Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 655

< Wikipedia:Teahouse | Questions
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Beyond My Ken in topic I am in need of serious help...A User is harrassing me...
Archive 650←Archive 653Archive 654Archive 655Archive 656Archive 657→Archive 660

Help with Dropdown Boxes

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Hey there, How do I create my own dropdown box as listed below? I really like the design on "Highest Grossing Films" and how there is a drop down box, within a drop down box. I am just experimenting on my sandbox. Thank you. (I have copied part of the coding from the page mentioned) Heimatchen (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series{{ref label|Franchise sources|§|§}} (The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show".)
Rank Series Total worldwide gross No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film
Hello, Heimatchen, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that by a "dropdown" you mean a "collapsible table" (A true dropdown is a different interface technique). In this case this is implemented in Template:Highest-grossing films franchise. But see Help:Table#Collapsible tables and Help:Collapsing pages for a detailed explanation of how to muse this feature.
Personally i am not convinced that the page you copied from is a good model to imitate. I don't know what you have in mind, but I would think that a more accessible design would be possible. But there are cases where a collapsible table is a useful choice. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello DESiegel Thank you for the quick reply. I've had a look at the pages you sent and they help loads, and look eaiser to create than the Highest Grossing Film franchise template.
If anyone else has any other suggestions I am very happy to hear them. I am experimenting with differnent options for a page I am planning to improve loads, but working on my Sandbox for now. Heimatchen (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Heimatchen. I took a look at your sandbox (and took the liberty of copy-editing one section for you) and I am impressed with the ambitious project you have set for yourself. I think the draft is coming along well — in particular I am impressed with your use of reliable sources, often something new editors trip over, though I am concerned about the one source that seems to be a collection of quotations from copyrighted sources — and I think I understand why you would want to use collapsible tables for some of the information in such a long series of films. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello GrammarFascist. The page I am working on already exists and I used it as a template as I do not want to erase any previous editors work (even though only been 50 edits on the page in past decade!). The quote you mentioned was not my work and from already existing page.
What I want/plan/experimenting on doing is creating the collapsible table like the Highest Grossing Films, but it would once "opened" show the episodes in each film if that makes sense. I just want the Wikipedia page to not be as vanilla as it currently is, and I want to expand on it across all five films with all information I can find. I have been re-watching and making tons of noted as well that would help improve the article.
I do have a question about referencing, and it is I own the boxsets of all the movies and inside contains a bulky book with loads of details about the film(s). There is some great information in there and I wondered how could I reference this? I've checked and it does not have an author listed or anything, so how would I reference it in the future?
Also, how can I edit using actual page than by the coding? First edit I made on my page let me do it as if editing direct onto page. Might have been called visual editor? I am not sure, hope this makes sense. I can do coding way, but I like option for an easier way just so I don't have to click "preview" all the time. Heimatchen (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see, Heimatchen; I guess I should go do some copy-editing at the actual article, then. You should be able to use Visual Editor by clicking "Edit" instead of "Edit Source", but if both options currently don't show up for you, you can change that by editing your user preferences. I'm not as well-versed in using Visual Editor as using the source editor, however, and it may be that source editing would be better-suited to the kind of editing you want to do. Some of the 'behind-the-scenes' stuff at Wikipedia, such as naming references for reuse, is only accessible by editing the source. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
GrammarFascist, hey I've changed some settings in my preferences and it is working now. It will help this way and be much quicker at times, thanks. I'll have a look at what you'll edit on already existing page (when you do), but once I have finished (possibly weeks from now). Please, keep an eye on my sandbox and message me if any suggestions you have or something to improve. How do you suggest I reference the booklet that comes with my DVDs, that as I said has a lot of helpful information for article? Heimatchen (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Heimatchen, that's great news. I will add your sandbox to my watchlist, and you should add the existing article to yours, if you haven't already (to do so, click the star in the upper right-hand corner of the page, between "View History" and "More").
As regards the DVD booklet, I confess that I am unsure how to cite such a source, or whether it would be considered a reliable source suitable for being cited anyway; in any case it would be a primary source at best, so should be used with caution if at all. I think you may want to post at the Reliable sources noticeboard about that source. Good luck! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
GrammarFascist I'll post there and hope for best. Hopefully it should be fine as a source as part of the official DVD. Main information be helpful in it is to do with development and production. I just do hope my work will eventually be good enough to add, and be accepted for all future, especially because the film is barely watched anymore and not focused on much, and it does take a long dedicated time to watch all of them. Heimatchen (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
GrammarFascist I've gone blind! I looked over a booklet, and hidden on the thin spin was an authors name who wrote it all as an 'introduction' to the movie. Hopefully the other booklets for other films feature a name too, but I am currently away so cannot check straight away. But at least one does, and I think can be referenced like a normal book (or similar) this way. Heimatchen (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Heimatchen I was thinking that the booklets would fall under the same category as liner notes with an audio product (LP/cassette/CD) which don't require an author name. If the booklets have author names, that's potentially helpful, but ordinarily a book citation requires a publisher and publication year, and is expected to have an ISBN or similar number. Like I said, I'm not sure how to cite the booklets since they seem to fall into a publication grey area. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, Heimatchen liner notes can be cited as "Liner notes to..." followed by the title and other publication information for the record or CD. I would think this could be cited a "Publication notes to..." and the proper title of the work they were packaged with, followed by its publication data. if the notes have a separate author and title, this should be listed as well, but all should be OK with such a citation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Or you could use {{Cite AV media}} considering the notes to be part of the media. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User Page

