Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 687

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 680

←

Archive 685

How do I post a picture.

How do I post a picture of a footballer?

Zeyad Ramzy (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Zeyad Ramzy. Welcome to the Teahouse. I hope we can help you. First of all, can you tell me if the picture you want to add to a page is one that, either a) you took yourself and therefore you own the copyright?, or b) is a picture you have already located either on Wikimedia Commons or somewhere where it is absolutely clear the photographer has authorised it is free to use - even commercially? You'll see this because there will a wording something like 'Creative Commons licence' by it. I ask this question first, because we do not allow any old image found on the internet to be used on Wikipedia. Looking forward to hearing back from you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Zeyad Ramzy. Unfortunately the answer to this is not simple: you have to upload the image and then use it; and you may not upload it until you have determined that the copyright status of the image is acceptable: see Help:Upload. However, if this is about Mohamed Awad, I must tell you that there are much much much more urgent issues than getting a picture. As it stands that article is likely to be deleted, because it has almost no references (the cited page on Soccerway has very little information about him personally) and consequently does not establish that he is notable. Please have a look at that link, and also at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

How should I cite this journal article?

As I sought information for a proposed Wikipedia article, I found a relevant article from an academic journal, but I am not sure how to cite the information. "A Syndicated Show in a Network World: Frederic Ziv's Favorite Story" was published in the Journal of Radio Studies, which has a paywall. Since I don't have an account with Taylor & Francis Online, I can see only an abstract on the company's website. However, the full text of the article is available on the author's page at a university's website. Would it be acceptable to cite the journal (name, volume, date, pages, etc.) and use the URL of the full text in the citation, even though I did not get the material directly from the journal's website? Eddie Blick (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Teblick: Hey Eddie, thanks for your question. I think what you've suggested is just fine. Sometimes authors or others offer downloadable copies of articles on personal or professional websites; I generally avoid linking to these sites in general because they can go down at anytime, whereas the information from the journal is permanent (even if the article is behind a paywall). I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)r

@I JethroBT: Thanks for the quick feedback. I will go ahead with that approach. I used an archiving site to create a backup of the paper, but I don't see anywhere in the "Cite journal" template to put a URL for an archive. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Journal article can be written for home. I keep a journal article for the X-Men. --Steven Spafford (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Teblick, using a reference behind a paywall is perfectly acceptable if an equal or better free reference is not available. I agree with I JethroBT on this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, Thanks! I appreciate that. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Teblick:, The Cite journal template accepts archive-url and archive-date. Basic syntax is listed in the commonly used parameters box with the heading 'To cite an online article that has been archived' Gab4gab (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gab4gab:, I'm glad to hear that. I will insert those parameters. Thanks for your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Need advice on how to remove alerts from "John Langeloth Loeb Jr." Wikipedia page

We are working on updates to the "John Langeloth Loeb Jr." Wikipedia page. Currently we have two alert boxes: "like resume" and "BLP unsourced section" on the page. Since these alert boxes were posted we have made several updates to the text and format of the page and have added 40 citations. Since I have a Conflict of Interest for this page, I am not able to remove the alert boxes myself. I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and the process so I would like advice on the next steps we should complete to request that these 2 alert boxes be removed. Any suggestions you have would be much appreciated. Mybestwords (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy link John Langeloth Loeb Jr.

You need to comply with WP:PAID which requires entries on your talk page and the talk page of the article. You have made a start at this but you have not finished all the requirements. Who or what entity is paying? Who is "We" in your paragraph above? .... accounts are supposed to be a single person.

There are several section with no references. Providing citations for them (on the talk page) would help. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ariconte. Thanks for your guidance and questions. My Wikipedia account User:mybestwords belongs to me alone. When I said "We" I was referring to myself and my colleague, User:Conquestde, with whom I'm working. I am a contractor with the Collaborative, a consulting firm with headquarters in Boston. They are paying me. We have submitted an Edit Request on the John Langeloth Loeb Jr. Talk page. Thanks again for your help.

Mybestwords (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Digital goods

Hi, I have published an article in a peer-reviewed journal on digital goods. I added a summary of this work to the page and it was removed by SPECIFICO, who is threatening to ban me from WIkipedia. I am an expert on this topic, the article was published in a reputable academic journal, and was covered similarly by the Boston Globe and Discover Magazine. I feel this person is attempting to take the contribution hostage because it does not conform to his/her point of view? What is the best way to address this issue? I am an expert on this topic in academia and am less familiar with my paths to recourse here. Carey.Morewedge (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carey.Morewedge. You are running into a problem that faces many experts who edit here. Wikipedia policies are responsible for the removal of the material. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what has already been written and analyzed elsewhere, so a section such as you added to Digital goods needs to have references to secondary sources that analyze already published material, not the primary papers themselves. See Wikipedia's primary-source policy: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. It may be helpful to read Wikipedia:Expert editors which explains how this is different from most scholarly publishing. We have many experts who edit successfully, though you need to be careful of the inherent conflict of interest in citing your own articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Accounts.

