I do appreciate your use of the person-with-the-numeral-75 approach, seems like a very good way for the teahouse to keep away from objectification issues. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Very informative and from the photos that i have seen in regards to revision deletion they mostly show two user contributions with one having a straight line go across on one user contribution while the other only has the straight line go across half way. My final question in regards to this topic is that how the revision deletion process works having one line go across on one contribution while the other straight line goes across half way on the other contribution or can the straight line go all the way through that particular user contribution?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In the above image the top (later) revision time-stamped 12:01 has been deleted. The user name has been deleted. And the edit summary has been deleted.
The lower (earlier) revision time-stamped 12:00 has also been deleted. In this case neither the user name nor the edit summary (which was blank) have been deleted.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

That is an excellent example however why is the bottom revision deleted user contribution not have the straight line go all the way like the one above? Also, when revision deletion is used is it always two user contributions revision deleted or can there be more than two user contributions revision deleted?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Freshmangrandcaravan, that is because in the upper example the content, the username and the edit summary have all been deleted. In the lower example only the content has been deleted.

One revision or many revisions can be deleted. You may often see deleted revisions when someone tries to do a diff where one or both of the revisions involved have been deleted. A diff always involves two different revisions, but it is individual revisions that can be deleted, not diffs. DES ^(talk) 00:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so in other words more than two user contributions can be revision deleted and the revision deletion example photo shows that the two revision deleted user contributions were in fact individually revision deleted but not because both of those contributions were revision deleted because another Wikipedia user just used the difference button between those two revisions am i right?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Freshmangrandcaravan: I noticed that up above, you started a comment with "@vchimpanzee". If you want to have another Wikipedian notified that you've mentioned them in a talk page post, that syntax won't work. The way to do it is with Template:Reply to or one of its aliases. I started this comment with {{Reply to|Freshmangrandcaravan}}.   {{Re}}, {{Yo}}, {{Ping}}, {{Reply}}, and {{Mention}} are all aliases of {{Reply to}} and will work exactly the same way. Be sure to sign your comment with four tildes (~~~~), or the notification won't go. --Thnidu (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Some info cannot be find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:1010:DFFA:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing an image from the page.

Dear users, I need your advice: as I like to read Wikipedia articles about art, I found one, which is called Filigree, and it was all fine in this article, including all beautiful pictures, with the exception of one picture at the very end of the article, called Filigree silver earrings Mauro Cateb - Own work. For me this picture was not a pleasant surprise, because instead of filigree work you can see there a metal work, not related to filigree work at all. It can create confusion, as people are seeing the information in Wikipedia as a very reliable one. I am ready to explain, why this item is not a filigree work in a polite way, not to upset a person, who uploaded it. So, my question is - how can I TECHNICALLY remove this image, which tools I should use and where I should explain why I did it? Kur Kerdirichi (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi again Kur Kerdirichi, as I answered on my talk page (here) I think your correct and can remove the image. So just edit the page (click edit at the top), search for the image, remove and leave an edit summary saying why. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Hi Kur Kerdirichi, you don't need to worry it has already been removed here by Theroadislong. KylieTastic (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Hello,,I am new here and kind of very lost,,my article declined.

I wrote an article about my singing group under the title,, Remembrance my vocal groups name,it was deleted,,I simply wrote about my group and also sent some pics which I never found,,I used the wizard...but, I edited my article,,and rewrote it under,,Remembrance vocal group,,I liked this title better, because it pinpoints what I'm talking about, better,,my vocal group...I did not know what to do next, and how I get the article on the computer page when I pull up our name,,Remembrance,,where it would say,,,Remembrance Wikipedia dictionary..Here is where I was very lost,,where do I go next and,what do I need to do for my article to be excepted..excuse the all caps,,not mad,,helps me see better,,diabetes,,thank you,,James. REMEMBRANCE.REMEMBRANCE (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello REMEMBRANCE, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to uphold our talk page guidelines, I have refactored your comment by converting ALL CAPS language to lowercase. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative project, using all caps to communicate is virtually never appropriate because it carries the implication that you are shouting at your fellow editors. If you find that text on your screen is hard for you to read, there are several alternative methods you can do to remedy this. Most modern web browsers are capable of actually making the font size of the text bigger for your own screen personally, without modifying the view for others. The external website Learnhowtozoom.com explains some useful keyboard shortcuts to make this happen.