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Are there any suggestions for how to create one's own User: page? I know how to access it, but have seen so many different sorts I am not clear if there are best practices or trends for what should be there or what templates are available for them. Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello FULBERT! This is a fuzzy area, but perhaps start at WP:UPYES and take it from there. If you see a userpage with something you like but can´t figure out how to do, you can always ask the user in question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I suppose I have seen so many options I like I cannot figure out how to do that! Perhaps it is just the various boxes that I struggle with. Will try and come back here if I am stuck. FULBERT (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello FULBERT, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is nothing specific that you ought to put on your user page. Many people list articles that hey have worked on, or plan to work on. Many people list interests and skills. Many people give some brief biographical info, possibly including a picture, although many don't want their picture associated with their Wikipedia account. Many list the languages that they have some degree of skill in. Many include quotes or mottos. Many include pictures that they like. Some include philosophical statements, or opinions about Wikipedia issues. User pages vary quite a bit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, DESiegel. I find the real name or not real name an interesting throwback, but as some of the areas I edit are a bit frought with challenge, I understand. Are there templates that are used to structure the info boxes some people have on the right of their User: pages? FULBERT (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
FULBERT, those are generally known as "userboxes" and there are many templates for generating them. See Wikipedia:Userboxes for discussion of what sorts are appropriate, how to build your own, and links to many existing boxes that you may use if you choose. userboxes are never required, and i do not have any on my own user page. I do have quite a lot of other stuff. Feel free to look at my page and see if you wan tto copy any of the stuff there. There are many different styles of user page, as there are many views about the real name issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again, DESiegel. So much to learn!! FULBERT (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

a thank you

Latest comment: 7 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

no questions yet but thanks for inviting me. The Klemme Community School and Klemme, Iowa pages need some updates so i will certainly give a yell if help is needed.75.168.4.181 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I guess that you are Janemcclure but forgot to log in when posting this. The Klemme Community School article has one major problem, which is that none of its content is properly sourced. At the end of the article, it states "This information was taken from the books Klemme, Iowa 1889-1989, Heritage of Hancock County, Iowa Volume One and information collected by the author", but what the article needs is footnotes that provide references to the sources that have been used, throughout the text. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on this, and Wikipedia:Verifiability for the applicable policy. Rather than adding more unsourced material to the article as you have been doing, I suggest that a first step to improving the article would be to add proper references to the article and to remove anything that cannot be sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, with all due respect, you're going to need to make it easier to make the citations with voice activated software. I am a person with disabilities and on days when I can use a keyboard manually that is MY big problem.
I don't think there should be a need for special accommodations but it could be easier. Any hints on using Dragon?> Janemcclure (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any experience of that, unfortunately, Janemcclure. It might be worth asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. One option would be to try to use the article's talk page to give details about which source supports which material, and have someone else add the citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Upon searching for potential sources, I have encountered another issue, Janemcclure. The text of the article is virtually identical to that of this webpage, which I believe you helped write. The problem is that it is marked as copyright. Do you happen to know if the material was published before or after it was posted in Wikipedia (i.e. is the Wikipedia article a copy of the website, or is the website a copy of the Wikipedia article)? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I wrote that, it was posted on Wikipedia first and then later posted on the website. I volunteer on that website. I don't have a problem with it.
Let me say that when I can get physical help with the citations I will do. But I will remind you and wikipedia that the earlier version of this history and other Iowa schools was randomly lifted and published and someone profited off of my volunteer work, so this is feeling a bit prescriptive.
I know copyright, I've been an editor and writer since age 12 and I am 59 now.Janemcclure (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not really a matter of whether you are OK with it, Janemcclure, but the fact that the website has republished material from Wikipedia, which is made available on a Creative Commons license, but has not attributed it correctly and has marked it as copyright. Anyway, at least the Wikipedia article isn't a copy of the website, as that would likely result in its deletion. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with the comment about the lifting. You write that you remind us, but this is the first mention of it I have seen you make - could you explain what happened? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
We were shocked to see the Klemme history combined with a few others a few years ago and sold on Amazon. We contacted wikipedia and heard no response. That was very disappointing