What would happen to my prior edits if I was to create a account. Would they change to my account name? Would I still be credited? Would I get a surprise party? Piece of cake? A platitude? No really, I would hope I still get credited. Thank you for your time. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor 50.64.119.38. There will be no formal connection between your new account and your previous IP editing. But you can certainly place a note on your new user page that mentions your previous edits under specific IP addresses. Any editor evaluating your overall contributions to the encyclopedia can consider those edits as well. If you happen to be in Northern California, I will personally buy you a piece of cake and praise you if you create an account and make significant positive contributions. I encourage you to do so. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I was being facetious but the offer of cake was very nice of you. I'm from southern BC however, with no plans to ever visit the US. Thank you for the offer though.

On a more serious subject (at least for me); I have always used this IP address for my edits, does that mean the past 500+ edits cant't be used to count for me? Like, if I want access to protected sites or if I wanted to expand my role in Wikipedia? (Sorry it took me some time to respond. Trying to figure out what to do with this cake I just bought...). 50.64.119.38 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It does seem a pity to "throw away" six months of edits, but it is still worth creating an account, and you can link your IP contributions on your user page as suggested above if you don't mind people knowing your IP address. In any assessment of your contributions, these IP edits can then be included because it is clear that the only user of this IP address is you. After your new account is four days old and has made ten edits, it will be WP:Autoconfirmed which means that you can make edits to semi-protected pages. I hope you don't mind, but I've added some colons to indent your reply above. Sorry I can't send you another cake. Dbfirs 06:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you open an account, you will be autoconfirmed in four days and ten edits, which is easy for you. As I said above, if you mention this IP address on your new user page, then any administrator evaluating your request for any other user permissions can take your IP edits into account, if they feel that they are relevant. As far as I know, there is no way to otherwise link your IP edits to a new account. Editors with better technical skills than I may correct me. I believe that there are many benefits to having an account, but that is optional and the choice is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for your time. I'm seeing if there's anything I can do. Have fun. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

add a person

How do you add a person to Wikipedia? Can one add oneself? Afterthefire (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Afterthefire. Welcome to the Teahouse. A brand new user like yourself first needs to have been on Wikipedia for at least 4 days, and to have made at least 10 edits before they're allowed to create a new article on any subject. As this is an encyclopaedia, every article has to be on a subject deemed 'notable' and to be based on reliable, third party sources. (See WP:RS for an explanation of what that means.) In essence, you can't base an article about a person from their own published words about themselves - you need to rely on what independent, reliable sources have written about them.

(edit conflict) Writing an article about yourself is full of huge pitfalls, and is very strongly discouraged, and almost impossible to do. How likely am I to write about myself in a neutral, independent manner? Could I prove all the wonderful things I would want to say about myself, using only stuff that newspapers, TV and books have said about me? (My own website would be excluded as it's not seen as independent.) We call this a 'conflict of interest'. Please carefully read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to understand why writing about yourself is frowned upon. If you honestly feel you are so noteworthy that Wikipedia needs a page about you, I'd still suggest you leave it to other editors to do, and your role could be simply to highlight where they can find independent sources to base their writing on. To write about another person, you should read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE and especially the essential guidance on what you must and must not do when writing about biographies of living people. I hope this helps you understand the key issues. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Afterthefire. In addition to what Nick Moyes says, I would advise anybody, new or old, not to create an article directly unless they are certain that they can do so well enough that it will survive immediate review (which requires understanding policies on notability, verifiability, neutrality, no original research and possibly conflict of interest). Because of policies such as these, writing a new article which 'sticks' is hard, and I always advise people to use the Article wizard to create a draft and work there. I suggest you start by reading your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Revert.

