Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 556

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 550

←

Archive 554

→

I want to submit a paper about changes in sequences due to relativity. How can I?

I have written an article showing how two events, a and b, can be viewed by two observers such that one observer determines that a occurs before b, while the other observer determines that a occurs after b - and that both are correct.2602:306:32B0:AB0:B5F3:FA4:D9E:2DA (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Read the original research policy. There have been numerous papers already written about the non-intuitive nature of timing in special relativity. If you think that our article in special relativity can be improved, you are welcome to improve it, but if you want to submit something new, you should probably submit it to Physical review letters or some other journal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi 2602:306:32B0:AB0:B5F3:FA4:D9E:2DA and welcome to the Teahouse. We already have a Wikipedia article about that concept, Relativity of simultaneity, with a nice animation. If you have other information, with published references, you can add it there. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've drafted an article how do I get it posted?

Kierqui (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you were answered at your talk page already. The advice you were given was really good too!KoshVorlon 19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

reference tag removal

Hello there! I removed the tag on referrences in the article about me as I added quite a few of them. I hope this is ok? Many thanks in advance! Alex Berggruen-Institute-LA (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Typically, if you're the subject of the article, or you have a COI with the article, it's best not to remove any tags. If you do it, it looks wrong and can lead to a lot of heartache, even if your intentions are good. That being said, I saw plenty of references on the page, so the tag appears to be incorrect. KoshVorlon 20:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

My article is too promotional?

Hello, my page, Scraperite was declined because it was too promotional. I would love to comply to the rules but I'm just not sure why specifically it was declined. I compared my article to other company/product articles, but I don't see much of a language difference. Is there something I need to change having to do with my text, or my sources? Just looking for some more specific guidelines since this is my first time posting! Thank you. TheImpatient (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey TheImpatient. Looks like the draft got deleted, but I've asked the deleting admin to undelete so we can take a look at it. TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much!TheImpatient (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting admin here, I'm not sue I'm comfortable with that as the draft was very promotional in tone, hence the deletion as blatant advertising. This is nothing new, and is exactly why we discourage users from writing about subjects where they have an inherent conflict of interest. If your product is truly notable it will get written about eventually. Wikipedia is not a place to "get the word out," it is an encyclopedia.

We deal with this sort of thing all day every day, people come here with a lot of mistaken impressions about what Wikipedia is and how it works, and their work gets deleted as a result. The article was basically a catalog of every product the company produces, along with detailing the various ways they are packaged. Additionally, the majority of the sources used do not meet the definition of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

List of articles to edit

Hi all, nice to be part of this important community. I have just started and would appreciate if anyone could direct me to a list of articles that need editing or other changes. I have look around but were unable to find any page that has a gathered list of articles that need to be edited or amended. I would appreciate your help in this regard.TheDreamBoat (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey TheDreamBoat. That all very much depends on what you're interested in. So...what are you interested in? TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Specifically Mathematics but also science and politics TheDreamBoat (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat, alright. Maybe WikiProject Mathematics would be a good place to start. It looks like they have their own list of mathematics articles that need work. TimothyJosephWood 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Great, Timothy, thx for pointing me in write direction. I will take a look at the links with great interest. TheDreamBoat (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat in case it helps, I came across this list of articles to write in mathematics. Mortee (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheDreamBoat. Though it's more of a general list, the Wikipedia:Community portal provides a boatload of task people can help with broken down by category of help. You can have the list of open tasks shown there always available for by transcluding it into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Insert photo on page

I would like to include a couple photos on the page I'm writing. How do I do this?SCwriter (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey SCwriter. Usually the best place to start is to search for an existing photo on Wikimedia Commons. If one does not exist, you can check for one in other free image resources. If all else fails, you can try to take an image yourself, so that you most likely own and can release the copyright, or you you can contact someone related to the subject of the article and request that they release an image for use on Wikipedia. Instructions for doing so may be found here. TimothyJosephWood 17:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I have two photos from the person. What I need to know is, technically, how do I insert the photo? I tried cutting and pasting, but it doesn't seem to work.SCwriter (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

