Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 577

Archive 570

←

Archive 575

Archive 576

Archive 577

Archive 578

Archive 579

Archive 580

Circumcision denialism "intactivism"

The article I wrote about a male circumcision instrument (Unicirc) has been amended by an editor to "doubt neutrality." The editor expresses doubt about the scientific evidence that male circumcision reduces female-to-male transmission, and attaches a popular magazine article in German. The scientific evidence is indisputable. Are climate deniers and vaccine deniers also allowed to pollute Wikipedia? How does Wikipedia deal with these issues? Thanks for your advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Petersmillard. We have a very high standard for reliable sources in medical articles which is described in WP:MEDRS. That being said, I think that the scientific consensus regarding the favorability of circumcision in general is much weaker (or perhaps non-existent) as opposed to climate change and vaccination. I do not think that an article about a medical device is the right place to discuss the broader issues in depth, but the article must present both sides of the controversy in the scientific literature if it is to discuss why this device is used. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability about a person with repeated COI

Hello everyone -

Have used Wikipedia since I was a kid but want to help do my little bit to make it a better place. I noticed an article about Oliver Cookson and the talk & history pages show repeated mention of COI of a few contributors. I was also following the fact that a bunch of new content being added at the start of the year was essentially references to interviews with the subject, which reading another section of the Teahouse this doesn't usually count for notability.

I have no personal connection to the subject, so I wanted someone to advise on what to do. Thanks in advance!50Stripes (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello 50Stripes and welcome to the Teahouse! This is a complicated topic. Looking into the history of the article for Oliver Cookson, I see that COI is only mentioned once, but that the article was created by G2003, who was in all likelihood paid to write the article who was paid to write the article. G2003 was indefinitely blocked as an account dedicated to promotion and advertising. The article was nominated for deletion and the decision was to "keep" it. The only reference provided during that discussion was this one, describing a lawsuit in which Cookson was involved.

I would be interested to know the opinion of other editors. If you wanted to address COI concerns, you could make a post at WP:COI/N. My understanding is that in practice it can be very difficult or impossible to demonstrate COI at an article, though I might be wrong. Another possibility is to make a post at the neutral point of view noticeboard, WP:NPOVN, asking if people believe the article may be written in too promotional a tone. Lastly, you could consider nominating the article for deletion again. I will wait for feedback from others. -Darouet (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of a deleted update to my drafts

Hello, i'd like a previous edit of the page Ginetta Cars to be saved to my drafts please so I can finish updating and send to some of the administrators to approve and make sure I'm posting my COI correctly. RuthHarrisonGinetta (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The material which you added to Ginetta Cars can't be restored to any part of Wikipedia (including draft space), because it was a copyright violation. I am surprised that the editor who reverted your edits didn't explain on your user talk page, but the reason for the reversion can be seen on the article history page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

RuthHarrisonGinettaDavid Biddulph This matter has been addressed at WP:Help desk#(Reverted good faith edits by RuthHarrisonGinetta. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating an internal link when there is more than one article with the same name

I've tried to create an internal link to an article about the English folksinger Chris Wood but it links to a disambiguation page. How do I write the link so it goes where it should? Joe Fogey (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Joe. You need the link to point to Chris Wood (folk musician), not Chris Wood. If you're using the source editor, you can do that like so: [[Chris Wood (folk musician)|Chris Wood]], which becomes: Chris Wood. This is called "piping" – the text before the | is the target of the link, the text after is what is actually displayed to the reader. In the visual editor, you simply make a link the normal way and select Chris Wood (folk musician) from the list. – Joe (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

paris theatre portland

hey! ive been trying to edit this page as the info is very outdated, but i am having a hard time getting it to stick - mods keep reverting it. i know i must be doing *something* wrong, but i don't know what - all of the information i am adding is correct and sited - i am leaving past info as "history". what can i do? Emmamame (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Emmamame. The correct course of action is to continue discussing changes to the article on the talk, as you have been with User:Another Believer, who...could maybe use to be a bit more explanatory in their edit summaries when it's clear there is more than one person working on an article. TimothyJosephWood 16:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I've responded on the user's talk page and also invited WikiProject Oregon members to come improve the article. I've encouraged User:Emmamame to continue using the article's talk page to submit requests, but to be patient while volunteers make updates appropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

yes. im caught up.sorry for not really knowing what i am doing/being a hassle. i just have my bosses messaging me about it/being bummed its not updated yet. i will be patient and have told them the same. thanks so much for your help, everyone. Emmamame (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Emmamame: Unfortunately, although I'm sure you care very much about your boss's opinion, Wikipedia doesn't. You should definitely take the time to review our policy on conflicts of interest, and if your boss would like to press the issue, you can inform them that failure to abide by that policy will likely results in members of your organization, and potentially also associated IP addresses being blocked from editing Wikipedia, and therefore no longer even in a position to suggest that changes be made. I'm sure they'll find that somewhat more disagreeable than an inconvenient delay. TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood:no, one is pushing it! i apologized for being impatient and said i'd pass the info on to them. no one is trying to disrespect wikipedia. they only contacted me because i had sent a screen shot of my initial edit, feeling as though i'd been helpful. when they looked again later, it had been changed, which was disappointing to all of us haha but i get it now and we are all going with the flow! thanks for the warning, though! i appreciate it.

