Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 391

Archive 385

←

Archive 389

Archive 390

Archive 391

Archive 392

Archive 393

→

Archive 395

Are certain YouTube sources viable for an article about a YouTube channel?

I was thinking of making an article about a popular YouTube channel after I know a lot more about editing and such, but in the "Wikipedia:Your first article" article, it states that content from sites such as YouTube are not reliable sources. Would it be okay to use content from the channel as well as alternate ones that are owned by the same person?

The article about the YouTube channel "Vsauce" as well as the alternate Vsauce channels seems to use information from those channels, simmilar to what I would like to do.

WeatherWonders (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WeatherWonders, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suppose there might be a case for using a YouTube video as a source about itself, but I think there's a potentially bigger issue here. In order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a subject must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Put simply, this means that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You'd therefore need independent sources to establish the notability of the YouTube channel you have in mind. Has it been the subject of significant media coverage, for example? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@WeatherWonders: Howdy, and thanks for stopping by! I'm trying to unpack what you're asking, and the answer of "Are sources... allowed?" depends on the more important question "For what purpose?". Let me try to give an overview of what I mean

• If there is a YouTube channel about which a Wikipedia article should be written (more on this later), then it would be quite appropriate in a section titled "External Links" to have a link directly to that channel.
• If there is basic, uncontroversial information about a subject, reliable but self-published information is usually OK for that basic information. For example, in an article about a corporation, it's generally OK to cite basic information (the name of the company CEO, for example) to that company's own webpage. It would NOT be OK to reference more complex, nuanced information to such sources, however. For example, it would be best to get reviews of the company's performance from independent reliable sources. Also, proof that a subject merits an article (again, more on this later) rests in the existence of independent, reliable sources.
• YouTube itself is not reliable or unreliable. YouTube is a source repository and not, itself, a source. YouTube doesn't produce content, it allows other producers of content to post on their site. So, YouTube itself is neither reliable nor unreliable; the specific content you are citing on YouTube is what we have to assess the reliability of. So, if a reliable news source, like CNN or the BBC, posts a piece of well-vetted journalism on its YouTube channel, that's probably fairly reliable. If Randy from Boise posts some homemade rant he made on his cell phone from his basement, probably not so much. This also applies to the above two notions, regarding citing a subject to its own self-created content.
• Regarding the notion of creating an article in the first place: Before an article is created at Wikipedia, the first, last, and only question one should ask is "Does there, out in the world, exist enough reliable, independent source material that a person could read and use to help write the Wikipedia article. That is, if someone knew nothing at all about the subject, could you direct them to reliable books, journals, websites, etc., where they could read every important fact about that subject, and does the totality of those facts give us enough content to make a decent encyclopedia article. This is distilled down at WP:42. This is so very important, as the reliability of Wikipedia is only as good as the source material we use, and if we're going to create an article, it must be based on good source material that we properly cite so readers know where we got our information from. If a subject has no good source material, it shouldn't have an article about it at Wikipedia.

I hope all of that helps! --Jayron32 22:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia page history

Hello again Teahouse i want to know if the wrestling commentator Michael Cole Wikipedia article was really started in 2004 and if possible how come it took three years later after Wikipedia was founded to make the wrestling commentator article for Michael Cole?

Also can you please post a link on when the wrestling commentator Michael Cole article was first created because i want remember its first inception?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Truckmanbeginner. The Michael Cole (wrestling) article was first created on the 24th of October, 2004. Here is what the article looked like when it was first created.

The reason it "took three years" is simply that no one created the article before then. Nothing was stopping anyone from creating the article sooner. New articles are still being created on Wikipedia every day for people, places, things and events that have been around even longer than Mr. Cole. That's why, if you think there's an article that should exist on Wikipedia, you should read Wikipedia:Your first article and get started! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia only had about 10% the number of articles in late 2004 as it has now. In other words, about 90% of our articles are newer than the one about Michael Cole. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Truckmanbignner, there's no need to ask the same question twice, let alone three times. If you have follow-up questions, the best place to post them is in the same section, rather than starting a new question. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Discount coupon for Wikipedia T-shirt