I will make the changes you are asking for buy having looked at many, many wikipedia stubs and incomplete histories in the past, and to have NO disability accommodations to use Dragon, it does feel prescriptive if not slightly punitive. And I use my real name, I wish you would use yoursJanemcclure (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It annoys me too when so-called publishers sell content from Wikipedia on Amazon, Janemcclure - mostly because I think they are conning buyers who do not realise they can read the content here for free. Unfortunately, as long as they attribute the material properly, it is legal for them to do so (note the disclaimer below the edit window, which states "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license"). See Wikipedia:Republishers for more on these "books". As for my name, you'll find that most editors contribute using pseudonyms. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Understood but in my professional life I've never been allowed to use anything other than my real name. I'll try to do the corrections tonight with helpJanemcclure (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are volunteers rather than employees though, Janemcclure, and as explained at WP:REALNAME, using a real name can increase the potential for harassment. I would not volunteer if I had to use my real name. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Janemcclure. Thanks for your efforts to add references to the article. I should point out that you can't cite interviews, as you did here, unless those interviews have been published in reliable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability on this. There shouldn't be anything in the article that a reader can't check by visiting a library, or looking up a source online, or in a newspaper archive, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
fine. I DO interviews. That's how I get information. i guess wikipedia isn't for journalists. I'm not a hobbyist. i work full-time as a journalist and i am published historian., i edit a newspaper. I'm getting beyond annoyed about this. I just wanted to have this information information available so maybe I should just quit wasting my time. your comments are feeling childish and punitive to me and i'd like to deal with someone elseJanemcclure (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Janemcclure, I am someone else. I am also someone who edits under his legal name -- well a shortening of it, and the full name is on my user page. There are, however, good reasons why many people choose to edit under assumed names. Cordless Larry correctly described our policy on interviews, and on sources generally. Let me try to explain why that is our policy. In some ways it follows directly from allowing anonymous editing, and allowing editing by anyone at all.
When you, as a working journalist or historian, do an interview and publish an article or even a book, citing or mentioning that it is based on an interview, the reader accepts it (if s/he does) based largely on your reputation, and on that of the newspaper, journal, or book publisher who publishes your work. But on Wikipedia, few if any editors have reputations outside Wikipedia, and most articles are not the work of a single person in any case. Indeed in a large article, it can take considerable work to find out just which editor inserted or changed a particular phrase, although it generally can be done. So the reader cannot depend on any person's or organization's reputation to support that the interview was done and that the article correctly and fairly summarizes it. Nor could another editor safely change what you wrote, in an effort to improve it, because that editor, not having access to an interview transcript, cannot be sure of just what was said, and if any change stays accurate to what the interviewee said.
Therefore, our policy is that article content must be based on verifiable, checkable, reliable sources. Unless you publish your interview elsewhere first, no one reading Wikipedia can possibly check it. That makes it not a published reliable source, and so not eligible to be cited on a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia is significantly different from a newspaper, or a work of history, or even a traditional encyclopedia. Because it is crowd-written, to have any assurance of accuracy, it must depend on checkable sources. This an absolutely fundamental policy here. It has been in place since the start of Wikipedia, and its application has only gotten stricter over the years. (In fact I think that some editors sometimes overdo it, read the essay You don't need to cite that the sky is blue for some illustrations.) I don't see that policy being changed any time soon. Therefore you will need to learn to work within it if you are to contribute here. I hope that you will do so -- Wikipedia needs the efforts of skilled and trained writers. I am very sorry that you find this policy frustrating: I have found it so also at times. But it is essential to the model Wikipedia is built under. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
tl,dr: The policy was stated correctly above, it is because we can't depend on individual reputations for assurance of accuracy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
But if the information came from an interview and you won't let me cite it then how can I cite it? This is feeling really circularJanemcclure (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You are allowed to cite it, Janemcclure, providing that the interview has been published (say as a newspaper article, or as part of an article in a scholarly journal or book). If it has not been published, then there is no way for our readers to verify the information from it and it does not belong on Wikipedia. This is explained at WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Bit it's part of the history! the story of the school burning is part of the history. why can't we preserve that? is it OK if it is cited at the end a it is/ do we take the citation out?