Emmamame (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Any advice for a newcomer to Wikipedia?

Hi there. I'd like to say thanks for the invite. As someone with experience in English, I'm determined to prove myself on Wikipedia.

One question: What advice would you give to me for future reference?

Thanks for your time.

Cypher7850 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cypher7850, and welcome to the Teahouse. One piece of advice? I'm sure others will have more to offer but how about: Be willing to ask questions and learn. So you're off to a great start. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz Thanks for the welcome. I'll admit I'm a bit nervous being an editor on Wikipedia. But in time, I hope I'll learn from the best & become a respected member of the Wikipedia Community. Cypher7850 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Short and simple (*from a fellow newcomer*) - start small and build from there. Don't bite off more than you can chew. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you, Cypher7850, is four-fold:

1. Look at pages you visit in edit mode and try to notice how the markup renders when you hit preview. That helped me learn the markup rather quickly.
2. Don't be in a big hurry to create your first article. There are plenty of things to do besides writing new articles here. Some examples include: Counter vandalism patrol and copy editing. There are many more. Also, when you do create your first article, take advantage of our sister project, Articles for Creation. It can be disheartening to have an article deleted, and AfC will help you avoid that.
3. Understand that pretty much no matter what, some of the edits you make will get reverted. Don't get upset. Ask the editor that reverted them why politely on their talk page if they did not explain on yours, ask questions here to clarify any confusion and if you still think your reverted edit was an improvement to the article, start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to gain concensus for your changes. This is probably the most confusing thing for a new editor.
4. Remember, you cannot break Wikipedia. Be bold. If you screw up, learn from your mistakes by clarifying what the problem was in discussion here and with other editors.

Welcome to the Corps of Wikipedians. Enjoy yourself and thanks for being here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new page

As stated on your site “Wikipedia covers certain kinds of subjects and not others. Our articles must be "worthy of notice"; this avoids filling Wikipedia with pages that are not really meant for an encyclopedia.”

My question is: Can a scholar create a page about her own scholarship that has links to other Wikipedia pages already in existence?

Thanks,

JM 199.79.170.160 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Being new around here, and not knowing much about the topic at hand (*the scholarship*), my comment would be this: Wikipedia requires that the subject of an article have a certain level of notoriety. Using links for other Wiki articles signifies that /those/ things are notable, but how does that show the notoriety of the scholarship itself? Some links to internal articles are fine, but I tend to think that you should look outside the current content for more substantial contributions for the article itself. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment to point out that "notoriety" means "The state or condition of being notorious; the fact of being famous or well known, esp. for some reprehensible action, quality, etc." which is very different from notability as explained below. Dbfirs 23:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Haha - you are more than correct. I meant 'notable', and even used it in other places in the sentence, but clearly my early morning brain was processing the wrong word there. To be fair, though, a notorious person/subject would clearly fit the requirement of being notable... :D - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JM. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged, because in spite of the best intentions it is difficult to give an impartial, neutral coverage. Even so, the requirement to show "NOTABILITY" (in Wikipedia's special meaning of the word) still holds. Wikipedia does not decide which subjects are "worthy of notice": rather, we report the things that have already received sufficient notice in reliable, independent sources. There is a good, very succinct description of this requirement at WP:42. --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi JM. It depends on what exactly the focus of that page is. We have biographies of scholars who meet our notability guidelines for academics and educators, but creating or an editing an article on yourself is strongly discouraged by the conflict of interest policy. Or if the page you had in mind was more topical, it's not a conflict of interest, but you would still have to take off your "researcher hat" and be careful to approach it as an encyclopaedia article; i.e. ensure that it is a notable topic discussed in multiple reliable, secondary sources, and summarise those sources in an unbiased way without unduly emphasising your own work, including unpublished research, or straying into an original synthesis of the primary literature.