Hi. One of my edits was recently reverted because the person said "prefer the original". I don't want to make an issue of this, but if I could ask; how would you have handled it? 50.64.119.38 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there IP user. Welcome. You ask a very good question, and at times it can seem almost like a personal insult when someone abruptly reverts an edit you have made in all good faith to an article. (It happens to every single one of us). But try not to look at it like that. The first thing I'd do is ask myself "Were they right? Did I really make it worse?" If I did (and it does happen), I might even show I accepted they were right by going to the edit history on the page in question and hitting the blue (thank) link which sends a little "thank you" message to that editor. (It's my way of saying sorry, you were right) Of course, I might actually be cross and tempted for a moment to hit the blue (undo) link and revert their reversion - but that only starts off what we call an "edit war" which we all need to avoid getting into. (You can read more on that here if you wish.) So, what I'd recommend doing if you really feel your version was a genuine improvement is going to that editor's talk page and adding a new topic, politely inviting them to explain why they felt the original version was better, and what it was that made them undo your change. Doing this in a way that sounds polite, neutral and not antagonistic is never the easiest thing to do in type-written text, but this is how best to start a discussion. Do it calmly and politely and it should lead to a consensus on the best way to improve an article. Many times it can be best just to shrug one's shoulders and not worry about the fact that there is always more than one way to phrase something, so moving on to the next task can often be best way. Does any of this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. At that point, you have two choices: either decide not to continue with the matter further; or open a polite discussion on the article's talk page. If you ping the editor who reverted it, they will probably see your posting and should come and discuss it with you. Please see WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not sure I go to the talk page like here. If I"M right, like everytime I, or anyone else for that matter, tries to edit Red Dragon, I just throw the rulebook after the obligatory revert. It's the outright "I don't like it". Do you guys just walk if you can't convince the person? 50.64.119.38 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a difficult one to answer, because it depends on the precise situation. I've looked at the recent revisions of the Red Dragon film you mention, and it's clear you've taken absolutely the right path in discussing things in a non-confrontational way on the Talk Page or via edit summaries. Equally, I can see other editors are making changes in a positive spirit, too, and I liked some of your edits and rationales better, but some of the minor changes and explanations others made were justifiable and preferable, too. So, there I think you all seem to be working relatively cooperatively, notwithstanding the minor differences of opinion on wording and content. I suspect you are aware of the three revert rule which stops tit-for-tat edit-warring, and can lead to a formal complaint and blocking of one or more editors for a period of time? You want to avoid getting into that, but would I walk away? Sometimes yes, where it doesn't really matter or impact on the quality of the article. But at other times, assuming Wikipedia policies and guidelines are being constantly flaunted by another editor, I'd continue to raise this with them on their Talk Page until, if it got really unreasonable and I had cause to lodge a formal complaint, I would go to the Adminstrator noticeboard for incidents to seek an independent review of the issues involved. (I'm definitely not urging you to lodge any complaints over the Red Dragon page - things there look fine at present, but this is the system in place where matters of real concern can be raised, if necessary.) Hoping this helps, and keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I create and upload my own Wiki entry?

Short summary says it all. Where's the SEND button? I find it very difficult to understand the various procedures required.

Corrieduke. Corrieduke (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Corrieduke: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is currently an experiment under way where a user must have autoconfirmed status in order to directly create a new article. However, you should be able to use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review by another editor, which can then be posted to the encyclopedia if deemed acceptable. I would first suggest reading Your First Article and using The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial structured as a game, before attempting to create a new article. Please understand that successfully creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia; it takes time and practice. New users who dive right in to article creation often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings over the process; those users who are most successful at article creation started small by making edits to existing articles, to better learn the ropes. I hope this helps you. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

List of UK Parliamentary constituencies (1801–32)

I am having a problem which i stated on 24 October but it is not yet resolved. EYorkshire(32) st Angelia-This is the name of a place in the document "List of UK Parliamentary constituencies (1801–32)". I need to know whether that name is correct or not. If not,please give the correct name(couldn't find in google that's why).Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of UK Parliamentary constituencies (1801–32) has very few watchers, but I have replied there & pinged the editor responsible for the garbled edit in 2016. I have added a section heading before your question, as it doesn't belong in the section where you placed it. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair use and wikipedia

Hello I am an attorney who has not practiced copyright law, but had a law class on it in law school, and who keeps current with current US copyright law.

I have been editing here for 1.5 years. Wikipedia seems really hostile and has a really narrow interpretation of fair use to the point that it stifles editors from creating new content.

I created this new account so I am not stalked by this person who has threatened to block me. I notice with others, that if you argue with these people, they will go after all your edits and find a reason to block you.

this person is using there own broad view on copyright to delete my edits. I looked at all the other edits they make, and they block people a lot. I found this policy: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations and WP:NFCCEG. It appears like the decisions of who to block and what to delete are pretty arbitrary. Is there anyone that I can appeal this decision too?

Is wikipedia currently friendly to people who want to create articles or to people who want to delete articles?

Thank you. Lowlowprofile (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lowlowprofile. You are correct that the standards for fair use on the English Wikipedia are more restrictive than the letter of the law itself. This is by design, and likely partly due to the fact that we are the highest profile non-profit website in the world by a wide margin, and almost certainly use more fair use content than anyone else by a wide margin as well. Part of this is also due to the desire to make our content free for everyone, which tends to run counter to fair use, and can be frustrating for others who attempt to reuse content from Wikipedia elsewhere. At the same time, we are quite a bit more permissive than other Wikimedia Foundation projects, like Wikimedia Commons or the German Wikipedia, which do not allow non-free content at all, or the French Wikipedia, which only allows non-free content in exceptionally limited circumstances, like logos of companies and depictions of currencies.

There are probably a lot of people who get into trouble on Wikipedia primarily for fundamentally misunderstanding Wikipedia policies and applying a different standard that might apply elsewhere, but doesn't necessarily apply here. But it's important to understand that if someone left you a warning on your talk page, what they're really leaving you is hopefully several links to our site policies (like our standards for non-free content) in the hopes that you will review them and that they will help clarify the misunderstanding.