With regards to your question, don't worry: your article was not deleted. Rather, it was declined for publication by one of our reviewers because the draft didn't include enough information to describe what it was about. I took a look at your contribution history, and I think what you did was you started to write an article on your user talk page, which is the place where editors normally send you messages. What you need to do instead is draft your article in your sandbox subpage: User:REMEMBRANCE/sandbox. Make sure you write using standard English conventions, not with all capital letters. Do not forget to cite your sources—Help:Referencing for beginners is a good help page that you should take a moment to read through or watch the videos there. Remember, you need to show reviewers evidence that your vocal group has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you need help, feel free to ask at the Teahouse again. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

However, your article appears to be only one sentence. Wikipedia is not meant to be a random collection of memories, but an encyclopedia. If you think that your group was memorable, please read band notability guidelines and general notability guidelines and add enough information from reliable sources, such as magazines with editorial policies, so that your article qualifies, and resubmit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To expand on what Robert has said, REMEMBRANCE: Wikipedia articles should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have written about it, and had published in reliable sources such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. If such writing exists, then there can be an article about your group. If it doesn't (if no major newspapers or similar sources have published reviews or articles about the group) then it is impossible at present to write an acceptable article on it, and you are very strongly advised not to try. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What to do in an edit war?

I saw an article and reviewed and edited it down to this. It's then proceeded to an edit war, where the original article is reinstated by an editor (an IP, but there's a normal editor whose baby the article is, so protecting likely won't solve the issue). You can judge for yourself from the diffs, but I'd suggest that, pre-review, the article was just someone's publicity page rather than something that should be in an encyclopedia.

The article likely has few watchers, and the IPs that are reverting aren't interested in talking (as they see the review as vandalism). So what's the right thing to do in this situation?

Also, given that notability refers to whether or not there should be an article, rather than whether or not a point is trivial/"weighty" enough to be included, I don't suppose you know what the WP term is for notability of a particular point? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You ask at least two valid questions. The first is what to do about an edit war. In general, read the dispute resolution policy as well as the policy against edit-warring. In this specific case, the IP is already at WP:3RR, and I will be reporting the IP, since the edit-warring is a conduct issue. Second, you ask about notability both as to an article and as to content in the article. The usual WP term for whether there a point should be included, or included at length, is undue weight. There are other terms. Both the article itself and its content do seem to present issues. Since the long version of the article is clearly much too long for any weight, if indeed the claimed the state is notable at all, Articles for Deletion is a plausible forum. Delete and Keep are the most common conclusions, but not the only ones. Stubbing the article, or merging into microstates, would also be plausible conclusions. Thank you for asking, and for recognizing that edit-wars should be checked. I hope that this answers your questions. Maybe other experienced editors will have more advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Robert! Bromley86 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

How should I make one of those Mosaics for ethnic groups?

Hi everyone, I recently noticed that some of the most professional looking pages of Ethnic groups had the mosaic image, and I was wondering how to make on of those? Thanks ManofManyTrophies (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey ManofManyTrophies. What I would do is go to an article that has one, click edit, then study the infobox template at the start. For example, if you go to the articles Greek American, Chinese Canadian or Romani people in France etc., you'll see they all use the template {{infobox ethnic group}} at the start and the code for the display of the mosaic is inside it. It's the part that says

{{image array|perrow=4|width=80|height=100
| image1    = Spiro Agnew.jpg| caption1 = [[Spiro Agnew]]
| image2    = ...

If the article you are here about already uses this infobox, you can study these other uses and then modify the one already included. If none is used, you can take the entire infobox from one of these articles and then tailor its parameters. Note that all the images need to be free and will most likely be all found at the Wikimedia Commons. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for the reply and help. I was also wondering how people make the picture collages aside from the mosaics (ex. the one in the Arabs page. I could ask the people in the talk page and see which they like better for the type of article. Thanks, ManofManyTrophies (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Anytime ManofManyTrophies. I can give you very little help myself as to how to make a hardcoded collage/montage, but I have found a resource for you. Please see Commons:User:Canoe1967/Montages (which is specific to GIMP). You could also try a search like this, replacing Photoshop with whatever program you use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I'll get photoshop asap and i'll get working on the mosaic immediately. Thanks for the help :) and regards, ManofManyTrophies (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Responding to extensive editing which does not seem to follow Wikipedia policy and style