In general I would say that while scholars are can be immensely valuable contributors to Wikipedia, writing a fresh article about your own research is not the best way to go about it. In the past it has frequently caused problems and frustration for both researchers and Wikipedians. I think it's better to start small, by improving existing articles on your field, and in doing so getting a sense of Wikipedia's editorial conventions and norms of collaboration. Personally I completely avoid writing about my own research area on Wikipedia, because I simply find it too difficult to keep my "Wikipedia hat" on while I do so. Instead, I like to focus on adjacent fields that I'm knowledgeable about but don't actively work on. – Joe (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The scholarship topic should be published in a reputable journal or book, and other authors, textbooks, or encyclopedias have written about it. Wikipedia is not a research publisher. You can try creating the page anyway; however pages that don't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Five pillars will probably be deleted later. You can create an account and put the new article on your user sandbox page and ask for review by senior editors; this way they might offer advice or help on it.Jessegalebaker (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Template Issue notices

I am unable to understand certain issues highlighted with the page "Kadambari Danave" 1. In India, its always the fore name and not surname thats frequently used to identify a person. 2.How to remove message that specifies a close relation? The person is not related other than formal acquaintance.

I am not very familiar with some of the terms used. Riyers (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

references in wikipedia

I am writing a Wikipedia article and want to use the same reference to an article or book two or three different times. Should I enter the information over again into the popup box each time I use the reference, or is there some simple way to use it over again? Thanks.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rgschroeder12. There is a technique called "named references" that allows you to create a reference once, give it a name, and then invoke it as many times as you want in an article. Please see WP:REFNAME for details. Be careful of the coding. Everything needs to be just right or you will get an error message. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Need Help I am new to this and it is a mass of confusion to me

Hi , I am Phillip Martindale, PhillipM handle on Wikipedia, and I have been asked by the WM3 Pro Cycling team to change their Wikipedia page to reflect their new status. (They changed sponsors this year from Rabobank -Liv to WM3.) I have tried figuring this out but Wikipedia is a bit confusing to me. At this point I am not sure what to do. I have changed the page several times to reflect the new information and it looks good for a couple of hours but each time it reverts back to the old version. Could you please give me permission to change this page to reflect the new status of the the team or tell me how to do it. They have asked me to do this and it is not good for the new sponsors to have the old team information online. Can you please help me with this and tell me what to do. I am desperate to help them. My Wikipedia handle is PhillipM and I started changing the page sveral days ago. I have done this three times and each time it goes back to its old page. Please help me

Thank you

Phillip Martindale [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipM (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @PhillipM: on Wikipedia we have a policy that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and should not be promotional in tone. This means that anyone with a conflict of interest (e.g. someone who is tasked with updating a Wikipedia page on behalf of the subject) is strongly advised to stay away from the topic. It seems to me as if you have managed to get the facts into the article, but you've also included some promotional language, by quoting the sponsors, which is a perfect example of why it's so dangerous to edit under a conflict of interest. --Slashme (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PhillipM. A good place to alert editors to the need to update this article would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling. That WikiProject is pretty active, so I'm sure you'll get a response. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the part that I considered promotional. In general, to see what is going on in an article, you can take a look at the "history" tab (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WM3_Pro_Cycling&action=history ) and you can see exactly who has been doing what, and if they filled in the edit summary, you can also see why. For example, User:Theroadislong was the one who removed a lot of text that you had added, with comments like "entirely unreferenced and promotional in tone". When you find that your contributions to an article are being undone, you should go to the article's attached talk page (e.g. Talk:WM3_Pro_Cycling) and discuss the matter. If you specifically want to draw the attention of another editor, you can alert them by using the ping template, e.g {{ping|PhillipM}}, or by simply linking to their user page: [[User:PhillipM]]. You can also drop a note on their user talk page. I hope that explanation helps; please ask again if you need more help. --Slashme (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft article

How much time does it take to examine the draft article prepared by me ??? !helper Sawongam (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Most drafts are reviewed within 4 weeks of being submitted for review. Please don't submit any draft for review (or try to create any more articles directly) until you have read and understood the advice at WP:Your first article and the other links which were given to you on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice user:David Biddulph Can I ask for the cause ??? Why not to create a draft ??? And is there any ID ban or any restriction if the article is not accepted or deleted by wikipedia ??? !Helper — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The cause, SawOnGam is that if you create a draft about a subject that is not notable, then it will not be accepted as an article whatever you do to it, and you will have wasted your time. If you submit it for review, you will be wasting the reviewer's time as well. If you create a draft about a subject that is notable, but you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and manual of style, it is likely that you will have to redo your work, wasting your time. If you discover the problems only by sending it for review, you will in a sense have wasted the reviewer's time as well. (Not completely, as that is what the reviewing task is; but if you had understood the policies in the first place, the job would probably have been quicker and easier for the reviewer). --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine How can I delete that draft then ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs) 08:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For a page to which you have been the only significant contributor, you can request speedy deletion by adding {{Db-author}} to the top of the page. And please remember, when posting to a talk page or other discussion page such as here, to add a signature to the end of your message. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bullets