SCwriter, have the photos already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue is this, SCwriter. A photographic image has a copyright. That is not generally owned by either the possessor of the image nor the subject; it is owned by the photographer. In order for a photo to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons, the copyright must be released by the photographer under CC BY-SA 3.0. Doing this means the photograph will no longer be under his control (and his ability to make money off it will be gone). Copyright is probably the most complicated thing Wikipedia editors have to deal with. John from Idegon (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I moved your draft to Draft:Melvin F. Hall. We do not use post nominals like Ph.D at all in our articles or titles. Also, if you have a close enough relation to the subject of your draft for him to be providing you with photographs, you need to make yourself aware of our policies on conflict of interest and our hard and fast policies expressed in the Wikipedia's terms of use about paid editing. IMO, you've got a lot more to do with your draft before worrying about photos. You have no sources listed, and without proper sourcing to show that he meets either general notability guidelines or the somewhat lower hurdle at WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR, your article will most likely be deleted as soon as it goes into the encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not copyrighted. I don't know how to put it on Wikipedia Commons. This is my first time with Wikipedia. I own the photo and want to put it in an article.SCwriter (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

SCwriter, go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and click the big blue "upload" button toward the right. TimothyJosephWood 01:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I have dozens of citations but waiting until I'm finished so they're numbered in order. I'm not being paid. Do I save the photos to my computer and then upload to commons? Again, thank you for the help.207.65.204.198 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Posted Information reverted

I don't know why User:Alexbrn reverted the new information I added to the Earthing Therapy page about Clint Ober and the Sokals. I thought it added some useful information and did not violate any rule. Since I am new, I would like to know how to discuss that with him.Gaetanchevalier (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Gaetanchevalier. Go to the article's talk page and click "new section" at the top to start a conversation on a new topic. TimothyJosephWood 19:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You may find that the above advice bears some similarity to the advice you received at ~~#Poor research design below.~~Poor research design. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that it does David Biddulph. I just hesitated to put it there but now I will. Thank you. Gaetanchevalier (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The entry of User:Alexbrn has disappeared from the Contribution list of the Earthing Therapy page. Does that mean that he no longer wants to contest the information I posted and that he reverted?Gaetanchevalier (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding images to an existing article

Hello all! I'm very new to this, and my questions are about adding images to an existing article. I would like to create an image section for this article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didukh I could probably find many other examples of this traditional folk decoration as the single picture there is not a comprehensive representation of the different regional variations. My first question is about permissions; If I find images, lets say, on Google image search, do I need to get expressed permission to add those images to the wiki page?

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated

Thanks!Bigbrother1334 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bigbrother1334. I think there are two parts to your question: (1) image licensing and (2) image use. Before you upload anything to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you should try and figure out how it is licensed. Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia the sense that anyone can edit it without having to pay a fee, but it is also "free" in the sense that all content found on Wikipedia is released under a free license which allows anyone the right to use what they find on Wikipedia in any way without having to worry about violating someone else's copyright. So, if the images you want to upload are clearly in the public domain or under a free license compatible with Wikipedia's of Commons' licensing, then you should be able to upload it using the Wikipedia:Upload Wizard or c:Commons:Upload Wizard. Most images found on the Internet, etc. are under some sort of copyright protection which means you will either have to upload the image locally to Wikipedia as non-free content or get permission from the copyright holder to upload the image under a free license to Commons as explained in c:Commons:OTRS. If you have any questions about the copyright status of a particular file you've found online, then the place to ask is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Licensing, however, is only one part of the equation. You will then need to consider the encyclopedic value of adding images to the article in question as explained in "Adding images to articles". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a photo album, so images should only be added when they help further the reader's understanding of what is written in the article. An "image section" sounds more like you want to show some different images, than contextually tie them into to what is written in the article. Of course, images are nice and adding a few can really enhance an article, but adding too many can turn out to be more of a negative than a positive. Non-free images, in particular, can be to use because they are subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is quite restrictive, so you need to be extra careful when uploading them. Even the use of public domain/freely licensed image, however, is not automatically guaranteed because images are just like textual content in that you can be bold and add them, but your edits might be undone by another editor. In such cases, you may find it necessary to discuss the matter on the relevant article's talk page and try to establish a consensus to add the images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

How do I create a Table of Contents?