Hopefully this helps. Feel free to ask any follow up questions. This is exactly the right place to do it, and there's usually someone around to help. GMG ^talk 10:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll start with your last question. Most competent editors are here to improve Wikipedia. This involves improving existing articles when they are, or could be, acceptable; and getting rid of them when they aren't. The usual reason for treating an article as unacceptable is lack of notability. Copyright violation shouldn't be a reason for deleting an article: the copyvio content should be removed, and the article rewritten.

If an editor finds that someone has been violating Wikipedia's policies on copyright, it is reasonable of them to check that person's other edits to see if those also violate policy. Someone who continues to violate policy after multiple warnings is likely to be blocked. Maproom (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time. I cannot find the copyright policy you both talk about. 1) It appears like the decisions of who to block and what to delete are pretty arbitrary. 2) Is there anyone that I can appeal this decision too? Thanks again. I need to step away. :( Lowlowprofile (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not arbitrary, certainly not in this case. The user who reverted the edit knows more about copyright violations than most of the rest of us put together, and has taken the time to explain why your edits were reverted. You'll find the explanation here.

Please also note that you should not use two accounts to edit in tandem. (See this post). --bonadea contributions talk 14:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Lowlowprofile, for explanations of the policy see Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I'll repeat what was said above. Wikipedia aims to be free to reuse, which means being very, very careful about copyright. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lowlowprofile: I created this new account so I am not stalked by this person who has threatened to block me. I notice with others, that if you argue with these people, they will go after all your edits and find a reason to block you. Well, by creating another account and using it to evade scrutiny, you did give a reason for blocking. I don't think that is going to happen, but let this be a warning not to do that again in the future.

If you think the warning you were given was incorrect, you should first try to contact whoever left it to you to have clarification both ways (they may explain to you why they left it, or they might realize they warned you incorrectly). If this fails, you may complain about user conduct at WP:ANI - but be aware that frivolous complaints are not looked well upon.

We like to handle things transparently here; if you had posted with your original account and pointed to the real incident, we could have given more specific advice right away. Yes, it may mean that the people you complain about will find what you say, but that is a feature, not a bug. If you have extremely good reasons to handle a matter privately, you should contact the Arbitration Committee by email (that incident is absolutely not one of those cases). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

how can i upload a picture of a celebrity was taken by me on wiki

how can i upload a picture of a celebrity was taken by me on wikipedia also that page was created by me and the celebrity is already satisfied and accept all what i done

17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuwaitxoxo1 (talk • contribs)

@Kuwaitxoxo1: It would be best to upload to WikiCommons. When logged-in click contributions at the top of any page, then 'uploads' (just under the main heading), then WikiCommons in the first line. Once at commons click 'upload file' on the left. The upload wizard will take you through the steps to upload and the licensing requirements. Once uploaded you will find a link to 'use on Wiki'. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved reply from Help Desk. –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, You can upload on Commons however if the image isn't yours then it will be deleted, Also I don't see any article edited under this account - Using more than one account can get you blocked, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I upload and use a video in an article?

What process do I have to go through? The Verified Cactus 100% 22:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

On the left side of the page near the top under the Wiki Globe there's some links. Under tools near the bottom of the list you'll find Upload File. Or you can go here. Wikipedia:Videos 50.64.119.38 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the video is your own copyright (and contains no copyrighted music etc) I'm afraid you will still probably need to convert your video into a file format acceptable for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. (MPEGs and AVI are popular formats NOT licenced for free use, so must be converted into a royalty-free format first). See this help page for more information, or feel free to come back with a follow-up question and I can give you some links to useful online conversion tools to get them into WebM or Theora formats, which are acceptable for use here. (WebM format is actually brilliant as file sizes end up so much smaller than MPEGs.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What the heck - might as well post the useful links anyway! Zamzar is a brilliant free tool for converting smaller videos into WebM or .OGG format (and many others for that matter). For larger video files up to 2GB and to directly upload the converted file to Commons, this WikiMediaFoundation tool is rather nifty. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! The Verified Cactus 100% 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft page in my sandbox and I am super new

Hi! I joined up because I was asked if I could create this item (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JessicaZahurak/sandbox). I have had so much fun learning everything and will be helping out.