Can I know about how to use bullets in wikipediaa ??? 10:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SawOnGam. There is a problem with your signature. Sign with four ~~~~. The easiest way to get a valid signature is to have a blank "Signature" field at Special:Preferences and no check mark at "Treat the above as wiki markup". You can make a bulleted list by starting each line with an asterisk *. See more at Help:Wiki markup#Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Bulleted lists. PrimeHunter 11:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability and references

I understand that in order to establish notability for my Emmanuel Navon page, I need more references which are not written by Navon himself. 1)Should I delete all the references I cited that he wrote or just add new ones? 2)Should the new ones be articles, etc, that quote him but not directly about him (for example, reference number 52)? 3)What is the ideal type of references to have when writing an Wikipedia entry about a person? Thank you.79.181.247.66 (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Emmanuel Navon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

References to material written by the subject, or to interviews with the subject, are not independent. Such references may, rarely, be acceptable in WIkipedia, but can do nothing to establish the subject's notability. An ideal reference is to a reliable independent published source, and has significant discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@79.181.247.66: & @Maproom::The subject's notability is significantly indicated by the nature of leading Anglophone and Francophone media outlets who invite, broadcast and publish him on his topic of expertise, International Relations (Israel). These are amply cited on the page. He is an instructor at Tel Aviv University and the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, two well-established degree-granting institutions of higher education. Of particular interest, I should think, is that media audiences would have access to background about him as a commentator by accessing and reading his page here in English, and perhaps later in other interwiki projects. I strongly support the subject's notability and suggest removing the Maintenance tag on the page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So which of the 65 now 93 references on the page actually verify this notability? Maproom (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Establishing notability for Emmanuel Navon page

I received a notification on the Emmanuel Navon page that it "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention." I have cited many sources which I thought were independent and secondary, as well as referred to many scholarly articles written by Navon. Can someone please advise on what may be the issue with meeting notability requirements here and how I can improve it? Thanks!109.65.30.14 (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have worked through the first ten references at Emmanuel Navon, and found that none of them help to establish notability. If you believe that some of the other 55 references are independent and reliable, and include significant discussion of Navon, can you please tell us which? Maproom (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A large number of these "references" have been written by Navon himself. That's not appropriate. References should be to published material written by journalists, critics, or other authors who are not connected with Navon.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you say it is better not to reference articles authored by Navon at all or just to add additional ones that are not connected with him?79.181.247.66 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And would, for example, reference number 52 be a good reference? It quotes Navon but is not written about him.79.181.247.66 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: & @Maproom:: please see my remarks at WP:Teahouse#Notability and references dated just now. I suggest a consideration of notability by the subject's academic activity and commentating in his field of expertise for major Francophone/Anglophone broadcast and print media outlets. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not questioning Navon's notability. But it needs to be made evident to a reviewer, by acceptable references. I think it's unreasonable to expect a reviewer to search through (now) almost 100 references, looking for anything that is both independent of the subject and has significant discussion of him. Maproom (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Deborahjay, the links to Navon's own work should all be removed as references; if some of these are highly cited academic papers, they could be added in a "Selected publications" section without links, in the way that his books are included now, instead of being references. references for those sections should be book or article reviews or other publications which write about his publications. a discussion, it's best to link to a reference rather than refer to it by number, because the numbers change; 52 appear to be a paper written by Navon now. References to social media, such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, are not independent, reliable, published sources and should be removed.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Maproom: and @Anne Delong:, for your swift and helpful response. I generally don't create pages so was unfamiliar with the sensible point Anne so clearly raises about not using the subject's publications as references. As he serves the international (mainstream, not social) media as a commentator, documentation of such instances would likely be with his authorship - but this is an editing issue I can pursue elsewhere than the Teahouse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How do i use the Visual Editor to edit a wikipedia draft?

How do i use the Visual Editor to edit a wikipedia draft? Terrariola (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Terrariola, welcome to the Teahouse. VisualEditor works the same way on drafts and articles. The process to create a draft with Wikipedia:Articles for creation starts out in the source editor but you can switch to VisualEditor at any time, also before saving the draft the first time. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am also interested to try Visual Editor, so I tried to use those instructions - unfortunately they seem to be out of date. It points to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Opt-in, which says to "go to the Beta Features section of Special:Preferences and choose the "VisualEditor" item." But there is no such option there: perhaps it has moved ... does anybody know how to activate Visual Editor? --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There are settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide itself says how to enable VisualEditor. The link to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Opt-in is problematic. I guess it's still linked because it mentions unsupported browsers and the link is at: "You'll need a VisualEditor-supported browser; most are. More information can be found here." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have posted about it at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/User guide#Is the enabling VE section out of date? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Y That works! Thanks, PrimeHunter. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding pictures?