Wikipedia is as specific as can be reasonably expected on what should cited. It is equally specific on what should not be cited, e.g. "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article..." Yet this dictum is ignored in the lead to Alberto Gómez Gómez as regards the statement that "He is best known for producing monumentally scaled murals in public forums in the United States and Colombia..." -- points that are made and amply supported in the text below. Then, too, pictures by the artist in this article which directly illustrate descriptive points have been deleted -- one which demonstrates the monumental nature of the artist's murals by including a photo of the artist in front of one of this works and another which illuminates the points (which are duly cited in the preceding paragraph) by adding an example of work which typifies them with a clarity that no amount of text could possibly portray as effectively. This is not to mention that an article concerning a visual artist with one and only one visual (and a relatively uncharacteristic visual at that) is mystifying. No encyclopedia I have ever seen does this -- I wonder question that Wikipedia's mission can be served by limiting itself this way. It defies the very subject of visual art and artist. If this were not enough, the method of converting the citations to a more professional format than I was capable of (many heartfelt thanks for that, by the way) nevertheless resulted in html-like ref tags in the read view, making for a very messy unprofessional look to the article overall. This is inasmuch as to say that, in several instances, both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policy and style is undermined by what I am quite certain are misled good intentions. Thank you for attention. I'm confident that any response this may receive will be valuable and helpful to my future efforts. Rmark1030 (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Rmark1030. I am a little bit surprised at your comments about images, since I explained to you in quite a bit of detail a few days ago how to add images of his paintings to the article, on User_talk:Cullen328#Artist's images on Wikipedia that don't cede copyright and don't require OTRS involvement. Summarizing briefly, first, you have to add referenced critical commentary regarding the specific paintings, and then you upload the images of those paintings here on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:NFCI. Did you have problems with what I recommended? Now, I will take a closer look at the other matters you mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Rmark1030 and welcome to the Teahouse. You raise several different issues. The request for a citation on a sentence in the lead paragraph was place in this edit. At that time the content involved was mentioned, but not cited, in the body of the article. In fact, i placed a {{cn}} tag on the exact same sentence, in the "Career" section, in the immediately previous edit. You are correct that if content is cited in the body, duplicate or summarized content need not be cited in the lead, although it sometimes is to avoid problems if the exact cited text is modified, or in short articles where the lead is more of the content than a summary. This excess cation normally does no harm. The excess displayed ref tags you mention were due to an error in markup, I have corrected that error just now.

This issue with images (pictures) is a more complex one. The images in question are under copyright. Wikipedia is very strict in how copyrighted images may be used, see WP:NFCC. Point 8 there says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This and other related points mean that non-free images are not used in a gallery format, and are only used if the article specifically discusses those images, with citations to sources. In this case, some or all of the images could be restored to the article IF discussion of the specific images was added to the article, and cited to sources. Other encyclopedias would in such cases often negotiate with the artist for a license to publish a work. Since they do not freely license their content to the world, this could be more easily accomplished. That is one of the downsides of Wikipedia's free-co0ntent model. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 03:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this kind of comment would often be better on the article talk page, but no harm was done by placing it here. DES ^(talk) 03:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the references, Rmark1030 , they display properly in my browser. I see no trace of the html-like ref tags that you mentioned. The "citation needed" tag in the lead section indicates that another editor is having trouble verifying those specific claims. To a certain extent, this may because most of the references are old offline paper sources. Though such references are allowed, references available online are preferred, since that makes it far easier for a reviewing editor to verify the claims in the article. The fundamental question is whether or not this artist meets the notability guideline for artists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I see that DESiegel fixed the references while I was writing my initial reply. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Remark1030. The problems with the "html ref tags" have been fixed by DESiegel. I forgot to remove </ref> tags when I converted a few of the ref templates to ref name. Silly mistake, so sorry if it made the article appear unprofessional. Regarding citations in the lead, while what you've written is generally true, the article is about a living person, so the citing requirements are slightly more stringent. Per WP:CITELEAD: " The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." So, if another editor feels that a citation in the lede is needed, then you should try to discuss their concerns with them on the article's talk page. Regarding the use of non-free images, I tried to explain why I removed them at Talk:Alberto Gómez Gómez#Use of non-free images. I also previously tried to explain what was needed for such images to be used in the talk page discussion Cullen328 mentioned above. I think those two posts and what DES and Cullen have written above basically summarizes my concerns so there's no need to repeat them again here. I'm happy to discuss this further if you like on the article's talk page.- Marchjuly (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Can this be used as a source

Can this be used as a source on wikipedia for sales data. http://akurasu.net/wiki/Super_Robot_Wars/Sales_Data it uses wikimedia software but no one can edit the website but the admin. So I see it just like an uneditable website.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Misconceptions2. In my opinion, that website does not appear to meet our standards as a reliable source. It appears to be a one person operation, and I do not see that person's name or professional qualifications. We are looking for sources that have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. This is my own opinion. For further discussion, you can take the matter to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Abysmal and appalling censorship by frustrated people!

