Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 747

Archive 740

←

Archive 745

Archive 746

Archive 747

Archive 748

Archive 749

Archive 750

Einstein's Sink - possible copyright violation

The article Einstein's Sink looks suspiciously like a translation of the Dutch version to me. I'm an infrequent user and unsure of the right procedure. As far as I remember the Dutch versions have to be imported. Where do I have to go to request that import?

On a related note, I have reason to believe that both the Russian and Chinese versions of that article have been translated by volunteers on reddit.com/r/translator. The translations have then been copy/pasted to Wikipedia. I believe translations are worthy of copyright and without permission from those reddit users both those language versions ought to be deleted. What should I do about that? I have already taken the appropriate steps on the German Wikipedia. Thanks in advance --Nfreaker91 (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nfreaker91. They don't necessarily need to be deleted, but they do need to be attributed to the source, as is required by the license Wikipedia is published under. To do this, you need to add Template:Translated page to the article's talk page, assuming you are reasonably sure this is what has happened. It looks like at least the English article was created by an anonymous user, so confirming that with them directly may not be possible, if they don't reply on the article talk page. The translated page template is also available in a few dozen languages, and so should hopefully be available in these alternate translations on other language projects.

Incidentally, if you're familiar with the reddit user's who are helping to translate articles, it may be a good idea to pass this advice along to them when you get the opportunity. GMG^talk 12:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have no reason to think the anonymous user who wrote the English version got that from elsewhere on the web, so your template should work here. I will put that on the talk page. As for the other language versions: To my understanding of the reddit user agreement, content published on reddit.com is not under a free license compatible with Wikipedia. I am under the impression that a translation in and of itself can be protected under copyright. Unless you are saying that translations of one paragraph are de minimis or similar, I don't see how the Russian, Chinese, German (and probably Swedish) versions are proper, since the user accounts that published them on Wikipedia are almost certainly not identical to the people that put the work into the translation on reddit. The reddit users that did the work, did not give permission for their work to be published under a free license (they gave reddit permission to use it). I'm by no means a copyright expert though. Regardless, I don't speak a word of Russian and Chinese and am unable to navigate to talk pages there, let alone fill out a template correctly. Nfreaker91 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Looks I was misunderstanding you Nfreaker91. So yeah, the original on the Dutch Wikipedia is licensed appropriately, but if someone translates it elsewhere on the web, although it's derivative of a free work, the translation itself creates a separate copyright. As far as de minimis, that's... sketchy, and I wouldn't be comfortable using it as a rationale.

I'm just grasping at straws here, but I know User:Alex Shih lives in Japan, so maybe they know someone who speaks a touch of Chinese as a random shot in the dark. Looks like User:Maxim is active and listed at WP:Local Embassy as a Russian speaker, so maybe they can help out with the that version, or maybe they know someone who can. GMG^talk 12:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GreenMeansGo, I am actually a native speaker of Chinese myself. For the time being, I have provided the required attribution for both zh:Talk:爱因斯坦水槽 and ru:Обсуждение:Раковина Эйнштейна. If the reddit volunteers would like to claim copyright for their translation, they are more than free to do so, and then each Wikipedia language project can discuss deleting these pages accordingly. This is however counter-intuitive and unlikely to happen. I would only be concerned if the user that requested these translation helps at the reddit pages took advantage of these reddit volunteers by publishing their translated works for profit. Alex Shih (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Aren't you basically saying that it's only a copyright issue if someone complains? I think the German Wikipedia is stricter when it comes to this stuff - de:Einsteins Waschbecken has been deleted. I don't really care all that much though, so whatever you think is fine with me. Nfreaker91 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not totally sure I follow on that one completely. I wasn't sure if it was a difference in interpretation somehow between projects. GMG^talk 16:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly what I was saying. In the ideal scenario, everything posted on the Internet is "published" and should be protected accordingly, but if we were to chase after every single forum post that were re-distributed, I am afraid there are simply insufficient resources to do so. What I am saying is resources should be focused on tackling those who intentionally violate copyright to make profit. Not saying there is right or wrong, just expressing my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Belated comment, but article text from the Dutch Wikipedia falls under the Dutch version of CC-BY-SA 3.0 - would the SA clause mean translations of that text also fall under CC BY-SA 3.0? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Where did my user page go to?