Hi, first of all Sorry for putting this question as its not related to editing but to Wikipedia. From where can I get any discount coupons for buying T-shirts from Wikimedia stores ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for the invite. Cool tee. 2602:306:8BB8:C10:D935:1031:5A29:EBF5 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this... Is this spam? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit suggests that 2602:306:8BB8:C10:D935:1031:5A29:EBF5 is DoctorWhoLover11 from above (who is currently blocked). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Aha! Good catch, Cordless Larry. The phrasing reminded me of the comments one sometimes sees on blogs, something like "Excellent post, I very enjoyed." with a mention of and/or link to some category of commercial product, which was why I asked. And I saw that DoctorWhoLover11 had been blocked, when I went to their user page intending to leave a warning about their edits to Aniruddha0505's question below, but thanks for pointing it out anyway. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peppy Paneer! I don't know about discounts or coupons for items sold in the Wikipedia store, but there are "merchandise giveaways" for Wikipedians that are seen by others to be deserving of recognition for their hard work. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• @CabbagePotato: Ok, got it. I am here from last two months only and my contributions lies in fighting vandalism only. And I can't wait so I will order now. Thank you for the information.

PS - @GrammarFascist: & @Cordless Larry: Thank you for dealing with DoctorWhoLover11

Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Peppy Paneer, and I'm glad you got an answer to your question. (Sorry I couldn't answer it, I had no idea.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: It's alright, it was a vague question. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

wiki articles on other websites in whole

I will admit, I am confused. I realize wiki images and such may be used, but can these websites and such just take in whole wiki articles?? I came across by accident. These people have several??? http://ca.wow.com/wiki/Downchild_Blues_Band T Heart (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Imasku Most of Wikipedia's content is co-licensed under two highly free copyright licenses (the (CC BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL) allowing reuse and modification even for commercial purposes, with the only requirement being suitable attribution to the authors of the article, and a notice stating the license under which they are reusing the work. That site is a copyright violation currently because they do not comply with the notice requirement. Yes they absolutely can take the whole article and reuse it if they comply with the copyright license. See WP:REUSE. Actually it is the images that are often the sticking point. Many images here are being used under a claim of fair use, are fully non-free copyrighted and are owned by outside parties. Note that us authors, and not Wikipedia, own almost all of the content here. When you contribute to an article (or other page) you personally own the copyright to that material (if it is sufficiently creative for copyright to apply). But by contributing, you automatically release your contributions under the free licenses I noted earlier. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright what happens now that they are in .... copyright violation>??? Does this go to someone (more knowledgeable then me) in wiki how to deal with them. I apologize for my writing I have some eye issues at the moment.T Heart (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Only a person who significantly contributed to that article can actually make a copyright claim against them – file a lawsuit or DMCA take down notice. But you can tell them they are not in compliance with the license (the problem here is that they must state that the work is released and provide a hyperlink or URL to the text of the license, e.g., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or provide a copy of the license itself). See Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter. However, I would modify it to note that the problem is the lack of notice, rather than the lack of author attribution.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not do that one but I checked and they have two that I created and a third that I contributed on. I am unsure I have enough experience to say anything. But they are grabbing all of wiki's files of musicians or bands it looks like in Canada.T Heart (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It is Aol.com that is doing this and own that website. I am surprised they do not realize they are in copyright violation? Two articles they have I am the creator, one I have added to and on all three photos supplied by myself or the person article about. I have written to their privacy department only place I could get an email (wiki's standard letter). privacyquestions@aol.com

I am really unsure if this will accomplish anything. I found it very difficult to find contact information on these people, I believe there head office is in the United States. T Heart (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Imasku You could ask at the reference desk but see this. However, that site makes an attempt to comply, they just didn't do it right. There are numerous wholesale ripoffs without any such attempt. Ready to be shocked? this is the page for reporting copyright reuse problematic sites starting with the letters ABC. It continues over seven more alphabetical pages – and I bet that list is just the visible part of an iceberg.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I did manage to get someone on the phone at aol.com after a lot of searching. The wiki form letter has now been sent to there privacy office and what they have which is called Abuse. abuse@aol.com I am still very unsure if this will accomplish anything. I am not shocked at anything, I just do not understand with a company as large as they are and with a privacy office that they are not more...vigilant over using of material just surprised actually. I could not even locate the copyright section you did on Aol. Sadly, knowing this now I wish I had never created articles for wiki, I think it is terrible that the individual that created them has to be the one that has to go through this process with companies in misuse. Is there a way I can request the two articles I created be removed. I will now write for the Canadian Encyclopedia that protects their work. I will do no more with wiki that's it for me.T Heart (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