Once again, I think I'm going to give up to participate to Wikipedia. I've just added a paragraph to Jim Harrison biography in the section "Literary works". I'm a French writer... and I wanted only to pay tribute to this great American writer. Someone decided to cut off a part of my contribution without giving me back some explaination: also he or she created a non-sense and betrayed Harrison’s mindset as you can read now, the phrase he kept is specially a joke because in the original interview Harrison continued his remarks by “… Not, more seriously… a.s.o”. But the other part of my translation was erased. It’s really sad to consider as so much people enjoyed themselves with a rude jubilation to get such a power as they are authorized to be censor or executioner. Even if Wikipedia is mainly serious, I'm afraid to realize that in the back-office so much pitiful collaborators struggle to exist and discourage those with good intentions... Best regards,Coolwriter (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RAGE. I don't know enough about Jim Harrison to comment on the edits involved, but WP:BRD is the usual strategy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Coolwriter, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason your addition to Jim Harrison was pared back was explained in the edit summary: "cut down quote which was poorly translated and contained extraneous information". If you want to contest this, you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. You might also want to consult the guidance at Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Coolwriter. I read the Harrison quotation that you tried to translate from French into English. First, the quotation was excessively long. Secondly, the prose you produced was mangled and often incomprehensible. I am sure that your French prose is fluent. At this time, your English prose isn't. Sorry, but that is a fact. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Submitting an Australian Law Biography

Hi I have written a short referenced biography of an Australian human rights lawyer and wished to submit this to Wikipedia. I do not have a Wikipedia account. Could someone offer advice of where or to whom I might submit this? Thankyou Ranjana 124.187.41.237 (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Before I explain the process for creating articles, I'd like to explain and ensure you understand some of the fundamental Wikipedia principles, as they are key to submitting your first article. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we have policies and guidelines regarding what kinds of content we want to include and write about here. Three policies form the backbone for nearly every other content policy or guideline on Wikipedia; we call them the "core content policies". They are that Wikipedia articles:

1. must be verifiable (readers should be able to check that what is being written is true),
2. written from a neutral point of view (meaning that all opinions and viewpoints on a topic are represented fairly and without bias), and
3. must not contain original research (meaning we write only about what reliable sources have written about a topic).

In order to effectively uphold these policies, the Wikipedia community has developed a test called "notability" to determine whether certain article topics are worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Gauging notability can sometimes be complicated because there are many criteria for different topics, but a simplified statement of what most reviewers want to see is summed up by "the golden rule" of Wikipedia: "articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic". To summarize: because Wikipedia is based almost entirely on what other people have written about a topic (the "no original research" core content policy), other people need to have written substantively about a topic in order for us to have an article about it. If this significant coverage does not exist, it is likely that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it.

To submit your article draft, I recommend proceeding through the Article Wizard, which will help you decide whether the topic you want to write about is suitable for Wikipedia. At the end of the Wizard, you will be allowed to submit the draft you wrote for review by experienced reviewers before it is published. If you need help with the process, feel free to ask at the Teahouse and we'll be glad to help. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

can't find a reference

G'Day. I know of a person called Anthony Martis who has been a priest for over 50 years in Pakistan but cannot find any reference to the date of his ordination. Can you help? Tissueboy (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tissueboy, welcome to the Teahouse. Since I'm not really familiar with the subject, I'm only limited to cursory Google searches (which have turned up nothing so far). I would consider asking this question at the Reference Desk, where volunteers who potentially have more experience finding this type of information can help you. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Defunct WikiProject Tagging

Should I add WikiProject banners that belong to defunct WikiProjects to the top of talk pages? For example, should I add the banner for WikiProject Sculpture to the top of a talk page about sculpture, or should I go up to WikiProject Visual arts, the next functional project? -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. Apologies for the delay in responding. My advice would be to use your judgment. I always ask, "what will most benefit the encyclopedia?" WikiProject Sculpture seems to be well and truly inactive/defunct, with only 5 participants and a talk page consisting of routine announcements. I don't see any benefit coming from tagging an article under that project anymore (unless it is revived). Thus, I would go with the WikiProject Visual arts banner instead. If a WikiProject is tagged as inactive, but you take a further look and see there are a number of users still committed to it, then perhaps I would consider adding a tag for it. If you ever decide you need help again, please feel free to ask here at the Teahouse again! Regards, Mz7 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Different names for one article in different categories?