I am in the middle of resolving issues on an aritcle and today it says my user page does not exist -- what could have happened? And how can I sign my name if it doesn't exist? Thank you

Mikkopresents (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mikkopresents: You can click the red link at the end of your post to create your userpage! You can express yourself however you want on there, but you don't need to. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @Mikkopresents: Did you ever create it? User pages don't exist until you put something on them, and having or not having a user page has nothing to do with your signature. RudolfRed (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Wikipedia sometimes claims, your userpage does not exist. As I see it, your userpage does exist, but has no content. Either way, your username does exist, and so you can (and should) sign your postings with it, by putting ~~~~ at the end of them. Maproom (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I typed some drivel on your User page, so it now exists. Put in your own content ( and delete mine). David notMD (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

thank you all!!

Mikkopresents (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

How to teach a basic high school class on Wikipedia?

I've been invited by a local school to teach a class about Wikipedia; a one-time 3-4hr class, hands-on in a computer lab. Is there any good pre-set curriculum for this sort of thing, or am I more making it up from scratch? I know there's Wikipedia Adventure, but that seems to be more of an individual thing, and I feel I'd be skimping on the class if I just tell them to click through something for an hour.

If there's a recommended workshop curriculum, that'd be great. Note that I do not at all plan to get them to write actual articles or do substantive editing, since it's a short class and I don't have the ability (or desire) to assign "homework". Here are a few of my thoughts:

• Explaning what Wikipedia is and how it works (how it was founded, intent/goals, big numbers like 8000 views/second and number of languages and pages and whatnot). Then a little bit about how it's grown and developed, become 5th-most popular website, started to address flaws in the system (BLP rules, etc)
• How to use Wikipedia selectively: how to use it as a starting place for research but then delve into the sources themselves, check the footnotes for credibility, etc.
• How to correct errors and vandalism? How to use Talk pages, WikiProject Talk pages, Teahouse?
• Practical exercise: maybe I can distribute a list of topics (which already exist on Wikipedia, like Abraham Lincoln and Beyoncé) and then have students practice in their sandbox, finding three verifiable facts from RSs, putting the facts in their own words and citing the sources? I assume that for max educational value this should be in wikicode and not Visual Editor? Or would VE be the better idea?
• Closing comments on how to get involved with Wikipedia if they want to, how to prepare to write articles, or do cleanup, or just Watchlist articles to prevent vandalism. There are a number of students who speak foreign languages, so I could also put in a plug for identifying solidly sourced articles and translating them from one language to another, particularly from English to another since there are those handy auto-tools that do the gruntwork so the editor can just do cleanup and verification.

These are my initial thoughts, though again it may well be that there are existing layouts I can just riff on. As a one-time 3-4hr class I don't need to get caught up with the Ambassador program or anything (if that's still around), but any input on how best to go about teaching a high school class the key fundamentals of Wikipedia would be appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas, this is quite off topic for here, as this is a forum for answering questions from new users. I appreciate your desire to tap the knowledge of the hosts here, but this conversation would be better held at WT:TEA. John from Idegon (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon:, the target of that link was evidently changed in January 2018, and appears now to recommend using this very Teahouse page. Do you have any other suggestion for @MatthewVanitas:? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230 .195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's just weird. WT:Teahouse, then. John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_program and WP:EDUN be a better resource??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say no, but isn't their focus on using Wikipedia editing as part of teaching a class on something else, as opposed to teaching people how to use Wikipedia? John from Idegon (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MatthewVanitas. I do not consider your question to be out of line in any way. I guess that I construe our goals here at the Teahouse broadly, although we all agree that "Wikipedia editing" is our focus here. I think that your proposed curricula is good, but I think that you should consult with the Wiki Education Foundation, since this is right up their alley. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Putting an article's section in a category

I can't figure out how to put an article's section in its own category. I looked at several project pages, but I can't figure it out. Would somebody please help me learn how to do it? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maximajorian Viridio. I am not sure that I understand your question correctly, but I will do my best to answer. Categories are for entire articles. We categorize articles, but we do not categorize sections of articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm also unsure what you want. It's possible to create a redirect to a section and place the redirect in a category. This is mentioned in Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. The category page will show the name of the redirect in italics and not show the article or section. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

help me

Hi, Men I don't know bro I created this wikipedia page and I already add two refrences link so please approved this. I know wikipedia is very strict about this please try to understand me this is a real person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirzalisv (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mirzalisv: Is it now deleted article about Zaan khan you are referring to? Could you provide more details? Your questions are unclear and ambiguous at best. More specifically – please explain (a) what page you are talking about (b) why it should be on Wikipedia (c) what information will be on that Wiki page? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

company logo fair use

Please excuse my ignorance, but what exact statement should I use and where should I place it, so I can use the logo for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Glen_Art that conforms to Wikipedia’s requirements? Indigojones666 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Indigojones666. The fair use rationale for the logo is generally correct. The only problem is that you cannot use non-free media on unpublished drafts. But once it is published, the rationale you provided will suffice. Unfortunately, if the draft isn't accepted soon the logo may be temporarily deleted in the meantime, since we cannot keep unused non-free media, but once the draft is published, you should be able to reupload it as you have already, or to contact the deleting admin and have it restored, now that there would be a valid published article to use it on.