Before I make my draft a real thing, I was wondering if someone would look at it and let me know if I did anything wrong. Thanks so much! :) JessicaZahurak (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@JessicaZahurak: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask what you mean when you say you were asked to create the draft. Certain policies may be applicable in your situation. Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

OK so I see now that your draft is about the organization that you volunteer for; you will need to review the conflict of interest policy (located at WP:COI). Regarding the draft itself, I'm not seeing any independent reliable sources (WP:RS) that indicate how this web content meets notability guidelines (WP:NWEB). Basically, third parties need to have written about your organization in order for it to merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@331d3ot: Okay! Thank you so much, I was worried that would be an issue, which is why I asked before I attempted to publish outside of the sandbox.JessicaZahurak (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@331d3ot: Also, is the sandbox not the appropriate place to make a draft? JessicaZahurak (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@JessicaZahurak: Your sandbox is fine; however I see it has been nominated for deletion by another user. If you have independent sources that have in depth coverage of your organization itself, you may want to go to Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review. If you don't have independent sources, your organization may not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Please understand that not every organization or business merits a page here. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@JessicaZahurak: I would add that your sandbox is not immune from certain speedy deletion criteria, such as the promotional one.331dot (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@331d3ot: Please excuse this if it is a repeat, I think my response was eaten. Thank you so much for all your help, and I do understand. Would you please let me know what makes this promotional, so I can avoid in the future. --JessicaZahurak (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@JessicaZahurak: As I indicated, it needs independent reliable sources that indicate how the organization is notable per guidelines, please see them at WP:NWEB. It isn't enough to merely tell about an organization and what it does, which is what the draft seems to do. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Please understand, JessicaZahurak, that Wikipedia is not interested at all in what you, or I, or any other random person on the Internet, know about a subject, it is only interested in information that has already been published in a reliable source (one with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking). Furthermore, Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, associates, or employees, say about them: it is really only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. The very fact that your organisation have asked you to write an article about them suggests that they are under the (very common) misapprehension that a Wikipedia article about them in any sense belongs to them. --ColinFine (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@331d3ot: and @ColinFine: Thank you both. I am very glad I asked first. :) --JessicaZahurak (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Article titling for novel/series?

Hello,

A page I created some time ago, is called: Dr Pimms, Intermillennial Sleuth.

As it relates to a series of novels, should it have novels/series as the final word in the title? Could you please let me know if there is a convention around this? As in, are all wikipedia articles for novels meant to have those words, or simply be the title of the series?

Thank you very much

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Pimms,_Intermillennial_Sleuth

SunnyBoi (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SunnyBoi. That would only be necessary if there were two articles that might have identical names. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that a movie was made with the same name. Then what you propose may be useful. Please read Wikipedia: Disambiguation for a more complete explanation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

i cant make a account

when i make a account i get the error There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again. on chrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.165.176 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello anon. That is a strange error and I'm not sure I've seen it myself. You may want to try restarting your browser, your machine, or clearing your browsing data, and see if any of those help the problem. In the worst case scenario, if you are absolutely not able to create an account, you can still request one be registered on your behalf at Wikipedia:Request an account. GMG ^talk 10:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Who can edit pages?

Hi, I am an employee of a museum with charity status in the UK. We want to edit the wiki entry for our museum and building which is currently inaccurate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selly_Manor Someone told me that you can't be a paid employee of an organisation to edit their page on Wikipedia - is that true? Many thanks164.40.222.209 (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so nobody is going to stop you from editing any page, but it's true that not everyone should edit every page. The community's consensus, explained in the conflict of interest policy, is that editors should not directly edit articles on subjects that they have a personal or professional connection with. That would certainly include the article on your employer (paid or otherwise). After all, who would trust an encyclopaedia where the subjects write articles on themselves?

If there are errors in the museum's article, the best thing to do in your situation would be to leave a message on the article's talk page (Talk:Selly Manor) explaining the problem and asking somebody else to make the change. You can use the {{edit request}} template to draw someone's attention to it quickly, if necessary. If possible, please provide references for any suggestions you have, because we can only include material that is adequately supported by reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit info lost when name of article changed

Back about 2010, I created an article called Siege of the Legations, Beijing 1900. The title was later changed and/or merged into the present article Siege of the International Legations.

My complaint is that the information concerning my edits creating and editing this article is lost. Rather, the content of the article titled Siege of the Legations, Beijing 1900, some 32,000 bytes, was merged and/or re-titled and the creators and editors of those 32,000 bytes are not credited in the edit summaries. I wrote most of those 32,000 bytes and I would like to see them appear in the article history.

Is there any recourse? Smallchief (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. Attribution should be included, but what you are suggesting (a history merge) is unlikely to happen.

Attribution to your (and others') edit has been provided in the usual way:

Talk:Siege of the International Legations contains the attribution template {{copied}} that generates Text and/or other creative content from Siege of the Legations, Beijing 1900 was copied or moved into Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.
The redirect page still has the page history, and serves to provide attribution.

You could always ask for a history merge, but it is very unlikely to be granted. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I couldn't find the previous history of my edits. Now I can. Smallchief (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

←Just few minutes ago I created a page on NIdeas Creations and Productions Pvt Ltd. This is not an advertisement or any kind of promotion. This is simply production house page. you can check website. http://www.nideas.in Please help me in this matter. Regards Mita→ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MITA PAL (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear MITA PAL, I'm afraid the article read very much like an advertisment for the company, and it has been deleted under that criteria (WP:G11). Take care, — fortunavelut luna 16:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to article and consensus, how long should a discussion stay open on Talk page?