I am sorry but I work full time and cannot get back to this. This entry has been on here for years and updating it has been a hassle. It feels bullying and while that's not your intent .... Janemcclure (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if you feel bullied, Janemcclure, but I am trying my best to help and to explain Wikipedia's policies to you. So is DES. I am surprised that the article content has survived unsourced for this long, and can only apologise on behalf of the editing community that no one has explained the problems with it to you before. If you are looking to preserve the history of the school but don't have published sources to verify that history, then I'm afraid you might have picked the wrong site in Wikipedia, but there are other places online that it can be posted, such as the Klemme Homestead Museum site I linked to above. In fact, if you do that then we could have a discussion about whether that site is likely to be considered a reliable source, which could then be used as a reference for the Wikipedia article. DES might have a view on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
excuse me, the klemme homestead site IS a reliable source. one person has taken the lead but others have worked on it and contributed to it for years and years. I've written and/or edited 12 twin Cities area history books and thousands of sourced articles of Iowa and Minnesota history and news articles. please don't suggest that the homestead museum site is not reliable.Janemcclure (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't casting aspersions, Janemcclure; I don't know enough about the site to be able to judge. It is helpful to hear a bit about how the site is run though. Sources with a reputation for editorial control, fact-checking and peer review are generally considered the most reliable (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), so if that applies here then perhaps we have a solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Do remember, Janemcclure, that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It does not publish history (or any other subject) it summarizes what other people have already published. It should never be the first place that anything is published. It may well be that the interview is part of history. Then you, as a historian, should see that it is published, perhaps on the klemme homestead site, perhaps in an article, perhaps in your 13th book of twin Cities area history. Once it is published in a reliable source, it can be cited here.
Note also that Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. The article must not contain significant content copied directly, or closely paraphrased, from the klemme homestead site, or any other external site or source, unless the copyright holder has released it under a free license (See Donating Copyrighted Materials for the procedure to do that.) Unless the klemme homestead site is going to release its content for anyone to reuse (including commercially) the text needs to be significantly rewritten. If you are not able or willing to do that, let us know, and someone will rewrite or else remove the infringing content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
maybe it makes the most sense to put the complete article on the klemmehomesteadmuseum.com website and then have wikipedia refer back to that?Janemcclure (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Table border fades away

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have seen some tables where I would expect a border to appear, but it doesn't. For example, at Bhutan national football team#Competitive record, the FIFA World Cup table has a border at the bottom edge that stops about halfway along the bottom.

Below that, in the AFC Asian Cup table, the left-hand "Did not enter" box for 2007 to 2015 is missing its right border, and the bottom edge of the table is missing a slight portion of the border at the bottom of the gray "column" separating the main cup record from the qualification record.

Then again below that, in the AFC Challenge Cup table, the border at the bottom edge again stops about halfway along the bottom.