Incidentally, the "permission" on the company website stating they allow Wikipedia to use the logo doesn't actually make any difference. For our purposes, either media is free for use by the public, of which Wikipedia is a part, or the media is not free for use by the public. Even though they give Wikipedia explicit permission, if it's not free to the public, we still have to treat it as "non-free". GMG^talk 11:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Indigojones666 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey no problem Indigojones666. I see we've had no luck on List of dog-related charities so far. But it looks like you're getting closer. GMG^talk 12:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Where to settle edit warring?

I was searching for a way to settle edit warring and came across Wikipedia Teahouse. Could the Teahouse be used to settle an ongoing edit dispute? Is there another or preferred source? Once I found a good way to settle edit dispute, I will present the situation clearly and invite all disputing parties. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is not for settling disputes, it is a place for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia only. If you are in a dispute, you should review this page on dispute resolution for various options and processes to make use of. Remember that edit warring is not permitted by anyone in a dispute. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you! Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Index policy

Hi there,

Even though i've been here for almost two years I dont do much of the internal wiki stuff, I mainly just edit articles. So please forgive me if this question sounds stupid.

So I created a page for Dharma Bum Temple and according to the index policy it is indexed after 90 days or until reviewed. But looking at the review log i noticed some stubs that were created later than my page get reviewed while the page I made hasnt been. Just wondering if there was perhaps a page I needed to put it on to get it reviewed or something (like with assessments). If there's no way to speed it up ill just wait, as I am pretty confident the page meets wikipedia's guidelines. I just wanna know if im missing something or not. Thanks in advance! Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to do anything extra, as the article which you created (less than a week) ago is already listed at Special:NewPagesFeed, along with over 4000 other pages. The review doesn't necessarily happen on a "first-in first-out" manner. For example, some reviewers may choose to give preference to subject areas in which their knowledge of that particular subject area helps them to spot problems such as copyright violation. You can be grateful that the efforts of the reviewers has reduced the backlog, which last October was sitting at about 13 thousand pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Wikiman5676. Dharma Bum Temple is quite a detailed article, so it will likely take longer for someone to decide to spend the time reviewing it than a shorter article submitted more recently. I wouldn't worry though; I don't see any major problems with the article (based on a quick scan at least). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Awesome thank you! Perhaps I should have left it a stub first lol. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

How to know my account password.

I am logged in on my wikipedia account but when i tried opening my account from different phone then i realised that i forgotten my password. So how to know my account password. Uchihaitachina (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Uchihaitachina, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have provided your email address in your preferences, you can go to Special:PasswordReset and request a temporary password be sent to you by email. if you have not provided an email address, then there is no way for Wikipedia to reset your password nor tell you what it is, as anyone could pretend to be you. You will just have to try to remember it in that case, or create a new account. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you have relativly few contributions on this account, creating a new account woukld not be such a major problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. You are right i should create a new account because i haven't edited much.Uchihaitachina (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Just getting started

Please can anyone put me through creating my first article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godswin12 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article for a thorough guide on creating your first article. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Etiquette for New Users

Greetings to the Teahouse.

I have been using the user sandbox to draft up a user page however I am reluctant to make any other edits as I am a new user and I am currently unsure if edits to my user page will affect me negatively or not.

What precautions should I take when making contributions? (other than common sense, consideration, research and citations when editing).

It is in my best interest to contribute positively and to avoid conflict as a registered user. Mr Isaac.G (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mr Isaac.G. I suggest that you read Help:Getting started and associated help pages. Feel free to return here to the Teahouse with more specific questions at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This was exactly the sort of information I was looking for, thank you. Mr Isaac.G (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Guerrilla Skepticism