If no one engages on the Talk page, how long should a question of a change stay open before you can reasonably make the change without being accused of edit warring and not gaining consensus? I have been trying to cut down the information on [1] by placing the information into linked articles[2], but I'm getting resistance from ONE editor and not getting much in the way of engagement on the Talk page from them[3]. They just delete my post and say there is no consensus. I even tried to ask them on their personal Talk page and that did not go so well either.[4][5]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: I have no opinion about the bottom of the dispute. I will simply note that (1) if someone asks that you leave their user talk page alone, it is courteous to do so, no matter how poorly they behave themselves; (2) when two editors disagree about the inclusion of some content, the default result is not to include it; the one pushing for inclusion is the one who should obtain consensus (from other editors) before it being added; (3) if participation to a discussion is lacking, you may request a third opinion or open a request for comment. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those pages and how long should I leave the question of changes open on the Talk page before I try to make a change, if no one is responding to my request? A day? A week? A month? I don't want to ram a change through just to have it deleted, so I really do want to build consensus. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a matter of time. If someone had drive-by reverted you, and refused to engage on talk or elsewhere, you would be justified in re-reverting after (IMO) about a week (give or take, depending how much the article is watched, the inclusion controversial, the other editor active, etc.). But I do not think that is what happened.

From what I see, another editor has expressed their opposition to your proposed changes (multiple times) with arguments that are not obviously trolling or disruptive. If you repost a similar request, they are under no obligation to address it, and their previous opposition still stands, pretty much no matter how long ago they last said they opposed it.

In such 1 vs. 1 situations, if neither can convince the other (whatever the reason), it defaults to not including the controversial content unless consensus for inclusion can be obtained. This is usually done via WP:3O, WP:RFC, leaving a notice on a WikiProject's talk page, etc. - in a nutshell, getting outside participation. If you cannot get outside participation, then it defaults to no inclusion. Sometimes that happens (usually on niche topics where specialized expertise is needed to fully grasp the subject), but considering the article you propose to edit, I am fairly sure you would have a dozen of comments within a week of opening an RfC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't want this to devolve into edit warring and I pulled the information for the List of Confederate monuments and memorials page because that page is so large, it does not allow for detailed information. I thought that by putting it into the page for the city where there was already a small bit, it would be a simple and easy fix; but I was wrong. I will take your advice and thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Did I do this correctly? [6] Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to accelerate the review of new page?

The New Article Wizard states that once a new article is submitted, "Reviews can take a long time, and are done in somewhat of a random fashion." How long do these reviews take, on average? Is there any way to accelerate this process? Cglife.bmarcus (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The New Page review is quite backlogged right now; it's not uncommon for a review to take more than a month. I may be wrong, but I don't think there's a way to speed it up very much; reviewing an article takes time, and I presume most new page creators would be in a similar state of mind as you. If there was a process to submit it to the "front of the line", it would be too easy to abuse the process. Two things. though; first, your article is not submitted for review and will not be reviewed if you do not submit it. Second, in the state it is in, it will not be accepted. It reads in a very promotional manner, which violates an important policy of Wikipedia, WP:PROMO. Do you have an undeclared conflict of interest? If you do, you need to say so. Not declaring a conflict of interest violates a different Wikipedia policy. You may want to read WP:PSCOI if this is so. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@A lad insane: it is declared paid editing - see User:Cglife.bmarcus. Nthep (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thank you. @Cglife.bmarcus: I apologize for my mistake. You may wish to read WP:PCD. If you've already read it, kudos to you. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a large number of primary sources in your draft. This is unacceptable; I can't check most of the sources as I'm editing from a connection with a fairly strict filter (my school) but to acheive notabillity, a subject must be covered in detail in reliable secondary soruces. When I say "in detail", I don't mean birthdays of the founders, but it has to be substantially more than a passing mention in an unrelated story. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the entire "Products and Services" section would be a major improvement to the draft, making it look less promotional. Maproom (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

remove all uploads of this photo

this photo is no longer useable! I have switched the rights on it and so any and all uploads of it has to be removed! IT is no longer under creative commons and I can sue anyone that is using it without my consent! I own all rights to that photo and you will need to remove it asap