edits lost

I made edits to our Art Vinyl page on 15th Sept and it was showing on the page but today the edits have disappeared. When I look under history it seems to be there but i can't see how to get it back. can anyone help please?Art vinyl (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Art vinyl, and welcome to the Teahouse. You edits to Best Art Vinyl were reverted by DVdm. It's not immediately obvious why, but perhaps DVdm could explain? Incidentally, while you may well have referred to the article as "our page" just casually, that does raise an important issue. Wikipedia articles aren't owned by anyone, and if you have a connect with the subject of an article then you potentially have a conflict of interest, which you should disclose. Note that editing of articles about subjects with which you have a connection is discouraged. You also need to address the concerns that have been raised about your user name on your talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i.m.o. this was a clear case of WP:COI. I should however have mentioned that in the edit summary, and a little warning at User talk:Art vinyl would have been appropriate. My apologies for that. - DVdm (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I just notice that user Art vinyl restored the content. The concern remains, and the cited source does not look reliable to me, so I will remove it again ([1]), and give a proper warning on the user talk page for general advertising and promotion ([2]). - DVdm (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DVdm. I'm not all that concerned about the COI with this particular edit, since it just updated some basic details about award winners, which were already in the article for previous years. However, what does concern me is that the source URL just redirects to the Art Vinyl homepage, so there is a verification problem. Art vinyl, if you get reverted, then you need to take the issue to the article talk page and discuss it there rather than simply reinstating the edit. Please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I have caused concern I'm new to this I just reinstated the edits as I didn't realise what had happened. Would it be better if I changed the source URL to one of the many internet articles announcing the top 10? As you say the edits that have been removed are just updated info already there from previous years so I hope if we can resolve the source URL issue these can be reinstated? thanks Art vinyl (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The most advisable approach to take, Art vinyl, is to post your suggested additions to the article, including a working link to a source or sources, at Talk:Best Art Vinyl. Other editors will then be able to assess the material and add it to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I have done the edits and changed the source URL to an online article removing the previous one I am in the process of changing the user name too. thanks for the advice hope that is now ok. Art vinyl (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Art vinyl, I think you may have misread my previous comment. My suggestion was to post your proposed addition on the article's talk page, not to edit the article itself again. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did misunderstand sorry but can you tell me if the changes I made were acceptable as I see they have been taken down again? I can't work out the Talk page to be honest - so my proposed edits are - to update the information for the top 10 for 2014 with a source link to Design news site.I'm trying my best not to contravene any rulesSimonkinsler (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are being reverted because you need to discuss the edits on the talk page. To do that, just go to Talk:Best Art Vinyl and click "New section" at the top of the page. Give the section a title such as "Requested edit", and describe what you wanted added to the article. Your suggestion will get more attention if you place the {{request edit}} template in the section. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The request has been made appropriately enough on the article's talk page, I think, so I'm going to make the edit requested, unless someone beats me to it. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist. I'm sure that Simonkinsler is grateful for your help. By the way, do you need to add one of the response templates to the talk page? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Yes, I did need to do that, Cordless Larry, thanks for pointing it out! This was my first time answering an official talk page edit request; I try to help out people with COI issues, but usually on drafts or informally. Did I do the response template right? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I've not done this before myself, so I'm not entirely sure. It's still showing up at Category:Requested edits, but perhaps it will be automatically removed shortly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the way it's supposed to be done, GrammarFascist. I hope it is, anyway... Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Cordless Larry — better than the way I had it. Thanks for the assist! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Very grateful for both your help! Glad that's all sortedSimonkinsler (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Simonkinsler. Thank you for respecting the correct process to have the information added. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding Citations, still declined

Hi there,

I have written the article 'Hubbell Water Heaters' and it has been declined three times. After the second time, I thought I understood how to go about improving my references, so I added more in depth citations. It was declined a third time, and I am not sure how else I can fix this. What else can I do? Carrierc (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly nothing. Not everything that exists meets the minimum requirements for a Wikipedia article. In order to qualify for an article, there needs to exist, somewhere in the world, reliable source texts, which are independent of the subject of the article and contain enough information about the subject to use to write an encyclopedia article. Source which do not meet all three requirements (that is, reliability, independence, and depth) are usually insufficient for using to help write a sufficient encyclopedia article. The short-short version of this notion is at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, while the full policy page is located at Wikipedia:Notability. --Jayron32 14:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CORP and WP:NOTADVERT may also have information you would find useful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm new...