Can anyone explain why these gaps in the borders are appearing? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that more columns were included in defining the column header cells than were included in the actual row content in the columns. Similarly in one of the tables one row had more columns than the other rows. Hopefully it looks better now after these edits? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I understand what was causing the problem now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking articles

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

Please consider creating a wikipedia principle nutshell page Wikipedia:Blocking articles. This page will describe what community thinks about blocking articles, why articles should not be blocked and what those users should do who want to block articles. Users who want to block some articles will be suggested to read this page. This can save us from long discussions like this. Sinner (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We already have WP:NOTCENSORED. There is really no need for any other page on this topic, and i would oppose the creation of one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that creating another page on the topic would only lead to the spiral that we witnessed above, which is not conducive to the project as a whole. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing prevents you from creating a Wikipedia:Essay on that subject, (WP:SEENOEVIL?), but like everything else around here, it can be changed or even deleted by other editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It is just a weak proposal. Your decision is welcomed. Sinner (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by blocking articles, anyway? If you mean deleting articles that either do not meet notability or are promotional, then we do need to delete them, or to decline them if they are in AFD. What do you mean? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
See #Blocking page view, Robert McClenon. The discussion here is a dead horse. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I have examined the horse. I propose the use of hyenas, jackals, and vultures. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The community is generally about openness, inclusion and not censoring anything considered encyclopedic and is in large part actively hostile to any proposals that lean that way; we do not usually make rules or have community pages to address outliers ("exceptions/the atypical make bad rules"). An essay is possible, though I wouldn't be very surprised if it eventually ended up at MfD. A "wikipedia principle nutshell page" sounds like something that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by the community, if the drift of past discussion on this is what is in mind. I do think you should drop the stick.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I have already said that discussion is going to yield no result but I have not withdrawn from discussing more. I can't throw the stick because that discussion is still being discussed, but, in fact. I shall make no statement there if all others withdraw from discussing more. Sinner (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not use of a lion? Robert McClenon. Here blocking means manually hiding an article for one user without affecting others. Sinner (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
In the section up above you give as an example the article Brothel as an article you would rather not encounter, but how would you stumble upon it, even if it were not blocked from your account? I'm not sure how to understand your concerns. Is it simply the fact that such articles can potentially be accessed or is it the real possibility that one may encounter them? Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
A lion can eat a dead horse, but a lion is just as likely to decide to eat you. Blocking specific users from viewing specific articles is something that has never been done. That horse won't carry you anywhere. We don't need a page saying that we don't block articles, because it is never anything that I had heard of. That horse didn't die from overwork. That horse was already dead when it was brought here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Registerd users are only allowed?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! i created an registered account a days ago but when i try to edit a particular page the only thing i saw was view source and i cannot edit this particular page due to only registered users are allowed, but im already created a registered account can you explain why? thanks! Parashurama007 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Parashurama007, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page in question is probably semi-protected, meaning only autoconfirmed users can edit it. To become autoconfirmed, a user must have been registered for at least four days and made at least ten edits. It looks like you have made enough edits, but you're one day shy of having your status upgraded.
If you feel the edit you wish to make can't wait that long, you can try posting on the talk page for the article asking someone else to make it for you... but there's no guarantee anyone would get around to it before you'd be able to make the edit yourself. Thanks for your interest in editing Wikipedia! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks! now i understand the situation well. Palasulam-angtalk 02:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, Palasulam-ang, but in the future please be sure to sign with four tildes, not three. Also, you should only mark things like correcting a spelling error or adding an intralink as minor edits, not conversations here at the Teahouse or on other talk pages. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I have created a Celebrity knowledge Graph Page Jogendra Tiwari that is Real Celebrity Page. But User:Bonadea trying to delete that Page. I want to contribute to Wikipedia and make Wikipedia know more and more people but User:Bonadea don't want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakSally (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello FreakSally, and welcome to the Teahouse. In short, based on the sources in the article, Bonadea is right. Imdb is not a good enough source to base a WP-article on, you need more and better than that. Take the time to read Wikipedia:Your first article. Then decide if this is a topic that is likely to "stick" on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Now I added more References and Links for proofs to That page is it okey.FreakSally (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
N:ow I added more References , Links for Proof to that page is it OK?FreakSally (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The first reference added seems to be an IMDB-like site, and thus not a reliable source for use in establishing notability of Jogendra Tiwari. The Times of India is a reliable source, but what you linked to isn't an article; it's barely a blurb, and thus he received only a passing mention. What you want is at least three reliable published sources which each talk about Jogendra Tiwari in some detail. If such sources don't exist, then he is simply not eligible for a Wikipedia article yet. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you call it a "Celebrity knowledge Graph Page". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has biography articles. If you are trying to get a Google Knowledge Graph then you may want to see Template:HD/GKG. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Please understand, FreakSally, that Wikipedia doesn't care what you think or know, or what I think or know, or what random people who edit wikis, blogs, or iMDB think or know. It is only interested in what reliable sources (that is, sources with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking) have published about a subject. And if reliable sources have not so far published much about a subject, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about that subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand!! I will found some more links like "The Times of India" and then recreate that page FreakSally (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Why cant I create my advertising company page?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, why are you always deleting my page, we have good notation and good sources for our company and when i created the wikipedia page it is immediately deleting by you, dont send me the rules and regulation. Please explain me what went wrong in my page, if you explain me clearly I can overcome that fault and I will be happy. Please help me by explaining clearlyKokkulashiva (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kokkulashiva, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question here is the only edit in your contributions list, and you have only one deletion warning on your user talk page, so I don't know how many times you have tried to submit an article. The notice I can see indicates that you failed to establish the notability of your company, and that the tone of your submission was not encyclopedic. (Click on the bolded words to read Wikipedia's policies about those terms.)
If you have at least three reliable sources independent of your company which discuss your company at some length (not just a passing mention), then you can try working on building an appropriate article in your user sandbox (click here to begin working in your sandbox). If you work on it there, it shouldn't be deleted before you have a chance to correct problems with it, and Teahouse volunteers like me can view the content you write so we can offer more detailed advice. However, if you do not have enough independent reliable sources to establish the notability of your company, there is no point in trying to create an article about your company. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 07:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kokkulashiva. GrammarFascist is absolutely right, but the short answer is because advertising of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia.--ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Uploading images that are not mine, but I have permission to use