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Dapper_Day_Fall_2015_all_women.jpg/1200px-Dapper_Day_Fall_2015_all_women.jpg 216.14.49.242 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Creative Commons license on File:Dapper_Day_Fall_2015_all_women.jpg is irrevocable as long as the license terms are followed [7] RudolfRed (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Those who make legal threats are not permitted to edit Wikipedia until such threats are withdrawn. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Sara. I can see that you have been frustrated by the continued use of an image that two years ago you made freely available under a Creative Commons licence, but have now changed your mind about. I also recognise that you have repeatedly tried to remove this image from the Dapper Day article since April 2016, and that your attempts have been reverted each time. This must be very frustrating for you. Your image appears to have been legitimately obtained from your Flickr account when you clearly licenced it (essentially for non-commercial and commercial use, in perpetuity) subject to the terms of this Creative Commons licence. I also note that an administrator specifically checked the licencing and confirmed it was correct, and that you did release it. As such, the image was wholly acceptable for placing on Wikimedia Commons. I can imagine how irksome this is for you, because you now want to change the licensing terms. But I hope you can appreciate that because you willingly released your image under an irrevocable licence, as RudolfRed says above (and knowing that the default setting on Flickr accounts is for 'all rights reserved'), you obviously did back then intend the image to be used and freely available by anyone, forever - for which I'm sure we are all very grateful to you. (It is a nice photograph, by the way). I really cannot see a way that now changing your mind over its licencing would result in the image's removal from Wikimedia Commons and thus Wikipedia. Either way, once an image has been released, other third parties are also still free to use it under that original licence, in perpetuity - whether taken from your Flickr site back then, or from Wiki Commons, or indeed anywhere else. Sorry I cannot be of more assistance or comfort to you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I changed the license on it two years ago. It's now under copyright all rights reserved. I want it taken down because i never intended it to be shared and the people in the photo probably would not like it either. Now the photo is changed to a different attribute, cannot be downloaded. IT can be seen but not used. So it needs to be taken down, The photo link itself shows that's its now under All rights reserved via flickr.

216.14.49.242 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Read again what you were told above. You released it under an irrevocable licence, and this was confirmed when the photo was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Any changes which you subsequently made at Flickr do not affect the use of the photo under the licence conditions under which it was released. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You are reminded again that you are not permitted to edit here without withdrawing the legal threat above. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

216.14.49.242 (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not withdrawing it till my photo gets taken down and removed.

216.14.49.242 (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Take down the photo and all problems will be resolved and I won't be bugging you about it any longer and i won't be editing the article to remove the link and photo

216.14.49.242 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The picture has been removed from the article and that is as much as we can do at Wikipedia. You uploaded the image to Commons which is a separately governed project so you'll need to make your case at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dapper Day Fall 2015 all women.jpg. Shouting about it here won't have any effect as it is beyond anyone here's control. Nthep (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Error on the title of the LSE redirect page: "political", not "social"

There is an error in the title of this Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_School_of_Economics_and_Social_Science&redirect=no

The title of this page is: "London School of Economics and SOCIAL Science". This is wrong, because the correct name for the LSE is: "London School of Economics and POLITICAL Science".

The point is that Facebook uses this very page for all alumni, therefore displaying a wrong university name on our profiles. Please see here: https://www.google.fr/search?q=%22London+School+of+Economics+and+Social+Science%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=sP7VWd2dF6SCwgLdi4rADQ

I actually tried to correct the title of this LSE page myself, however I could not do so because it is an automatic "redirect" page.

So could someone please correct this wrong "Social Science" page?

Thanks! Champeaux (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct about the title, of course, but the LSE is also strong on social sciences, and we can't stop people searching with the wrong title, so we try to help by redirecting them to the correct title. Facebook also has a similar redirect for those who search under the wrong title. Everyone ends up at the correct page, so why is this a problem? If the mistake is in your Facebook profile, then you need to contact them to make the change, or just change it yourself. I can't replicate the problem because when I add LSE to a Facebook profile it comes up with "The London School of Economics and Political Science - LSE". Dbfirs 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Champeaux, welcome to the Teahouse. There is already a redirect at London School of Economics and Political Science so there is nothing to change London School of Economics and Social Science to. We don't delete redirects helping our readers just because external sites may use them inapproriately, but I have tagged it with {{R from incorrect name}}. I don't know whether it influences Facebook. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank both of you. I think I understand the issue. The point is that Facebook uses the redirect page for displaying my profile, therefore it says "my name" "blablabla" "studied at the London School of Economics and SOCIAL Science", which is wrong and annoying. I am going to try the "embedded file" option to put an image (my screen print was not accepted). Champeaux (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I understood what happened: the wrong LSE & Social Science was on Facebook (unofficial page), not on Wikipedia. I just had to change my profile with a new entry to the correct LSE page, then delete the wrong entry. Sorry about all this. Should I delete this whole message, as it is irrelevant? Champeaux (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No we don't delete questions & their answers. They will be archived in due course, but in the meantime they stay in the hope that other readers will find the answers useful. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

English Grammar

I want to help Wikipedia, but my knowledge of English grammar is limited. What can I do to help nonetheless? LazyAndriy (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey LazyAndriy. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your interest in helping out. There's usually a way for everyone to contribute, and this is no exception. Here's a few ideas:

Category:Articles with dead external links (151,831 articles) - These are articles that link to sites online where the sites themselves have gone down or changed names, and the links in the references need to be repaired. This is usually done by trying to find an archived version so that content in the references can be verified by readers. For more information on how to repair these links see WP:DEADLINK.
Category:Articles with too few wikilinks (23,260 articles) - These are articles that have too few links to other Wikipedia articles in them, and need to be better incorporated into the encyclopedia as a whole. For more information on wikilinks see Help:Link#Wikilinks (internal links).
Category:Orphaned articles (136,302 articles) - These are articles where no other Wikipedia articles link to them, and also need to be incorporated better into the encyclopedia, but in the opposite way of the previous category. For more information on fixing these articles see WP:DE-ORPHAN.