I just setup an account yesterday and already an Article I made about my motorcycle that didn't exist before has been flagged as copied, which in fact is untrue. What should I do? The page is Honda CL125S. Any help will be greatly appreciated!

~XxProudxGamerxX~ ^(chat) 17:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi XxProudxGamerxX, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, that article does appear to be a partial copyright violation, as you can see from this report. You'll need to rewrite the article in your own words, citing the source, rather than copying text directly from it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the help Cordless Larry (talk)! Very appreciated. :P ~XxProudxGamerxX~ ^(chat) 18:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I also suggest reading Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, XxProudxGamerxX. eHow isn't considered a reliable source for articles, and that is probably why links to it are blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article on the Hajj doesn't mention women.

Because of the tragedy at Mecca reported today I decided to look up the Hajj; I was surprised to find that the Wikipedia article doesn't mention the fact that only men go on this pilgrimage. That may be taken for granted by those who are more familiar with the Middle East than I am. Still, it seems rather odd.71.125.52.208 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not true, women do participate. The article actually mentions women four times. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple

I have been editing the page: The Marketing Institute of Ireland, and there are two boxes that I cannot seem to remove from the public page. 1. is from multiple issues (see below) - which I have resolved. 2. is from uncategorized (the article has not been added to any categories) - which has been resolved.

How do i remove these or place the page as a draft in the meantime? The page does not look credible to the public as it is.

• {{Dead end}}
• {{Orphan}}
• {{refimprove}}

212ny (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reformatted the post so that this page does not show up in template categories. The tags are there to indicate to a reader that the article has issues, so in a way that improves the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole to the reader. The first two are easy to fix - find appropriate articles to link to from this article and from which to link to this article. The third - find some more reliable sources and add them to the article. Fixing that should also deal with the notability issue. As it stands, I don't think there is any need to move the article to draft space.--ukexpat (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 212ny, and welcome to both Wikipedia and the Teahouse. I notice that The Marketing Institute of Ireland is the only page (other than this page at the Teahouse) you have edited. You may not yet be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which states that editors with a close connection to the subject of an article are discouraged from creating or editing that article, and must declare their conflict of interest on both their own talk page and the talk page of any article for which they have a conflict of interest. I hope this information is of use to you. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

how to submit new phrase to wikipedia

Our non-profit organization has coined a new phrase. We checked U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website and to the best of our knowledge, the phrase does not exist. Is it possible to submit this two word phrase to Wikipedia and have it included? We can provide a detailed definition as well.98.109.126.191 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia only covers subjects that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, and if your organisation has recently coined this phrase, I am guessing that this is unlikely. Please do tell us what the phrase is if you think it might qualify for inclusion, and I will happily check for possible sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Person editing from 98.109.126.191. This new phrase would almost certainly be inappropriate for an article here. The first issue is that Wikipedia never properly covers new things not already the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, published, secondary sources. Such things are not notable in the way we use that word here, and doing so is original research. An encyclopedia is by definition a tertiary source, publishing things that are already a part of mainstream knowledge, as reflected in source. Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and neologisms are especially inappropriate. We do have the very occasional article about a word as a word, but only where the such a write-up goes far beyond a simple dictionary definition, such as including information on the social or historical significance of the term. Note, however, that our sister project, wiktionary, is a dictionary. Nevertheless, there as well, the use of newly-minted words and phrases is not generally suitable. Wiktionary's inclusion standards may be viewed here (note the "attestation" standard). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Have I spotted a "ghost" user on wikipedia?