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I am writing a wikipedia page about the rugby club I play for. I would like to upload the logo, some older imagesm and photos from the club. I have the image files but don't know the original owner of the images. I have full permission from the club to use the images on the wikipedia page. How do I upload the image to use on the page I am creating?EvoRugby (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to know who owns the copyright of the images as this will affect if, how, and where you upload them. Also important is the country you are in as this affects copyright issues as well. Also, it looks like your username is breaking the username policy. - X201 (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, EvoRugby. Normally, permission to use an image is not sufficient: it has to be licensed by the copyright holder in such a way that anybody may reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not. However, logos are usually usable under the WP:non-free content criteria, and once the conditions are met, can be uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free (and permission is irrelevant in that case). See WP:LOGO.
On a separate point, you need to read about conflict of interest. As a player for the club you are not forbidden from writing about it, but you need to be very circumspect. It is certainly preferable for you to create the article as a draft and submit it for review (but note that in that case you may not use a non-free image until it has been accepted as an article and moved to article space). Please read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

how to create an article and protect the article?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Wikipedia team,

I am helping my organization to create an article to introduce Para Taekwondo. There are some sections, such as history and rules will be very similar to the information that we have on the official website and the rules and regulations of World Taekwondo. I would like to know if it allows using the same sentences with adding the citations behind.

In addition, I would like to ask regarding the protection policy. How to apply for the full protection when the article is done.

Thank you in advance.

World Para TaekwondoWorld Para Taekwondo (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @World Para Taekwondo:, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are probably some common misconceptions about how Wikipedia operates as encyclopedic project: Generally editing with a so-called "conflict of interest" (as employee or paid editor) is strongly discouraged (see WP:COI for more info). Also, articles are a collaborative effort of all interested volunteers - locking or "protecting" an article in your (or anyone's) preferred version will not be possible. All editors will be free to add more sourced content or to improve existing content. Instead of going into further elaborate detail, I recommend you read through Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which should clarify most of these possible misconceptions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask here anytime. GermanJoe (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, World Para Taekwondo. In addition to what GermanJoe mentioned above, you may not copy sentences from your website or any other source unless the source has been released under a free license which allows anyone to reuse or modify the content without fee, even for commercial purposes. Wikipedia articles should generaly be written in original words not copied from anywhere. Limited quotations may be used, provided that they are marked as such, are attributed to their source, and that the source is cited inline.
Also, Wikipedia accounbts should be only for individuals, not groups. your username, "World Para Taekwondo" implies that this account represents a group. It should be changed. I will leave more details about this on your user talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I have a draft article Draft:Professor Valentine Joseph and would appreciate it if someone could quickly look over it and give me their opinion on it (it has been waiting for review for over 3 weeks) before it is reviewed. Thanks,