Hello,

I am trying to create a Table of Contents for a new article. Sections 1 and 2 came out fine. Now, all new section are becoming subsetions of #2. How do I make separate headings? So frustrating! Thanks for your help.Vernice Karbe (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vernice Karbel. The software used by Wikipedia should automatically create a table of contents when the article/page has four or more separate sections, so there's really no need to create one yourself. It sounds like the problem you are having has to do with "section levels". You should be able to find the information you need in either Help:Sections#Creation and numbering of sections or Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Shark Attacks in South African Territorial Waters

There is a page- List of shark attacks in South African territorial waters - that I think should be deleted. Whoever started the page has clearly abandoned it, as there are only 4 entries on the list, where there should be hundreds. It is misleading to users and is quite frankly stealing views from the much more accurate "List of fatal shark attacks in South African Territorial Waters". Could someone delete it? I would just fix it, but that is much too time consuming as there would be too many entries on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Shakiba (talk • contribs) 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ryan Shakiba. If you come across an article that you feel should be deleted then you have three options which depend upon the state of the article: (1) tag the article for speedy deletion; (2) prod the article for deletion; or (3) nominate the article deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Basically, speedy deletion is for articles which clearly fall under one of the criteria found in WP:CSD#General or WP:CSD#Articles. No discussion is required and an administrator will review the article and decide if speedy deletion is warranted. Prod is for articles which are not eligible for speedy deletion, but whose deletion would pretty much be non-controversial if experienced editors were asked to discuss it. Again, whether to delete is pretty much let up to the administrator who reviews the deletion request. AfD is a actual discussion by members of the Wikipedia community to determine whether an article should be deleted. Various editors will try to reach a consensus about what to do about the article and the administrator who reviews the discussion will only try to implement that consensus. Deletion is not guaranteed in any of the three aforementioned cases, but typically any deletion which might be considered controversial or be challenged should be done via AfD. So, now you need to decide which of the three types of deletion you feel apply to this particular article, and then follow the proper procedures listed in the pages I've linked to above. Just for reference, Wikipedia encourages to try and fix articles whenever we can and only delete those which really can't be saved no matter how hard we try. So, before nominating/tagging the article for deletion, I suggest you take a look at WP:BEFORE and make sure deletion is warranted because "stealing views from another article" does not sound like a valid reason for deletion to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that you nominated the page for deletion. Did you read the the deletion policy? --Rlin8 (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cannot get to an agreement

I cannot get to an agreement with User:Alexbrn on the proper use of references. What to do next?Gaetanchevalier (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gaetanchevalier. Generally when you're involved in a content dispute with another editor, the best thing to do is to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Go through all the steps in order and try to resolve the dispute through discussion. When then issue is related to the formatting of citations, etc., try and keep in mind that Wikipedia does not have one single correct citation style and that sometimes changing from one style to another may be seen by some as unnecessary and disruptive unless there's a consensus to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gaetanchevalier. It looks like you are trying to insert promotional material into an article about a fringe medical treatment. As should be obvious, the book called Earthing: The most important health discovery ever! will never be accepted as a reliable source for medical claims on Wikipedia, and neither will a fringe "medical journal" promoting quack treatments. Please do not try to add these types of pseudoscientific sources to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I advice you to check out WP:Edit Wars.టి.సాయి కిరణ్......... 06:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikirantangirala (talk • contribs)

best school

When is Best school in Pakistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashifwaris (talk • contribs) 06:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kashifwaris. As stated at the top of the page, the Teahouse is a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a general knowledge enquiry, which we can't help you with. You might want to ask over at the reference desk instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

my article does not meet requirements

Hi there, i was trying to write an article about our woman's football club but it does not meet the requirements. what am i doing wrong. see article below.