I went to thank a user for his contribution to a page which I had been monitoring on my watchlist, and after performing the "thank", decided to visit his user page . . . but no user for that name was registered! The "user" was named "Yadidyag", and he made a positive contribution to the article Shechita.

How does this happen? Is this a known phenomenon?

—Boruch Baum (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Boruch Baum, and welcome to the Teahouse. The user exists - they just haven't created a user page. You can see their contributions here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Hello, Boruch Baum, and welcome to the Teahouse. What has happened is that you have found a brand-new editor, who has not yet made a user page, and whose talk page has not yet been used for any conversations. I will go and put a welcome template on their page now. And thank you for thanking Yadidyag! Spreading Wikilove like that helps Wikipedia retain new editors. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, Thanks for the welcome! I am pretty new to all of this. I think I made up a user page.Yadidyag (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that worked, Yadidyag. There's no compulsion to have a user page and some very experienced editors haven't created them, but I think it's nice to have one - if only to get rid of the red link in one's signature. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry and GrammarFascist:, and Welcome, from another newbie, Yadidyag: —Boruch Baum (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Badges on user page from TWA

Hi! I finished The Wikipedia Adventure game today, which was very helpful. However, I'm not sure what to do with all the badges I have. I feel like I don't really need them on my user page, but I don't want to delete them entirely. Could I move them to a draft page for safe keeping? My understanding is that I don't have total control over any page on Wikipedia, even my user page, and since I didn't exactly put the badges there myself, I'm worried that deleting them might be seen as impolite or in some way contrary to the rules. Infiniteparentheses (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Infiniteparentheses: welcome to the Teahouse!

While its true that you do not "own" any of the pages on Wikipedia, your user pages are generally open for almost anything , see for general types of things that are allowed and for the types of things that are not. Moving the badges would be in the category of things that are perfectly acceptable.

And they will always be available by the pages history [3] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Infiniteparentheses, create a new page called User:Infiniteparentheses/User badges, cut and paste the badges, then link to the new page from your User page. Checkingfax (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the clarification on user pages, TheRedPenOfDoom. And thank you for the specific suggestion to create a new page, Checkingfax. Infiniteparentheses (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Google book links are promotional?

My edits were reverted as promotional link. No questions about the movie which ended with the same name, but how this edit adding this book is wrong? NewMutants (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@NewMutants:, whether promotional was the correct term or not I think Peppy Paneer was right to remove the link as inappropriate. If you add a book as a reference then it needs to verify the information it is connected to. In this case the statement you attached the reference to was The term egg roll is commonly used in English speaking countries to refer to variations of fried foods involving filling wrapped in flat bread.; your link takes readers to a google page about a book on egg roll recipes. The information displayed to the reader at that google page does nothing to confirm that egg rolls are fried foods wrapped in flat bread. If you had linked to a page inside the book that gave a definition of an egg roll then it would be an acceptable reference but as it stands it doesn't verify the information in the article so is inappropriate. Nthep (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@NewMutants: Welcome, and thanks for stopping by. I can't read the mind of the person who made that edit. You'd have to ask them directly. My only concern is that the source you added does not add value because it is not a scholarly source on the history or specifications of the egg roll, which would be expected of such a citations. It's merely a link to a cookbook which gives a recipe for an egg roll. It's at best tangentally related. Also, we don't generally link to Google Books or Amazon when citing a print source. We just cite it as any print source. But that's a minor point; I can't see where linking to one specific recipe for an egg roll is a proper citation for such a definition, rather than linking to an authoritative scholarly source on asian culinary tradition, which would be a good source. --Jayron32 18:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Nthep & Jayron32 for such a clear explanation on why the addition of link is inappropriate to the editor NewMutants.