Heptanitrocubane (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Anish Mariathasan: the lead of the draft gives no indication of why he might be notable. Maproom (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Maproom. I have added a lead, is this adequate? Heptanitrocubane (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Anish Mariathasan: you have added a lead which explains that he is notable as a teacher; that's certainly an improvement. The article also mentions and cites some published research papers by him. But I'm not convinced that the article establishes him as notable. References 1 and 2 do not mention him. References 3, 4 and 10 are obituaries, which say positive things about him (as obituaries generally do); a reviewing editor may take them as enough to estavlish notability, but I wouldn't rely on it. References 5-9 are all to papers by him, and so do nothing to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maproom. I have got other links which I think establish him as notable under External links of the article, do they help show the subject as notable? Heptanitrocubane (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think they would help, if you cited them as references. Maproom (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cassantec AG

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I reviewed Draft:Cassantec AG and declined it as having notability issues and tone issues. Its author, User:Daninguyen0, says that they have made the necessary additions and changes. Since I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and in particular do not usually follow a draft through the approval process if its author is a one-article editor, will other experienced editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon. I've done the review. I've started testing an approach of asking for references (for some kinds of articles) and then giving feedback. I'm hopeful that it will either help the user find the right kind of references or quickly demonstrate that the topic isn't notable. See Draft:Brian K. Stafford. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I just removed some copyvos. I looked at the two sources added since the last review. Sometimes it's not so straightforward to see whether you're looking at a regurgitated press release. These are in that boat. They read to me like blurbs from the company–not independent, reliable secondary sources, but I'm not 100% sure. Though we do not require footnoted sources (though we should) the lack of them does make assessment more difficult. Reads pretty spammy as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I asked whether they had a connection to the company, and have not gotten an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It can be very hard to an editor who has a conflict of interest to remove the promotional tone, even though they think that they are being neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Help on website

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am an unpaid volunteer at the Afghanistan and Central Asian Association (ACAA).

My organisation has a wikipedia page- would it be okay to link the website to the page (http://acaa.org.uk/). I'm worried that this could represent a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiklasMcKerrell (talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, and thanks for being mindful of WP:COI. The one in the infobox didn´t work, so I changed it to the one you suggested here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
And a ping: NiklasMcKerrell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am in need of serious help...A User is harrassing me...

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Hi and Good Evening LukeSurl or, to whom it may concern,

I am writing this message to ask/say that, I am currently being encountered with a situation. The situation that I'm having at the moment is involved with a User. If you would like to know the name of this User, he goes by the Username, Ken. What I believe the User is doing to me is, that he is harassing/being rude to me just because of Article being edited. If there is in any that you can possibly assist me with this..I would thankfully and happily appreciate it very much.