I think that Im getting to grips with adding references but Im still in the dark about adding pictures.. Loessperson (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Loessperson, welcome to the Teahouse! Typically, the hardest step for adding pictures to Wikipedia is actually choosing what picture to add. This is because you have to consider the copyright status of the image you are adding. One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is sharing free content, so we want to use only as much non-free content as needed. Free content is work that anyone can use, modify, and distribute for any reason, including commercially. In the United States (where Wikipedia's servers are located), copyright protection is granted automatically to works when they are published, which makes these works non-free. Unfortunately, this prevents us from using most of the images you might find on the Internet. There are generally four kinds of images you are allowed to upload to Wikipedia:

1. your own work, i.e. images that you created entirely yourself
2. freely licensed work, or images that have been specifically released under a copyright license that allows for free usage (a popular example are the Creative Commons licenses)
3. public domain work, or images that are so old that their copyright has expired (anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US), and
4. non-free work, if they meet a very strict set of criteria

If you feel sure that the image you are adding fits one of the categories above, head over to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which will provide instructions on how to upload and supply the necessary information for the image you would like to add. If you are unsure, please feel free to describe the image you want to add here and a Teahouse host would be happy to provide some feedback. Our policy page at Wikipedia:Image use policy has more detailed information on what kinds of images you can add, if you're interested. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not promoting a business but still i am getting notification regarding the speedy deletion.

Hi,

I created the page for Amplus Solar. I am not associated with the company. I am getting notification for article deletion. The article is not for any promotional purpose. How should I change the article so that it is not deleted? Anshikaa003 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anshikaa003. The article is overtly promotional as I read it, and relies on shockingly promotional sources, including the company's own website and press release hosting websites. The article includes an unreferenced and purely promotional section called "Growth Story". So, when you deny a promotional purpose, your assessment seems to lack merit, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328,

I have made some changes. As mentioned by you, I have deleted the growth story section and also removed certain citations. What more can I do to save it from speedy deletion. I am not able to figure out where I am sounding promotional, because I don't intend to. Anshikaa003 (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Anshikaa003, your article is still referenced to the company's own website, plus a story titled, "India’s Amplus Solar is a Soaring Success in the PV Market". That so-called article is the exact opposite of a reliable source. It is overtly promotional and obviously based on company press releases. So, despite your recent edits, the article remains deeply promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328,

I have deleted all the citations that I thought to be from any PR website or that seems to be a company promotional link. I hope the time line table is fine along with the rest of the content. Also, once satisfied that the content is not promotional, can I remove the warning template? Thankyou for helping me, your guidance means alot. Anshikaa003 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Anshikaa003, much of the text you added to Amplus solar is copied from other pages on the internet. That is copyright violation, and is not permitted here (follow the blue link to read about it). It seems possible that you have some personal or professional connection to the company; if so, please declare it on the talk-page of the article, and make no further change to the article itself (you can still ask on the talk-page for any reasonable change to be made for you). I agree with Cullen328 that the tone of the article is unacceptably promotional; whether you think the issue is fixed or not, you may not remove a speedy deletion notice from an article you have created. What you may do (and have already done) is contest the deletion on the talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I have not copied the content from anywhere. I have written it. Though all the facts mentioned about the company have relevant citations. Please let me know how to address these issues. It is my first article and I want to learn how to post relevant and nice articles. Please give me some suggestions & feedbacks.Thanks Anshikaa003 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The evidence on copyright violation disagrees with you. I have moved your reply as you placed it in the wrong section of this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed large sections of the article and added a few sources, should have more content added as fast as possible to assure that the article does not become a rarely edited stub

Terrariola (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all,

Shall i continue making edits like adding fresh and unique piece of content properly in this article or just leave it like that. What steps should i follow to make this one a successful article? Anshikaa003 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Anshikaa003: please see WP:42. Remember that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything which a company says about itself, or which its employees or associates say about it. Nothing - and that includes anything that they say about it in press releases or interviews, even if these are published by somebody else. You need to find substantial discussion of the company by people who have no connection with it, and published in a reliable place. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

New article upload question

Help!!

I seem to have somehow accidentally included a re-direct in my latest upload (a biographical article on Arthur Kett Barclay).

How do I remove it without deleting all my work? FRAS (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FRAS, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is here: Draft:Arthur Kett Barclay. The redirect to that draft is at Wikipedia:Arthur Kett Barclay. There is nothing particularly harmful about that redirect, so it doesn't need to be deleted, really (see WP:R#CRD).