Hello there; I'm just beginning practice as a contributor to Wikipedia and am extremely concerned about what I'm beginning to perceive as ... skepticism on behalf of persons such as the Susan Gerbic Guerrilla group which may have the means and influence in your operation to filter and delete topics they deem unworthy and thus limit people's knowledge of subjects which I and many others consider extremely important and relevant to the times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unpuppet (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The Unpuppet. Calling the work by Susan Gerbic and her associates "fascist" is a serious and inflammatory accusation. I suggest that you avoid such language unless you provide solid evidence. We have a guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories that you should read, and many other relevant policies and guidelines. Both you and Susan Gerbic are required to comply with all of those. We do not cover topics that some people may consider "extremely important and relevant", but rather topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, No harm intended. I'll be careful to abide by the guidelines as I'm further acquainted with the platforms policies. BTW; is there any fair way to simply delete first exchanges (such as this one) and avoid any unnecessary predispositions others could harshly interpret? With all sincerity, I consider many of the topics covered in Wikipedia as "extremely important and relevant" and frequently consult Wikipedia about most everything(!) Most grateful for the welcome, Cullen328. The Unpuppet (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, The Unpuppet. This conversation may be helpful to other editors, so it should be kept for a while, and then automatically archived. We save pretty much h everything here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I found a dead link

I am not sure where to address this as I am new.

While searching this Wikipedia Navigation aids article

I had noticed that Under Tools>Scholar, leads me to this Page

Which is a dead url, I hope this is fine to post here as I am unsure where to report such a thing.

It appears that multiple linkbacks in that specific section are dead upon further checking.

Mr Isaac.G (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Mr Isaac.G. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Link rot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, It appears I am unable to edit this page as it appears with two parentheses on each side with a dash in between (possibly administrators only?). I have used the way back machine as endorsed by Wikipedia:Link rot and have come up with 6 different links for each however one was unable to be searched, I did check every date. If maybe you or another admin could edit this page? Wayback Machine Links to last available snapshots provided.

Counter
Createds (All links for "Createds" in Wayback Machine returned 404)
Scholar
TFiller
Top
Traffic
No Name

Mr Isaac.G (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

how can i publish my autobiography on wikipedia???

pla tell me about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad salekin mojibi (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mohammad salekin mojibi: We discourage users from publishing autobiographies or even editing articles they have a conflict of interest with. If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Birthday (Age)

Is there a widget or something that you can put on an age number of a subject so that it automatically updates on his or her birthday? thanks

also is huffington post considered an ok source?

Mikkopresents (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mikkopresents. The functionality regarding a person's age is provided by infoboxes. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for a complete description of infoboxes and how they work. There are a wide variety of infoboxes available for different types of people. If a valid date is entered into the date of birth field, then the person's age will be calculated and updated each year. Please be aware that we should only include a person's date of birth if it is widely reported in reliable sources, and should not search government records to try to find it. Read Privacy of personal information and using primary sources for the policy language.

As for the Huffington Post, the reliability of articles on that website varies greatly, so it should be used with great caution. Is the author a professional journalist or a recognized expert, or is the item some silly clickbait? Often, a better source for a specific claim can be found easily. When in doubt, take the specific claim and the specific HuffPo article to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

: Hello Mikkopresents there is {{Birth date and age}} that calculates the age. Vexations (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

However, Mikkopresents, as per WP:DOB the exact date of birth should not be used in an article about a living person unless it has already bee widely published and is reliably sourced, or it was published by the subject, that is by the person whose birth date it is. This is to preserve privacy and to not enable identity theft. Moreover, the yeart nof birth gives all the context that is truly of 3ebncyclopedic value in most cases. There is {{birth year and age}}. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Edits

Hello, I am having trouble with someone consistently deleting my edits which are based on facts and cited correctly. Can I somehow see who is responsible for this and/or stop them from doing so? The specific page is "Highest-attended concerts in history" and the issue is with someone deleting the Liam Payne Concert from March 30 with 110,000 people in attendance from the List. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syggan (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

List of highest-attended concerts is the correct article title. David notMD (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Syggan, that isn't an area I usually work in, but I'd likely have reverted your edits too. Twitter isn't a reliable source for facts, and I'd look at the promoter of the concert with considerable doubt too. I'd suggest you start a discussion at the article's talk page, and discuss it with the other editors involved. I'm assuming your edits were removed for poor sourcing, but I didn't see any edit summaries to confirm that. John from Idegon (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

External links (Twitter or IG)

What is the position on social media links as external links? I've noticed some users/bots pretty adamant on removing any trace of Twitter or IG links from externals. From what I have read, they aren't prohibited per se.

• WP:ELMIN

Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances [...] it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information.

• WP:ELNO

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,† one should generally avoid providing external links to: [...]