Rightway football club (RWFC) is a ladies soccer team that was established in September 2015. the team is based in Windhoek Namibia. RWFC was established with the aim to join the country's Woman super league and to help groom young girls who want to play football. our aim is to be one of the best teams in the country and to produces quality players that will one day represent the our Country at international state.

we also aim to contribute to the growth of football not only in Namibia but Africa as a whole. The Team is coached by Immanuel Hamutenya who is also the clubs Chairman, he is assist Thembikosi Ndlovu as Assistant coach and Immanuel Nghishihange as the Technical Director

IHamutenya (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rightwayfc. Compare Rightway Football Club with an existing Wikipedia article about a football club, and you will start to see the problems with it. You have written the article from the point of view of the club (e.g. "our aim"), when Wikipedia article's should be written in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "the club's aim"). The article does not cite any sources, so it is also unclear whether the topic meets our notability criteria. Please also note that your username breaches our username policy and indicates that you have a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IHamutenya. Your article is completely unreferenced, and cannot be kept in its current form. I suggest that you read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability (sports). You will need to show that this team meets that guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

hi, the club does not have any references on internet accept the onec on facebook which i think are not reliable. how do i then write a completely new article that has never been on the internet? IHamutenya (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't, Rightwayfc (unless there are sources that are not online that can be used?). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it has to rely on what has already been said about topics by reliable, published sources. If those sources don't exist, then there is no way for us to write an article about the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

hi, the club does not have any references on internet accept the onec on facebook which i think are not reliable. how do i then write a completely new article that has never been on the internet? IHamutenya (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

ok, noted, i will have to get references first then, thank you so much for you advise IHamutenya (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

is the an option to change my username though?

IHamutenya (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is Rightwayfc. You can do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi IHamutenya. You posted above in your very first post that The Team is coached by Immanuel Hamutenya who is also the clubs Chairman and your new username is "Ihamutenya". Are you by chance the same person who is the coach of the team? If you are, then you and what Wikipedia refers to as a conflict of interest so I suggest you take carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide because Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict-of-interest editing. If you are not the coach of the team and your real name is not I. Hamutenya, then unfortunately you still have a problem with your username because Wikipedia does not allow usernames which might imply they are another specific identifiable person as explained in WP:IMPERSONATE, unless they are using their real name. Just for reference, sometimes accounts with such usernames are blocked as a precaution until proof of identity can be provided.-- Marchjuly (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft vs User Draft vs Sandbox

When should I use draft space vs a user draft vs my sandbox?

Assuming the sandbox is for general experiments while the other two are for whole article drafts, how do I decide between those two? Can other editors see drafts in both spaces (so I could ask for feedback on a draft)? Can more than one person have a draft of a page with the same title? I'd guess they can in user space but not draft space.

Also (sorry for spamming questions) why delete pages in user space (Help:Userspace_draft says to do this as a courtesy)? Is that just to save space, or do they interfere in other ways? Mortee (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mortee: You can use your own sandbox for both testing and drafting articles. It does not matter whether you create a draft in the draft namespace or your userspace. Help:Userspace draft says you can place {{db-userreq}} on your userspace draft if you do not need it anymore. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@MRD2014: thanks for your reply! If you don't mind, I'm still curious if there can be two drafts of pages with the same title. The reason I'm asking is that I'm thinking of drafting a partial rewrite of a start-class article so I can get feedback on it, but because it's an existing article others might want to do the same and I don't want to get in their way. I also understood that I can delete userspace drafts, I'm just gently curious why it's courteous to do so. I'm very happy to, just trying to understand. Mortee (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mortee: There may be an official guideline somewhere but I have not seen it - in practice people build their articles in any of these places. In case it helps, here is how I personally use them. As you say, the Sandbox is often used for general experimentation, and I recently used mine to play around with Wiki-tables to get familiar with how they're set up. But some people build a whole article there. On the other hand, I build new articles in User Space, starting a new page for each article. I try to name the article in User Space similar to what the final name will be (e.g. User:Gronk Oz/John Dwyer (medicine)) 'cos I'm too stupid to keep track of them otherwise. Once I have finished it and published in Article space I don't need that draft any more, so I delete it. Not technically required I suppose, but it avoids the possiblity of confustion. The general Draft space is used by the "Articles for creation" process, and to my mind it is probably more aimed at collaborative development. But that's only a psyhological difference: anybody can see and edit User Drafts as well. So to sum up - in practice they can be used interchangeably. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mortee: I neglected to answer the other part of your question, sorry. Yes, you and I could both create drafts of the same article in our User spaces. Or we could do it in the Draft space if we chose different titles. This even happens in the published Article space, where editors choose different titles for the same subject.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Mortee - On the one hand, you may prepare a draft rewrite of an existing article in any of those spaces. On the other hand, please do not submit a draft rewrite of an existing article to Articles for Creation. That isn't what Articles for Creation is for. If you want to rework an existing article, discuss it on the article talk page. If you have written a reworked draft, you may ask other editors to look at it, but Articles for Creation isn't for improvements to articles, only for proposed new articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon - sure, I assumed AfC was for new articles and wasn't the way to get feedback on rewrites. Thanks for confirming that. Mortee (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both, this is very helpful. Mortee (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How can create company page