But if it bothers you, go to Wikipedia:Arthur Kett Barclay and place {{Db-g7}} on it. The draft will be kept. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, think I'll leave it be in that caseFRAS (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How to add a phrase for defining?

femme-a-gogues needs defining.

Cmoo46 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cmoo46. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and doesn't contain definitions unless the subject is notable enough for an encyclopaedia entry. You might want to try Wiktionary. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't even know what a Wiktionary is? Cmoo46 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Cmoo46. See https://www.wiktionary.org/. Wiktionary is an online dictionary similar to how Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is generally for articles on topics, but not usually articles on words or phrase in-and-of-themselves (with some exceptions). On the other hand, Wiktionary is entirely about words and their definitions. TimothyJosephWood 16:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK to add my own photo of a book cover?

Hi, guys. I'm new to contributing / editing wikis here. I just started a few days ago and have only one article draft awaiting review. (This article is about a children's book called "The Voyage of the Arctic Tern" which was written by physician and researcher Dr. Hugh Montgomery -- he has an existing wiki article here.) Am I allowed to add my own photo or scan of the cover of Dr. Montgomery's book, into the article? (I tried searching for such an image from Google Books, but the existing ones are too tiny.) Do let me know. Thank you! SarazadeCruz (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SarazadeCruz - A non-free image, such as a book cover, can be added to an article, but not a draft, please see Wikipedia:Non-free content for the detailed explanation and "how-to". One of the criteria is that that the image must be very low resolution - enough to identify the book, but typically no more than 300 pixels in one direction - most album covers are taken from Amazon, or similar sites, who also have to use low-resolution images - so an image on Google books, is probably ideal. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay! Thanks for the advice.SarazadeCruz (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How to find a picture?

Hello! I have recently gone through the Wiki Adventure and know the basics of editing. thinking that I am ready to help the community I went and found the list of stub articles. I picked Auxiliary Point, in Nevada as my first project. I really wanted to put a picture of the peninsula in but Wikimedia has no such picture and it said you cannot add pictures that aren't your own. how would I get a picture and add it? Kb10r (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kb10r. See guidance available at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

An Edit Battle

Hello folks. I am an occasional editor with an interest in education. I've been keeping track of Swiss UMEF University which is a fake university in Switzerland, notable for being the foundation institution for a real university in Afghanistan. If I include the current owner's name, it gets edited out. If I include the current status of the institution as unaccredited, it gets edited out. Both entries contain references that show what's written is the case. What should I do?Bizetshine (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't come to a consensus with the other editor(s), then try dispute resolution. Don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed. Currently the talk page is full of more advertising which I didn't really feel right about erasing, and there's been no engagement at all with my concerns.Bizetshine (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Bizetshine. Don't link to external sites in the text of an article instead of writing a reference. Read Help:Referencing for beginners. You will also need to find a source that says the university is unaccredited. A reference to source that does not list the university is not sufficient. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks StarryGrandma, that's not me doing the external link. The reference is in fact the reference list used by the Swiss authorities. If you're not on the list you're not recognized. The Swiss government doesn't make a negative list, which does not mean that you can never say a Swiss institution is unrecognized. You can.Bizetshine (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bizetshine and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking through the article, I see many unorthodox citations - not to news, magazine or journal articles - and instead to links like this: https://www.unglobalcompact.org. "UMEF" doesn't appear anywhere on the main page when you follow that link, and if you search the UN Global Compact website, all you see is that UMEF is now "Delisted... Expelled due to failure to communicate progress." When I search for information I find nothing, not even in books.google.com, which is highly unusual for the subject of an encyclopedia article.

Do you know of any high quality, independent, and reliable sources that discuss this university with any depth? If not, it is likely the case that the Swiss UMEF University does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and should be deleted. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

An understandable concern Darouet. Notability as far as I saw it at the time was this: Dunya University of Afghanistan (DUA) is in fact a recognized private university in Afghanistan, and it was founded on the basis of Swiss UMEF University (which has existed as an unrecognized school since the 80s that actually has small facilities and a hostel). Graduates would get a dual degree, one from UMEF and one from Dunya, and there was obvious pride in the guy running both institutions. Currently the actual Afghan Dunya site has scrubbed mention of "UMEF" and "Swiss" (although their Wikipedia page is touting the affiliation and that ain't my writing) and so maybe this is going down the memory hole as a successful diploma mill operation that got the job done. I could see it being deleted as its existence might be just as a scrap of paper if the guy running it is covering his tracks. Edits on the article come from Switzerland, which is interesting. Bizetshine (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I think I'm wrong about scrubbing. Continuing touting at the reference.. Bizetshine (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I blanked the talk page section. It was nothing but an old copy of the article. Meters (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we have an article on this at all. Meters (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bizetshine, Meters, StarryGrandma, and RudolfRed: I've proposed the article be deleted. I hope nobody is upset at this? If you would like to contest the proposal you can remove the proposed deletion template and we can move discussion to the article talk page or other appropriate venues. -Darouet (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No objection from me. From what I can see some of the claims in the article are not supported by the cites. I have yet to find anything solid that can be verified. Meters (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just in passing: @Darouet, Bizetshine, Meters, StarryGrandma, and RudolfRed: This appears to be another scam – see, for example, this article. If it's a scam and a few more sources can be found then it might be better to clean up the page and keep it rather than bin it. I haven't removed the prod, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Notable for all the wrong reasons... Meters (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Embedding 3D models