†An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

What are your thoughts on the matter? DA1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Any knowledgeable admins willing to elaborate on the official policy pertaining to this? Thanks in advance. DA1 (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DA1, I think your looking for something you are not going to get. What external links to include is a content decision, and administrators do not rule on content. Content is decided by consensus. Our policies are purposely vague. Pretty much the only inviolate policies we have are those with legal ramifications (WP:BLP and WP:COPYRIGHT are the only ones I can think of, but there may be more). Even one of our pillar policies is ignore all rules. What you are quoting above are guidelines for content. This particular one is based on another pillar policy, WP:NOT, particularly the section on no promotionalism. The general consensus is listing anything beyond a person's or a company's website is promotional. The explanation I've always heard is that we will list the official website, and if the article's subject wants people to know about their social media, they should feature it on their official site. If a company or individual has no official website, then listing one social media site may be appropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon That's interesting because those 2 rulesets I quoted were actually from one such user/bot (i hinted of) citing it to delete Twitter or IG links from externals. But when I read it, I get the opposite idea. That IF a website contains IG/Twitter links it should be avoided on externals, but if it doesn't there's no rule against it—on the contrary it should simply be official (i.e., controlled by the article subject). WP:ELNO warns against blogs/social networking sites (#10, #11) but that's unless its "an official page of the article's subject" (as stated in the very first line). DA1 (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Croping a image

Is there anyway in which we can crop an image uploaded to wikicommons without violating the terms of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya harish pergade (talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Adithya harish pergade, and welcome to the Teahouse. All images on Wikimedia Commons are either in the public domain or published under a free content license. You can modify all images you find there in any way you want without restrictions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you upload a new version, it's safe to link back to the original one on Commons as your source. You should also use the same license that the original one had. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Deletion

How i can delete my Article from Wikipedia? Like This: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abuzar_Ibnu_Syed) Because it's declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuzar Ibnu Syed (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Abuzar Ibnu Syed: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your edit history I'm not clear on which page it is you are referencing. Please link to it so we can better help you. I would add that you state "our article" above; please note that accounts should only be used by one person. If you represent a group or organization, please explain. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Abuzar Ibnu Syed: if you mean User:Abuzar Ibnu Syed/sandbox then you may just delete the content and re-use the sandbox. If you prefer a clean start, you may create a new sandbox (just call it "User:Abuzar Ibnu Syed/sandbox2" or whatever you wish. Dbfirs 20:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

From what you have now added to your original question, you apparently want to delete the text which you added to your user talk page. You could have undone the edits yourself, but I have done it for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

draft space article

I started an article that I am no longer interested in pursuing. It was never submitted. I have deleted its content. Is there some way to delete the draft altogether? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jenhawk777. Please take a look at the speedy deletion criterion WP:G7, and place one of the listed templates on the page you want deleted. An administrator will delete it for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you thank you! I knew there had to be some provision for people changing their minds I just couldn't find it. I appreciate your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

British Isles Naming Dispute - NPOV Violation

Hi guys, long-time reader, first-time user here. I'll try and make this question as brief as possible.

This is about the British Isles naming dispute page. For those interested, this essentially revolves around the objection of the Irish state and people to the term "British Isles" when it refers to Ireland as well as Great Britain, based upon Britain's oppressive effects upon Ireland and the simple reality that Ireland isn't a part of the United Kingdom. The government of the United Kingdom, in response, respects this view and acknowledges it, and the term "British Isles" is not used in any official language, policy, legislation or document by either government. Obviously some British users still like to use the term, which is up to them, but this is done either in ignorance of Ireland's complaint or without care to it.

So! The issue itself; last week [user Bastun made a series of 3 edits]((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles_naming_dispute)) that inserted several weasel-words into the article and removed entire tracts of text in an apparent attempt to insert the narrative that Ireland's view is somehow niche or not shared among it's own people or government, despite being the state's official position and this point being reflected in the article itself. I reverted these edits, seeing them as obviously NPOV. This was then reverted by users The Banner and Bastun, who claimed they were removing NPOV edits. The article was then protected to stop the edits.

I've already explained this in great detail [on the article's talk page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles_naming_dispute) and attempted to enter into dialogue with the relevant users, but those involve seem to only respond with "It's my opinion that this view isn't universal and you can't tell me otherwise." Which apart from ignoring the Irish government's position on the matter, seems to me to be the very definition of NPOV. Can I get some advice on this? I've given the users several opportunities to provide me with evidence that the edits they are making have any basis in reality, but after a week I've got nothing. I don't expect to either - the amount of Irish people in the Republic who want to be called "British" could be counted on your hands. This seems to be a bunch of users letting their opinion dictate the narrative of an article they think nobody will notice.Hibarnacle (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hibarnacle. You are doing the correct thing to discuss the matter on the article's talk page but my personal recommendation to you is to reduce your self-righteous tone and adopt a more collaborative approach with the other editors there. For example, if another editor asks for evidence, try providing the evidence rather than insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong. We make decisions about these matters based on consensus among interested editors, so it is not a good idea to alienate the other interested editors. If talk page discussion fails, then there are various forms of dispute resolution available to you. This particular subject has been contentious on Wikipedia for many years, and excessive stubbornness is counterproductive, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's considered polite to ping users when you're mentioning them somewhere, Hibarnacle (and mandatory on Administrator noticeboard pages). When raising an issue on a noticeboard, can I suggest using more neutral language - you've completely mischaracterised my contributions, and this one-sided proposition you've put forward could well seen as forum shopping. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Citing Journal Articles