Hello I am new over wikipedia trying to create company page how can i start this14:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinVido (talk • contribs)

Hello, PrinVido, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many other people who come here, you may have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It does not contain "company pages": it contains articles about many subjects, including some companies. These articles are based almost entirely on reliable published sources that have no connection with the company, and may not be promotional in any way: Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says or wants to say about itself. It follows that if there is little published material about the company that is independent of it, there is literally nothing which can go in an article, and no article about the company will be accepted: the Wikipedia word for that is that the company is not Notable. I suggest you read Your first article, and think about whether the company meets the criteria, and also (if you are connected with the company) how to deal with your conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

where do I provide feedback

I am looking for a place to provide feedback, I have found being new to Wikipedia very adversarial. I have been accused of NPOV so my edits have been reverted, asked to get consensuses on talk page and those where immediately deleted as well, edits from people with conflict of interest have been allowed and have been told I need to provide cites for discussions on talk pages and told organization webpage have more verifiability than recognized news sources feeling frustrated. Truthitmatters (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Truthitmatters. Yes, the proper place to provide "feedback" about an article is the talk page for that article. Your comments should be specific recommendations for improving the article. You must gain consensus if other editors disagree with your proposals. If several other editors have concerns about your contributions, please try to take their input to heart. We have various forms of dispute resolution available if talk page discussion is not successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Truthitmatters and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a pretty feisty username you've chosen for yourself.

New editors on Wikipedia are sometimes dismayed by the way the conventions of the encyclopedia work. What you are describing are two types of conflict that editors may find themselves in.

content of articles
conduct of other editors

The first place to address issues of article content is on the article's talk page. It seems that you have tried this. Escalation from disputes on the talk page vary: you can do a formal Request for Discussion, which initiates a process that will likely take several days or even weeks and is intended to bring into the discussion other editors. Beyond that, you may make a formal request for mediation.

When the issue is another editor's conduct, the first place to try to address that is on that user's talk page. Escalation from disputes on user talk pages also vary: you can report the user to one of the administrative noticeboards to request that an administrator take action, all the way up to a request for arbitration.

None of what I've told you really answers your original request, though - for a place to provide feedback. Some people post to User talk:Jimbo Wales when they can't get satisfaction elsewhere. Jimbo himself sometimes responds, but many users watch that page and may step in to give you suggestions. Just be warned, not all of the suggestions are necessarily sympathetic.