Hi!

I would like to know if it is possible to embed 3D models of heritage artefacts in a Wikipedia page. I would like to embed some of these https://sketchfab.com/britishmuseum/collections/digital-pilgrim on the pilgrim badge page.

Thank you for your help!

Amy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeffs0 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, Amy. No external files of any kind can be embedded into Wikipedia pages: all media files must first be uploaded to Wikimedia commons or (if they are non-free) to Wikipedia. In order to do so, they must be suitably licensed (which most images on the web are not) and be in a suitable format, which I suspect those images are not (but see Help:Upload). You could possible put a link to that site in an article, provided such use met the conditions in External links, but it would not embed the image in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How to leave comments on talk pages

I am currently doing an assignment at university which requires us to post comments on the talk pages of our classmates. However, I don't seem to be able to figure out how to do this. Any help on how to do this would be appreciated. Thanks Imcgrouther18 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Imcgrouther18: you go to their talk pages (such as User Talk:Imcgrouther18, and edit them (if the talk page doesn't already exist, you'll get a message either asking if you wish to create it, or warning you that you are creating it, I forget which). You can pick "new section" (which might appear as '+') from the tool bar at the top of the page. Give the section a heading, and then type the text. Finish with four tildes, just as you have here. ee Help:Talk pages for more. --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Do deleted articles' history and talk pages get preserved for admins?

Sorry for what might be a dumb question - when articles are deleted, their histories and talk pages disappear, at least from the view of ordinary editors. Sometimes that's a little frustrating when trying to understand in detail (more than AfD provides) about why a page was deleted. Can admins still view these things? I'm asking because a) there might be times I'd consider asking a friendly admin to give some information about what a page looked like pre-deletion and b) since I've started to involve myself a little with AfD and PROD I've had conversations on talk pages for articles that are at risk of deletion and I'd like to understand if they're available for future reference by admins in case that would be useful. Mortee (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mortee. Yes, admins can view deleted articles and talk pages (and restore them if need be). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. As it should be. Thanks for letting me know. Mortee (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Userboxes

I've just been having a small, kind of dumb problem. I have made a Babel Userbox and a normal one. But for some reason, they sit side by side. Instead of one above the other. Is there a way to fix this? Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bel-Shamharoth - Wikipedia:Userboxes#Grouping userboxes has a number of options - does this solve your problem? - Arjayay (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have done that, the problem is that. I can't group the Babel and the Userboxes together, unless I am missing something.

Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bel-Shamharoth. Probably not the most elegant solution but it seems to work. TimothyJosephWood 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the help @Timothyjosephwood: Much appreciated! Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bel-Shamharoth, check out the type of markup I use on my user page under "personal stuff". Instead of trying to alternate userbox top/bot templates, you can open an close tables in order to label different groups of user boxes. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

One more quick question @Timothyjospehwood:. How do I make the new sections like you have? I can't find the button where you do that. Like in pages like User:Talk. Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bel-Shamharoth: Sure thing. New sections are created on user pages just like they are on articles by including the title of the header in equal signs, like this: ==HEADER NAME HERE==. Using three, four, or five equal signs will make smaller level headers. For lots of general information on formatting for Wikipedia, you may want to check out the tutorial at Help:Wiki markup. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! You've been really helpful! Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirm and upload

Hello, when will my account will be confirmed? And how I can upload new pictures on wikipedia? Thank you. Finisher27 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Finisher27: Welcome to Wikipedia. Your account will become autoconfirmed when it is 4 days old with at least 10 edits. You can look at WP:UPLOAD to see how to upload images. If it is a freely licenced image, the preference is to upload it to Commons. RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Using Google books for citations

While participating in the Citation Hunt, I was searching for a citation for an article on Irritable Bowel Syndrome (compelling stuff!), and I found a reference to the section needing citation on the Google books site. Should I just add the link to the Google Books or should I cite the actual book?