I had a quick question about citing journal articles. I was told that you cannot cite original research, as in, journal articles that have published a study, is that true? What are the parameters for citing academic journal articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassLong (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CassLong, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you misunderstood something. When the term original research is used on Wikipedia, it generally means unpublished theories, or research or synthesis by a Wikipedia editor, not based on a published reliable source. Academic journals are cited frequently here, often using {{Cite journal}}. Articles on medical topics have special standards where individual studies are not normally cited, in favor of broader review articles that summarize multiple studies. Unless that was the context, reliable journals, particularly peer-reviewed ones, can be cited here. Not all journals are reliable, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I will reinforce the stipulation that for medical/health topics, a STRONG preference for reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in reputable journals over individual clinical trial citations. The issue is that within a set of clinical trials on one topic, there are often conflicting results and conclusions. Wikipedia prefers that its editors not select trials that weigh in on only one side. That way madness lies. David notMD (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

how do we fix this error for William MacLeod?

Hi, I hope someone with administrative rights can address this issue: William MacLeod is an Australian painter. His page is named William MacLeod. There is a disambiguation William McLeod (disambiguation) page that has a redirect to William MacLeod page. Therefore any links made to the artists' page get sent to the William McLeod (disambiguation) page.

I hope I am explaining this correctly :) To see what I mean, go to Lists of Archibald Prize finalists and click on William MacLeod, then try to fix the link so it goes to the artist. You will then see the circular problem.

I think the solution would be to rename the Australian artist's page William McLeod (artist).

Can someone help me get this fixed? I am pinging @Tassedethe: who noticed this yesterday. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The artist's page is not at William MacLeod but at William Macleod; case is significant in Wikipedia page names. There is a link from the artist's page to the disambiguation page, for anybody who arrives mistakenly. I have corrected the erroneous link from Lists of Archibald Prize finalists, and you can correct any other links which are in error. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph! I completely missed the lower case l. Apologies for the real problem being between the keyboard and the computer. I have fixed the other bad links. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft Submission Declined

Hello Everyone, I have a draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Quick_Lane that was not approved stating it was "Straightforward advertising for a garage franchise." I have stated on both the article talk page as well as my user page that I do have a conflict of interest and in the spirit of disclosure I am open to suggestions on what to do. After reaching out to the reviewer if I can make any improvements he stated that Quick Lane doesn't seem to be notable. I am a little confused as a vast majority of Quick Lane's competitors have wiki articles and there is even a Quick Lane Bowl Wiki article currently. Quick Lane is a large automotive chain owned by Ford Motor Company so again, I am confused why it would not be "notable" enough. Is there anything I can do to improve the article/and or take alternative steps to get the draft approved? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --CA Bell (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"Notable" in the special sense used on Wikipedia doesn't mean "important in the real world", it means, "has sufficient substantial descriptions (not just listings or passing mentions) in independent Reliable sources" that can be cited to support the contents of the article. Please read thoroughly those linked instructions, and also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

To establish the subject's notability, there would have to be articles, or parts of articles at least a few paragraphs long, about it in such publications as national newspapers, magazines, or books from reputable publishers, and so on. Material written by the subject company, or trade journal articles based on its press releases, or interviews with its employees, might be useful to corroborate various facts, but cannot be used to support notability. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@CA Bell: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Beware in citing other pages about businesses in the same field; just because pages about competitors exist doesn't automatically mean yours gets an article too. Other stuff exists. Not every business merits an article here, even within the same field. Businesses only merit articles if they meet the notability guidelines for businesses, written at WP:ORG. Please review those guidelines, but in short they state that a business must be shown to have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources and that brief mentions or routine business announcements are not acceptable in establishing notability. This applies whether the business is a mom and pop operation or owned by a large corporation(like Ford). The sources you provided all seem to be brief mentions or announcements of business transactions(such as sponsoring a race). If those are the only types of sources that exist, there cannot be an article about this chain at this time. I am sorry that is likely not what you want to hear, but I wished to explain the situation to you. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @331dot very much for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate the thorough explanation.--CA Bell (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

How do my contribution be accepted and make it publish?