And @NewMutants:, I feel the link addition is promotional because the link takes to this which not only has the name of the book with author but the description which is promotional in tone goes like "When you read this eBook, you will find the tastiest recipes, and all you’ll want to do is try them out. Making, and then finally tasting the spring rolls after following the recipes in this book, will leave you wanting more. The scrumptiousness of these yummy little delights will just blow you away. And the highlight; these recipes are extremely healthy, so make sure to try them out." That's why I mentioned it in the edit summary as promotional. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That book looks like it is self-published, so it shouldn't be considered a reliable source in any case. A better source would be something like this OUP book or this reference guide. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jayron32, you are incorrect to say above "Also, we don't generally link to Google Books or Amazon when citing a print source. We just cite it as any print source. When an accurate online version of a print source exists and is not a copyvio, it is permissible, even desirable, to provide a "convenience link" so tat readers and editors can verify the citation online. I have done this many times, linking to Google Books or another online version of a print source, in addition to providing bibliographic data about the printed version. Of course that says nothing about the value of any particular source so cited. DES ^(talk) 06:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  Such a link is allowable, but not required. That is, bibliographic information without a link is fine, a link without bibliographic information less so. --Jayron32 13:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  Cite the book, not the bookshop. An Amazon link, or any other online seller, is not an acceptable substitute for citing the book itself. A Google books link should only be used to link to the specifically relevant page, as a convenience link, not as a substitute for citing the actual book. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  If you use {{cite book}} with the |isbn= parameter, this will link to a page like Special:BookSources/978-1-234-56789-7 which in turn includes links to help you to find the book at any of numerous sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Machpella Cave

I understand his may not be the perfect place for my question, but it was recommended that I try this forum. "Israeli authorities have placed restrictions on calling the faithful to prayer by the muezzin of the Ibrahimi mosque. The order was enforced 61 times in October 2014, and 52 times in December of that year. The reason given is that the call to prayer bothers Jewish settlers in the city." (from the Cave of the Patriarchs article). This text is unbalanced. It fails to recognize the counter points raised here. I am reluctant to fix this myself because of my inherent conflict of interest as a supporter of Jewish access to the Machpella Cave. Is their anyway someone could correct this? (I put this message on the article talk page but except no response as it doesn't seem to be watched) -- Thanks!! Naytz (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Naytz. The article in question is Cave of the Patriarchs. The first thing to keep in mind is that all Wikipedia articles should reflect the neutral point of view, and must summarize all significant opinions on controversial topics. This can be difficult in highly contentious topic areas. The second thing to remember is that all articles related to the Israel/Palestine conflict are subject to sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which are explained on the article's talk page. It seems that there is an ongoing "loudspeaker war" in Hebron, with Israeli settlers playing Jewish religious music at top volume, and Palestinians playing Islamic religious music at top volume. Each side claims that it is right and that the other side is wrong. In my mind, it somewhat resembles the situation at the border between North and South Korea. The situation must be described with strict neutrality, and content should not be added that favors just one side of the dispute. Ideally, sources should be selected that try to present both sides of the story. Here is one possible such source, although it is six years old and not of the very best quality. If there is an academic book that neutrally discusses the contending loudspeaker dispute in Hebron, that would be good to use. Next best might be a lengthy newspaper article or magazine article covering both sides. Any source that takes a stance of "we are right and you are wrong" is of less use, and must be balanced by an opposing source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with inaccessible and unconfirmed references

In this page Yeti, reference number 7 is "Stonor, Charles (30 January 1954). The Statesman in Calcutta." I googled it and the results were books which were actually copied from Wikipedia. As they ended in Stonor, Charles (30 January 1954). The Statesman in Calcutta. Missing or empty |title=.

Now those who had copies of old newspapers, it would be better if they scan it or take a picture and upload. Wikipedia must have some preference for sources that can be accessed by others.NewMutants (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewMutants It would be simply impossible to make all sources available to all readers, so to get around the problem we have Resource exhange where you can post a request to other users to send you a copy. Uploading scanned copies would in most cases actually be illegal due to copyright restrictions. Keep in mind that Verifiability does not require that sources be easyto find, only that it is possible for someone somewhere to do so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case I can imagine something and give a fake reference like. ref-Peter Charles, Asian Times, 1949.-ref. And i will quote from it that Yetis have blue nails. We can't access every source as Books but we can at least verify whether the book exists for real.--NewMutants (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NewMutants. You are correct that we must always be vigilant about the faking of sources. Personally, I think that the "Yeti" tale in the Himalaya is foolishness just like the "Bigfoot" story in Northern California and Oregon. But this is notable foolishness or myth that should be covered by this encyclopedia. When I Google "charles stonor yeti", I see several published sources written by Stonor. These may not be fully reliable sources but they are sources that exist. Perhaps they can be used with care to describe the opinions of Yeti enthusiasts. Their reliability can be discussed on the article's talk page, or at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User requests deletion of own account