Sincerely, Sarah Sarah.t.life 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sarah.t.life. One of our strong principles here on Wikipedia is that you should assume good faith of other editors, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. You seem to be referring to Beyond My Ken, who is a highly experienced editor for over seven years. Can you provide evidence of harassment or rudeness? Where did this occur? If an experienced editor gives you advice, please consider what they say carefully, and assume they are trying to be helpful. You are welcome to edit any article as is anyone else. However, your edits must comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is, of course, no "harassment". People interested can view User talk:Sarah.t.life, where I have been trying to get the editor to understand our policies and guidelines, such as WP:OWN, WP:Edit warring, MOS:HEAD, MOS:PUNCTFOOT and others, but she seems to be more interested in digging in her heels then she is in learning. (She's also extraordinarily quick for a newbie in deleting what's on her talk page, so some of my comments have to be searched out in the history.)
For examples, please see her editing on Mohegan Lake, New York, where she's reverted my and another editor's correction of a heading from "Historic Places" to "Historic places" a number of times, despite my clear explanation, in edit summaries and on her talk page, that headings are written in sentence case, with only the first word capitalized (except in the case of a poper noun). Or her several reversions to reinsert a blank space between a period and a reference, despite my pointing her to the controlling guideline. Or, just now, her removal of the Commons category box which linked to the category I just created for "Mohegan Lake" on Commons. She's bolded things that should be unbolded (such as the article title after the first use), and unbolded things that should be bolded (such as alternate names for the subject of the article), all after having what is correct explained to her.
Nothing that she's done, in particular, is too terrible, but the failure to be open to understanding what is right and what isn't is egregious, and, if it goes on for too long, will ultimately raise questions of competency. There's also the matter of her referring to my "manipulative prick behavior" in a comment on my talk page, where she also warns "Don't test me", [1] which is awfully WP:BATTLEGROUNDy for a new editor who knows relatively little about the policies, guidelines and procedures of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sarah.t.life, I have reviewed your interactions with Beyond My Ken, as well as your edits to Mohegan Lake, New York, and those of BMK (as that editor is often known). I can see that there was some friction between you, and BMK did get a bit testy. BMK is, in fact, a very experienced and well-respected editor here. I have interacted with BMK from time to time over a period of years. I do not see any harassment here. There was some asperity, possibly amounting to rudeness, on BMK's part (for exampkle in this edit, but there was significantly stronger rudeness on your part towards BMK in this edit.
I did see BNK attempting to inform you about various formatting standards and other practices here on Wikipedia. BMK seems to me to have been correct in all the instances I checked, which does not surprise me. Wikipedia is a very complex endeavor, with many policies, guidelines, practices and customs. No one gets all of these correct at the start, but many of them are there for good reasons, and none can be changed by simply ignoring them. If you want to succeed here (and I hope you will, we need more interested editors) you will need to pay attention to those attempting, in good faith and with good will, to inform you about various customs and practices.
Cullen328 is absolutely correct, above, about the need to assume good faith when interacting with other editors. I will add that the need to remain civil with other editors, and refrain from personal attacks. I have been active here quite a while, and I make a point of trying to be helpful to others, as do many who regularly post here at the Teahouse. I hope you will be able to accept help and advice, even when it does not agree with your first desires here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
My apology for any perceived rudeness: I do have the propensity for calling a spade a spade -- however, DES, the edit you linked above was not addressed to Sarah.t.life it was addressed to the IP editor who used a similar tone to me in the comment I was responding to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies to you, Beyond My Ken, for mis-identifing the exchange. In general I have found you quite courteous, which is more than I can say of a few admins I can think of. I hope that Sarah.t.life will attend to well-meant advice, and become a valued contributor here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, and I share your wishes. (BTW, you know I'm not an admin, right?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes i do. My intent was to suggest that you are more polite than some admins, who are supposed to be held to a higher standard in such matters. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, got it... and thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to be a polite administrator, but I have only been an administrator for a few weeks. I hope that I do not grow jaded. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
...

User:Sarah.t.life

Sarah.t.life 11:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah.t.life (talk • contribs)

Alright...So just because I'm the only female in this situation, your just going to give HIM the good hand and say that it is MY fault??

Sarah.t.life 11:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has mentioned your gender in this discussion, since it's not relevant. Please read the comments, read up on the guidelines and policies, and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 12:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Sarah.t.life I didn't mention your gender because a) it wasn't relevant, and b) i didn't know it. Yes, your user name suggests that you are female, but it is hardly unknown for a male to edit under an apparently female name. Nor did I know BMK's gender which is why I wrote "s/he" when referring to that editor.
It is true that I am male (my picture on my user page pretty much makes that clear). I can't change that. But I have worked with quite a few female editors, and on articles about female subjects. I have participated in "Feminism in Art" editatons. Just last week I was at a textiles Editathon, where almost all the other editors were female. I rescued from deletion, and improved enough for a main page mention the articles Isabel Ashdown and Great American Lesbian Art Show, and have worked on many other articles about various women. In my actual job, several of my co-workers are and my previous boss was female.
I do assure you that I would have give exactly the same advice and comments if your user name had been "John Jones", and BMK's had been "Susan Smith". In fact I have provided similar advice in the past to new users whose usernames suggested that they were male. Gender had and has nothing to do with it. Nor did fault, really. It was and is a matter of lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy and procedure, which is eminently correctable by learning. Please accept that no one here was trying to insult or exclude you, merely explain to you how Wikipedia works for all editors, male, female, or undisclosed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
For better or worse, I'm a guy. Incidentally -- and this is primarily for Sarah.t.life to know -- if you use the template "{{gender|USERNAME}}", the system will return the user's preferred gender pronoun, if it has been set in their preferences. Thus "{{gender|Beyond My Ken}}" will return: he. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_655&oldid=796343241"