Hope this helps, and again, welcome to Wikipedia! GMG ^talk 10:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You could also consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a language you are more familiar with, if you are not already doing so, LazyAndriy. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Request to Restore Page of Syed Hasan Askari

Kindly assist in restoring the page Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari) which I created earlier with the help of several wikipedia editors. This page has been recently deleted due to copyright issue per the message received below. (Pls see comments below). In reality, I created the FB page of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari therefore it is not in violation of copyright. Requesting to restore the page Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari) at your earliest possible convenience.

Thanks in advance!

Wikimedia Commons <wiki@wikimedia.org> Primefac‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg‬". File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons

This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. • 16:22, 2 November 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page Syed Hasan Askari (G11, G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari/posts/1744203005801902:2 (TW))

(Syedahmerraza (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Syedahmerraza. To donate copyrighted material to Wikipedia, you should follow the instructions at WP:DONATETEXT. However, I strongly recommend that you do not take the time to do that because the tone of the text is still unsuitable for Wikipedia. The text in the Facebook page (which I assume is identical to the text in the deleted page is written far too promotionally, far from the neutrality Wikipedia requires. Even if the text was not copyrighted, the article would still have been deleted under the WP:G11 criteria, for articles of "unambiguous promotion". If you would still like to create an article about the person that meets Wikipedia's criteria, please read WP:NACADEMIC to determine if he meets our notability criteria first. If he does, you can use the article wizard to create a draft. As you appear to be affiliated with the professor, please review our policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. You can refer to WP:YFA for guidance on creating a Wikipedia article. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Responding to email

Responding to an email from WikiDan61

Paul E Thompson (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Paul E Thompson. I was going to suggest you post this notice on WikiDan61's talk page, but I see you already did

If we can be of further assistance at the Teahouse, feel free to let us know. Happy editing! –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Hi! I'm Teenager16. I'm very new to Wikipedia. I want to learn how to edit things in Wikipedia please. Thank you!Teenager16 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Teenager16. A good place to start would be taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMG ^talk 14:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft -> Main move request

I'm not yet an autoconfirmed user so I placed a technical move request (for the page Draft:BredaPhoto) on the page wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests.

It took me a while to figure out from various 'how to' pages that this was what I should do. But the format of my request looks different to others on the page even though I copied and pasted the request 'code'.

I just want confirmation that my request is correctly formatted and will be picked up by someone.

Thanks

Mikemorrell49 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mikemorrell49. Normally it's a good idea to send your first few articles through our Articles for Creation project, where they can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. You can do this by clicking the "Submit your article for review" button in the banner at the top of the draft.

However, at this point your draft will almost certainly not be accepted, because it does not include any sources to support the content of the draft, and in order to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability standards for events. This is usually done by showing that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in sources that meet our standards for reliability, usually things like books, newspapers, and magazines. You may want to review guidance at our guide on referencing for beginners to learn more about how to include references in your draft. GMG ^talk 14:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Help With Draft Article :Signal Alliance

Draft:Signal Alliance has been created I need help to develop content and advise on what next. Thank you. Shokoyokoto NG (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello everyone,

Yesterday I wanted to submit an article about a musical instrument of my father. However, the text in the article is directly from his own website so due to copyright issues the site was deleted right after I tried to upload it. Afterwards, he gave me permission to upload the article from his website, but how do I proceed from here?

Could anybody help me out?

Thank you in advance! Zjenjadg (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Zjenjadg. This seems to be about Draft:Double Bass by Domenico Montagnana, Venice, 1747.

Please see our page about how to donate copyrighted materials and follow its instructions. There are basically two reasons for the procedures outlined there: we need some proof that the original holder of copyright does consent to its use (not just "someone with unconfirmed identity told us so over the internet"), and that they are aware that release under a Wikipedia-compatible license means anyone, anywhere can reuse it, not just that it will be posted on Wikipedia.

Also, you should be aware that (ideally) we only have articles about "notable" subjects, which does not mean "worthy of interest" in Wikipedia parlance, but "have been the subject of in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources". Your proposed article may therefore not qualify. I cannot tell if that is a problem or not (deleted pages can only be seen by administrators). You may find Wikipedia:Your first article a useful read before reposting the article. Do not hesitate to ask follow-up questions if something is unclear. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually, if the article you intended to post is similar to [8] and the references within it are not completely made-up, this is probably a notable topic. You would still need to convert the references to inline citations (so that we know which source supports which statement), but otherwise it looks fairly solid. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)