Hi I came across this while patrolling : User talk:Pierinaandrea. Author requests deletion, so should this be speedy tagged with this criteria ? Or before that should understand the concern as the editor is new and not understands Wikipedia guidelines and policies and may have been demoralized by the reverted edits. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Peppy. Accounts cannot be deleted. The user did not ask for his or her user page to be deleted and doing so has no affect on the existence of the account. You could explain this to them in response, possibly adopting the text from {{HD/vanish}} when you do so. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion applies to pages, including user pages, whereas this user seems to want to have their account deleted, which is a different thing, isn't it? As far as I know, it's not possible to delete user accounts, because otherwise there would be contributions that couldn't be attributed to an account. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Yes I should have thought of this at the first place...got it Thank you for clarification. And I have placed the tag {{HD/vanish}} you shared on user's talk page, even thinking of putting some basic policy and guidelines too (to help understand Wikipedia better and the reverts)

Thank you @Cordless Larry: for further explanation and yes you are absolutely right. See this.

Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

a photo was speedy deleted from a new page i am working on...

Hi I am working on a bio page for a chess player The page is in my personal sandbox, but the photo has been marked for "speedy deletion" File:World Senior Chess Championship 2013 Pelias.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been... I am confused as to why since I took the photo myself? thanks Chessqueen (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chessqueen: Welcome, and thanks for stopping by. The problem, from what I can see by looking at the deleted file, (as an admin, I can do that. Membership has its privileges...) is that the photograph was previously published elsewhere, and is thus bound to the copyright status of the previous publication. Unless the original publication explicitly states that the photograph is licensed in such a way as to be compatible with Wikipedia's own license (generally this means the CC-BY-SA license), then we can't use it here. If you do own the clear copyright on the photograph, and would like to make it available to use at Wikipedia, it can still be done. There are instructions for how to fix this problem here. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 14:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

thank you - I will check the link you sent to meChessqueen (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

War

Defector331 is making disruptive edits. NewMutants (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Defector331 has been blocked by Bongwarrior. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocking log for who wants to know more about [[4]]

(Need to block someone? check [[5]] out) Amir R. Pourkashef 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talk • contribs)

Identified dead link, don't know how to find archived copy

The article I'm referring to is the one on Floor hockey. Section: History. I don't know how to link it so I can show other editors where it is. Problem is, the information sourced is relevant to the article and I can't find it anywhere else (maybe someone else could?). I think it would be a bad move to remove the information it currently provides altogether. It would definitely be of value if it could be located and sourced from elsewhere. CheckersBoard (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi CheckersBoard. I found this archived version of the page at the Wayback Machine. However my reading of it is that a) it contradicts the text is purports to verify in part, and b) the second sentence in the article it is cited for is far too closely paraphrased to this source. I don't have time to make any changes based on this right now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the material and cited the archived source.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Linking

How do I know what pages link to a partcular page? Corsican Warrah (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Corsican Warrah, from an article one should link to those other articles which are relevant to the source article, those that would help a reader. One can always discuss which links should be present on the article talk page. DES ^(talk) 18:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, I mean how do I know what pages link to a particular page? Like, suppose an article called Blablabla. How would I know what articles have a link to Blablabla? --Corsican Warrah (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a link right on the left-hand side of the page, "What links here" — just click on that link from the page in question. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed I forgot to ping you, Corsican Warrah. Hopefully my reply has answered your question. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Create

I know people can edit any page, but how does one create a page that doesn't exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.2.51 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@96.224.2.51: Hello and welcome! Wikipedia actually has a pretty good tutorial that covers this. Read Wikipedia:Your first article. You will need a registered account to create a new article, however. Wikipedia:Why create an account? gives an overview of the benefits of creating an account. --Jayron32 14:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you don't even need to register to create an article, and it would be better to use the article wizard. That way, you can work on the article with less chance it will be deleted, and others will evaluate your work, because most people who are new to Wikipedia don't know the rules and it's hard for them to create an acceptable article. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

conflict of interest disclosure

If I am writing an article for an organization I am associated with, what disclosures am I required to make? RobertXTrent (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The official guideline is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest but the easy-read guide is Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations, which includes sections on:-

Be up-front about your associations with the subject.
Avoid creating new articles about yourself or your organization.