Citation Hunt link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en?id=2a6c9769&cat=all

Google Book link: https://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=Musculotropics+relieving+spasm+without+affecting+normal+gut+motility&source=bl&ots=ocW80E8Wm6&sig=L-DQ-6Un3jAW9pDJTDoPj4sfukE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9pdC554HSAhWIv1QKHRaBC6wQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=Musculotropics%20relieving%20spasm%20without%20affecting%20normal%20gut%20motility&f=false

Please excuse the massive query string.

Thanks for any advice CliffLandin (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CliffLandin. I suggest that you use Template:Cite book within the reference tags, and add that Google Books query string to the URL field. Fill out the other applicable fields, and when a reader clicks the book title, it will take them to the Google Books display. Filling the ISBN field will allow the reader to find the book in libraries or for sale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@CliffLandin and Cullen328: this tool makes it super easy for you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: That's a useful tool that I was unaware of. @CliffLandin: When you're using a Google Books URL in a reference, you should drop everything after the page number (as the rest is just search artifacts)— just https://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34 goes to the correct place. Deor (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Finnusertop: @Deor: - Great! Thank you for the help. CliffLandin (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

CliffLandin, Google adds a lot of garbage to its urls. All you need in this case, where you have a page number in the link, is https://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34; for snippet view and unpaginated books in preview, all you need is the book id, up to (but not including) the first ampersand (so in this case, that would be https://books.google.com/books?id=BjhFBgAAQBAJ). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@CliffLandin: there's also a pretty cool tool at http://reftag.appspot.com where you can just paste the gBooks URL into it, and it will make it a fully-formatted Wikipedia footnote. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

multiple authors on a publicaiton

Hi,

I am doing my first article on an archeologist. She wrote a number of books, two books she collaborated on with other writers. How do I reference that? I have been researching on my own in Wikipedia but cannot find anything.

thanks MauraWen (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey MauraWen. What you probably want is Template:Cite book, which can either be input manually in the text editor, or can be automated (if you're using a non-mobile device) by clicking "Cite" in the edit window header, and selecting "Book" from the Templates drop-down-menu. The citation template supports AFAIK an unlimited number of authors. TimothyJosephWood 17:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

List the most important books she wrote under a section called "Works". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Source Question

Through the resource exchange, I had two users track down a couple sources I needed. The sources I needed were only available to me through the Philadelphia Inquirer archives which required $2.95 per article. They were able to find these sources through search engines and microfilm.

My question is how do I reference these sources in the Wikipedia page I am attempting to write? As of right now, I only know to link sources to online articles. How can I cite/source these properly? (I'm hoping this makes sense) JRose1317 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@JRose1317: I think you can use {{Cite news}} for this purpose. Also check out WP:REFB that is a good resource on learning how to handle referencing. RudolfRed (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JRose1317. The important part of a citation is the bibliographic information which should allow a reader to find it even if the link goes away: things like title, author, title of collection or journal, organ (or website), publisher, date, ISBN. Providing a URL is a courtesy to make the reader's life easier, but it is not required - and it is quite acceptable for it to be behind a paywall. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How can I get my Wikipedia page to be acceptable when submitted Because it's about me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayemartha (talk • contribs)

Hello, Tayemartha, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have taken on a very very difficult task. It's difficult in at least three ways. 1) writing a new article on Wikipedia is much much harder than people imagine who have not spent time getting used to the way Wikipedia works. 2) Writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral, and it's hard to do that when you are the subject. 3) Promotion of anybody or anything is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia; but looking your draft, it seems to me that promoting yourself is what you are here for.

Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:YFA. Then, if you wish to continue, read WP:IRS, and find several reliable sources that are completely independent of your, and talk about you in some depth. (They do not have to be in English). If you cannot find such sources, they it is best to give up: no article about you will be acceptable, however it is written. If you can find some sources, then you are Notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and there could be an article about you. Rather than trying to write it yourself (you would need to forget absolutely everything you know or think about yourself, and just write it from what those independent sources say), it would probably be better to ask at requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-free images

Why are "non-commercial use" images considered non-free on Wikipedia? RedPanda25 19:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Red. Wikipedia allows commercial reuse of our content so it's not enough that it can be displayed here at wikipedia.org. See the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free content. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for getting back to me, that makes sense. Here's one more question about image licensing:

• Suppose Person A publishes an image under CC-BY-SA.
• Person B makes a derivative, attributes Person A, and publishes it under the same license.
• Person C makes a derivative of the derivative, and publishes it under the same license.

My question is, should Person C attribute Person A, Person B, either, or both? RedPanda25 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: Both. commons:Template:Derived from allows up to 25 file links although multiple links are probably mainly used for collage-type works and not chains. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)