I have wrote about a bio of a celebrity from Nagaland India who needs this wikipedia recognition as he have contributed a lot to our small society in a massive way so kindly check my sandbox and see through.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.j Modeling grooming agency (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note Soft-blocked this user for blatant violation of WP:ORGNAME. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@O.j Modeling grooming agency: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first tell you that you will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID. I assume you are editing for a client; if so, you are required to comply with the paid editing policy and declare such status.

Please understand that no one "needs" a Wikipedia article; in fact, there are good reasons that someone might not want to have one. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes such as telling the world about someone or advancing someone's career. Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what third party reliable sources state about a subject. The person you are writing about will need to have in depth coverage of them in third party sources that indicates how they meet the notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding a photo to an article

Hello after reading it seems that once you are confirmed you may add a photo to an article. I have the required number of edits yet I get an error that my photo cannot be verified as my own. Is the ten edit rule different depending on the user? Böses Mädchen 1 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Böses Mädchen 1. To be autoconfirmed, you account needs to have made 10 edits and be four days old. It appears that you only registered it today, so you will need to wait a few days yet before you can upload files. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah...thank you much! Böses Mädchen 1 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mobile editing

Hi, do you know if there is a way to avoid the wikitext editor scrolling back to the top of the wikitext when typing using a mobile?

Most of the time if I'm just pressing backspace I stay where I am, but if I type, the screen jumps and I just end up at the top of the content and can't see what I'm doing.

I've experienced this on both iPhone and Android.

I'm asking here, instead of opening a phabricator discussion, because I feel this might be a common issue and I'm after an answer other than 'use visual editor'.

Apologies if this renders odd, I've used the question form so this didn't take an hour to type.

Thanks in advance, Cesdeva (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Cesdeva, welcome to our Teahouse. Like you, I have been immensely frustrated by exactly what you describe, albeit only when using Microsoft's Edge browser on two new Windows 10 computers. By switching to IE11, Chrome or Firefox I have avoided this really annoying issue. However, I do not experience this at all on either my iphone5 with iOS10, or my Android tablet. It will be interesting to hear the experience of others here. If I were you I would probably then ask at Village Pump (technical) before raising a Phabricator ticket, linking back to any other threads reporting similar issues, like mine. Either way, do include details of your phone model, OS version and browsers used. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm using Chrome. I have the WP app; it's great for reading but not so much for editing. Cesdeva (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any WP app. Is this officially supported? If so, there's bound to be a feedback page to report issues. If not, then it will not be anything WMF can do anything about. Could you supply a link to the app please, I'd be interested to look at it? I just edit directly in my phone's browser, but always in Desktop view. Have you tried this approach? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: See Help:Mobile_access Scroll down to "Official application" RudolfRed (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep, just found the relevant pages at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps Will give it a try. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk)

I sometimes switch to desktop view for long threads but when I go to resolve a new URL I just end up back on the mobile site. You may have found a partial solution there however: I chose 'desktop site' when I was within the mobile editor and I'm now on the desktop editor. About 1/3 of the text is cut off but it scrolls right automatically so that's not a major issue. This is much improved. According to Google Play, the app has been developed by the WMF. Thanks Cesdeva (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've just tried the app again myself and it's better than I remember. Perhaps I was too dismissive with my first experience of it. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

QUESTION about J.Wyndal Gordon Page

I am unsure what I need to remove? How do I send this to Wiki Sources to get their concensus and approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWyndalGordon (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@JWyndalGordon: Because you are J. Wyndal Gordon, you should not write or edit any article about you. See WP:COI for more information. Instead, if there was an article about you, you should request changes on the article's talk page, preferably along the lines of "please change X to Y because Z" or "please insert A between B and C because D."

However, there is no longer an article about you. If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Ezra Youth a notable subject?

I would like to write an article about Ezra Youth, which is an established organisation founded in 1919 and has substantial discussion outside the internet but has little information on the internet due to their policy of discouraging internet use. They have a website ezrayouth.com, but only have one news article about it and has some passing references on Google Scholar, and I would like to use their website as a reference because that is where most of the information about Ezra Youth is. Can I write an article about this or does Ezra Youth not count as notable? Many thanks for taking the time to answer this question. P.S. If you know of any sources outside of the ezra website I can use, please can you let me know! Thanks! ShtarkBochur (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello @ShtarkBochur: while online sources are preferred because they're easier to check, it is totally fine to use offline sources (like articles/books printed on paper) if you simply can't substantiate the fact with online materials. You can take a quick look at WP:Offline sources if you want to make sure you're comfortable with how best to do that.