May I suggest you start by reading that, and then come back if you have any questions - Arjayay (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, did read them and thanks for your help. I want to be up front about my association. Where is the best place to do that. Not in the main article I assume.RobertXTrent (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

RobertXTrent, I suggest that you create a user page with your disclosure. Click on the red link for your name and edit there. You can also declare your COI on the talk pages of applicable articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If applicable, you can make disclosure on your userpage using the template {{Paid}} – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=RobertXTrent|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"reliable sources and referencing

My first article has been rejected twice because of "lack of reliable sources and referencing." Everything I've written is true, and backed up primarily by IMdb but also by several news outlets and fan sites. How do I make my article better? It looks ok to me, but clearly it needs work. Help!

45.49.140.95 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to be sure you have read and understood Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition, because anyone can add any information they want to an IMDb page; there is no fact-checking like there would be at a responsible journalistic source.

This question is the only edit you have made under this IP address. It would help us to help you if you logged in to the account you used to create the draft article, if you have an account. Otherwise, please tell us the name of the article that was rejected. There may be other issues with the draft we could assist you with correcting. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A correction to what GrammarFascist said: there is some fact-checking at IMDb and we can probably rely on it in the very limited circumstances that they do that but it's certainly not as reliable as a journalstic source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction, Vchimpanzee. I did not realize any fact-checking went on at IMDb, and I have seen more-experienced editors than myself describe IMDb as not a reliable source, particularly in the context of Articles for Creation. I don't know whether IP user 45.49.140.95 is still around trying to get the draft they created ready for promotion to mainspace, but it's good to have the information here for other editors' use. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Naming someone who has been accused of a crime

If it is speculated that someone has committed a crime, but the news has not released their name yet, can we name them? I am talking about the Patrick Kane case. Cavalierman (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Only information that can be cited to a reliable source should be included in a Wikipedia article, Cavalierman. With respect to contentious material about living people, unsourced assertions must be deleted. The pages I link to explain these policies in more detail. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It is best practice not to name a living person named in a crime until the trial. While best practice is rarely followed, at all points prior to the verdict, it MUST be presented as "police ALLEGE that X committed a crime". WP:BLPCRIME will provide some more details. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

NON-Latin fonts

When i start typing cyrillic, or hebrew, or whatsoever non-latin-based, mistakenly, and the result is empty by any reason, wiki doesn't suggest result in English or even to change the keyboard layit/ 2/ People like me are big and predictable segment - with their alphabets

regards Нина Зверева (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Нина Зверева: and welcome to the Teahouse!

I am not entirely sure that I understand your question/comment, but I think you would be able to get some good answers at the village pump. They would likely be able to tell you if what you are experiencing is a bug, or for some reason intentional, or if it is a feature that has not been implemented due to lack of demand/interest from users.

Be sure to let them know what browser you are using and if you using the default interface, the Visual Editor or if you have chosen one of the "classic" interfaces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think what Нина Зверева is talking about is: when they start typing in the search box on English Wikipedia, article titles often don't come up as suggestions if they were typing in Cyrillic. I just checked and, unless there is a redirect from the Cyrillic (or other non-Latin alphabet) name to the transliterated title of the article, the Cyrillic name will take the user to a page of search results, but in the meantime no suggestions will appear at the search box itself.

See, for example, Правда. (Please don't create that redirect, anyone, until Нина Зверева has had a chance to verify that this is the issue they are asking about; I will happily create the redirect later.) By contrast, Правец already redirects to Pravets, and comes up in suggestions once "Пра" is typed into the search box, while "Правда" does not come up as a suggestion due to the lack of a redirect.

If this is what you're asking about, Нина Зверева, there's a simple solution, which is to create redirects to the articles from their Cyrillic names. This would not be appropriate to do for everything — Правда should redirect to Pravda, not Truth — but for place names and articles about publications originally written in a language that uses the Cyrillic alphabet, it seems like a good idea.

I hope this answers your question, Нина Зверева. If you need help learning how to make redirects, just ask. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) [re-edited by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)]