I've just created "Leave It There". It is included in Category:Blind Willie Johnson songs. Problem: Johnson recorded the song as "Take Your Burden to the Lord and Leave It There". The song ought to appear in that category under the long name; the title "Leave It There" would be meaningless to many Johnson fans. Equally, the long title would be unfamiliar to many who know the song by its short (its original) name. One title is needed in some category pages, and the other in others. ((1) Redirecting from the long name to the short one to get to the article from the search bar is not a problem. (2) Piping the name in the category declaration doesn't help, that changes the sort order but NOT the displayed name on the category page.)

Any ideas? Narky Blert (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Narky Blert. Why not redirect and put the redirect page, not the actual article, into some categories. This is not usual but might work. If you do it, include a note explaining what you have done on the article talk page. DES ^(talk) 22:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: TY for your extremely speedy response (which arrived while I was struggling with a WikiMedia upload lol). I had thought of putting the redirect page into the category, but wasn't certain that that would be proper. Your talk page idea is sound advice, of course. However - at first sight (1) that should solve the problem for someone visiting the category page, but (2) it doesn't seem to solve the problem of including the category on the article page without introducing a false entry into the category page. (Nearly midnight, I'm not experimenting further today!) Narky Blert (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I slept on the problem. (1) I adopted your suggestion of adding the category to the redirect page, with an explanatory note on its talk page. (2) I left the category on the article page: it's needed for anyone who might want to follow through from that song to find other songs by the artist. (3) I added a note to the category page itself explaining the reason for the double entry there. (4) I did the same thing in relation to Category:Washington Phillips songs on the same article page, for the same reasons.

Slightly messy, but it works! Narky Blert (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

what is Co-op? Why was I invited? Need joining be a well thought-out decision?

I just received an invitation to Co-op. Not knowing much about it, I am afraid to join in, the reason being that not being an avid contributor, I a afraid if joining would imply deeper commitments or if I would be wasting someone's time and resources (I see a mentor may be assigned to me). Where can learn in detail? Thanks.Usedtobecool (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Usedtobecool, and welcome to the Teahouse. The "co-op" is simply a process intended to match people interested in learning more about Wikipedia and how to edit it with mentors. It does not imply any particular commitment. Well i suppose if you never intended to edit again, it would be pointless to ask for a mentor, but it doesn't mean a promise to perform any particular level of edits or time commitment. If you choose to join the co-op and are matched with a mentor, you can ask that editor as much or as little as you choose, and interact with your mentor in whatever ways you both prefer. There are no established rules or expectations, beyond the rules that apply to any interaction between editors, such as WP:CIVIL.

As for why you were invited, it was done via and automated script (know here as a 'bot, short for robot). Probably it was just because you are a new editor on Wikipedia. It wasn't because of any problem with your edits, or any specialized issue. The co-op is a fairly new project, and it is still getting organized. So feel free to register at the co-op if you think that a mentor, a person who commits to answering your questions and helping .

Also, no one is ever required to use the co-op or seek a mentor. Do tha tif yoiu think it wouold help you, not otherwise.

I hope that helps you decide what to do. DES ^(talk) 18:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Article denied due to lack of references

I would like to know how a page like "Maus (band)" can exist with a single reference but my Casio Fatso article with its 9-10 different references is denied. The references in question are for example an interview with the band on the national radio station Ruv.is (it doesn't get any higher than that in this country). The article also references 3-4 different interviews with the band and reviews of their cd. I don't know how to reference any better than that. What would be needed in your opinion to get this article submitted?

Any guidance most appreciated

Sigursteinn (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF - Just because we haven't gotten around to deleting that article yet doesn't mean we can allow new articles that lack proper sources.

As for the article you were drafting, read the actual reason the article was denied: it lacked references that supported the subject's notability. Try to reduce the sources to just professionally published journalistic sources that are independent of the band, but specifically about the band, and in-depth. Then remove any content that is not supported by the remaining sources. Get that version of the article approved, and then expand it using affiliated but reliable sources such as the band's website.

The official band website does fails the "independent" part of the notability requirements. Youtube and blogs are user generated, and so almost never accepted as reliable sources. Database sites are indiscriminate and so fail the "in-depth" portion of the notability requirements -- assuming they don't fail the user generation portion of the reliability guidelines.

What you need are things like newspaper or magazine articles about the band, not just mentioning the band in passing. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Sigursteinn (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)