I will say, however, if you search "ezra youth" on GoogleBooks you can find a number of serious books that discuss the group; you'll get some false hits too ("in Ezra's youth he once...etc"), but just scroll past those, and/or search "ezra youth movement". Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just for example, page 176 of this book has a half-pagraph with some identifying characteristics and key stats of the group:

• Jean E. Rosenfeld (13 December 2010). Terrorism, Identity, and Legitimacy: The Four Waves Theory and Political Violence. Routledge. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-1-136-84867-4.

(edit conflict) If the organisation has successfully kept out of the news, it may be hard to find sources to establish that it's notable. This one looks pretty good, I guess it's the one you found. I couldn't find anything else in a quick search. Maybe there's articles in Hebrew, which I can't read; they could be acceptable. There's a few relevant pictures on Wikimedia Commons you could use, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ezra_youth_organization , but those won't help with notability. Maproom (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there an edit log?

Is there a place I can go to to watch edits? There is an account creation log, a block log, or an autoblock log. All depicting something happening live.HorsesAreNice (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@HorsesAreNice: Check out Special:RecentChanges it might be what you're looking for. If not, browse the other special pages at WP:Special:SpecialPages RudolfRed (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@HorsesAreNice: Never mind watching edits - why not sit back with a nice cup of tea and listen to the sound of the world's greatest encyclopaedia being constructed! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

how to clarify information added is correct and reply denying it is dishonest and controlling?

I made an edit on a page because i know that a credit is not on a movie for a significant position of exec producer. a bot stopped it. corrected it and got threatening response.

is there a way to remedy this? and stop the person from threatening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lake Windy (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lake Windy When you made this edit you broke the Template:Infobox film template by replacing the producer parameter with a new, unrecognized parameter "executive producer" with the value Cathleen Summers producer = {{ubl|[[Mark Burg]]|Chris Zarpas}} You probably wanted to keep producer and add an executive producer parameter, in which case you should have separated them with a | immediately after Summers, but that still would not have worked because the film infobox does not support that parameter. The list of supported parameters is at {{Infobox film}}. The bot noticed you broke something, that's all. Vexations (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lake Windy: I was going to say the same thing as above, but would add that, because you attempted to make the same edit again (i.e. damaging the infobox by adding an invalid paramater a second time) another editor re-reverted that edit, adding a note to your talk page. Whilst I recognise your edit was made 'in good faith' we get such a lot of petty damage made in a destructive manner by some people that we leave a series of 'helpful' notices, which escalate in severity each time. If an editor doesn't heed these warning, they are liable to being blocked. You did absolutely the right thing by coming here to enquire what the problem was. The alternative way is to ask the reverting editor. Of course, you can't ask an automated bot, but everyone else is always happy to explain. My apologies if your first experience of interacting with other editors seemed a little brusque. Rest assured your contributions are indeed welcome. All information added needs to be supported by references so that others who might challenge them can go away and check for themselves. It does take a while to settle in, so do come back anytime if you have further questions of worries. I'll now nip over to your talk page and leave you a few helpful links and some cookies to get you off to good start. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)  

Why do edits sometimes say “error” instead of “success”?

I tried to edit my question, but it said “🛎error, edit not saved!”

Hi, I believe you added an answer instead of a question. All you have to do is change it to a question instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldStateOrigin12 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Question 1

Why do people think that their edits are better than others' edits? That is very strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldStateOrigin12 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, WorldStateOrigin12 welcome to the Teahouse. That's an interesting question. If we didn't think we could improve on previous edits this amazing encylopaedia of ours would never gorw or be improved. But of course, human nature being what it is, some people believe that what they say and do is better than what anyone else says. Here one wikipedia, one of our fivepillars is the reliance upon cooperation and consensus. We have various checks and balances to ensure that all edits are based on reliable, independent sources and to resolve disagreements if they occur and esclate beyond reasonable, constructive editing. I wonder if you have any particular edits in mind when you asked your question? You don't appear to have edited from this account before, so it's hard to guess what you might be referring to. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, again WorldStateOrigin12. For some reason you incorrectly posted your follow-on comment at the Teahouse talk page where it would probably have got completely overlooked, as the thread was closed. (Lucky I was checking out your contribution history and spotted the missing edit!) You asked: Sorry, I wanted to edit, but it said “Error!” WorldStateOrigin12 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC). I'm afraid you will need to give a bit more information for us to help you. What were you trying to do/what page were you on/what was the exact error message you received/what device were you using/does it happen each time you try? Forgive me - I won't be able to respond as I am closing down for the night, but if you can reply here, one of my fellow hosts will, I'm know, be willing to answer all genuine questions, providing you give us sufficient background information to work with. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)