Here are at the Teahouse, we try to be super friendly and super helpful and as sympathetic as possible. To be more sympathetic, I'd need to go look at your contribution history, which I'll probably do after posting this. Yes, we recognize that editing on Wikipedia can be frustrating at times. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Truthitmatters. You are obviously frustrated and I can empathasize with that. I just have one brief comment to add to the excellent answers above - it took me some time to realize that the normal process in Wikipedia is a cycle called "be bold - revert - discuss" (sometimes shortened to "BRD"). This is where an editor (you or me) sees an opportunity to improve and article, so goes ahead Boldly and makes the change. Then if another editor does not agree the change is an improvement, they Revert it (preferably with a comment indicating why). The third step is to Discuss the options on the article's Talk page, and try to get general agreement on the approach to use. This often involves evaluating different sources. So having a change reverted is not a challenge and it should not be confrontational; it is the start of a conversation about how to proceed. I know it can feel like your contributions were not valued, but this is where a collaborative approach will really pay off in producing a better article in the end. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I just find it exceedingly frustrating as there was no talk page before I showed up, the cites on the current article contradict what the article says. The 3rd party clearly held a prejudice. I don't believe the first editor even read the articles I provided that I used as cites. Then when I quoted a statement they decided it was not verifiable because it didn't match his opinion. I just don't want to waste my time escalating this if I will find more of the same. I wasn't even sure if I would ever come back here after this post. This is my first article I tried to edit and has been on the list of needing expansion since August 2016. Thank you for all your responses and will think about how to best address this. It certainly hasn't been encouraging to edit other pages Truthitmatters (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Everything Seems Wrong

Many things about this new article within my sphere raises my hackles Global_Savings_Group but I've also never made an overture against the notability or accuracy of citations. While I'm happy to take the plunge, I was hoping someone more experienced could corroborate/explain why I'm wrong in taking issue. BologniousMonk (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the article, and deleted two sections. There's plenty of room for further improvement. Maproom (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot--looking at the differences gives me some confidence for subsequent changes. BologniousMonk (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The article contains some stuff that's written in a promotional way, so if you want to rewrite it into more neutral language, be bold and have at it. 😊 That's what I normally do when a problematic article shows up within my range of interest. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Brett D. Fleisch (article to cut and paste)

<résumé-copyright violation of [1] removed (and history will be revdeleted)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdf951 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bdf951, and welcome to the Teahouse, which is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question for us? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bdf951. Have you read Your first article to find out about what Wikipedia requires in an article? And, assuming that Bdf951 is Brett D Fleisch, have you read WP:autobiography to find out why Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiography? It may be that you realised this, and were asking for somebody else to create an article about you; if so, my apologies. Then the place to request this is at requested articles. But there is a long backlog there; and you are more likely to get attention from a volunteer if you do not try to tell them what should go in an article about you, but instead identify several substantial reliable published sources about you every one of which is completely independent of you and any institutions or companies you are connected with. Wikipedia has no interest at all in what anybody (or any organisation) says or wishes to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with a subject have published about the subject in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bdf951. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material like this anywhere on Wikipedia. Even if you own the content, you would have to go through the process of releasing the copyright of the material under the suitably-free copyright license before it could be used here—but a résumé like this would never be proper content for pasting here in any event.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Becoming an Administrator

Hi, I have just started out as an editor at Wikipedia and I am loving it! I am Hoping to do more and more contributions in the future. I also hope to become an Administrator. Could you let me know the path to becoming one? C. Harris (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Most administrators have a few years of editing experience under their belts before they are nominated. The way to get there is to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia, interact civilly with other editors and administrators, and learn the policies, guidelines and unwritten rules that make this place work. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome to the Teahouse, C. Harris. We hope we can answer more questions for you. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@C. Harris: If you would like to understand the process in the meantime while building your experience, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

PLANET

(Hi i asking only one question which is the next planet. Their are leaving human source.)(SANDEEP KUMAR SONI (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SANDEEP KUMAR SONI. The Teahouse is a place for new editors to get answers to their questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have that sort of question? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation status

Hi, I created my Wikipedia account about 5 days ago. I also have at least 20 edits until now. Why hasn't my "autoconfirmed" status appeared yet?

NuclearMissile (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Where are you expecting to see it? It doesn't appear in a user's user rights as seen through the link at the foot of Special:Contributions. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi NuclearMissile. Special:Preferences should show "Autoconfirmed users" at "Member of groups". If you have edit links on a page then you can probably edit it. Do you ask because an edit link gives a red box with "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it"? Everybody see such boxes on semi-protected pages they can edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Basketball Wives LA (season 1)

Hello I'm Rivera.m.e and I have created a Wikipedia page for each of the seasons of Basketball Wives LA and Basketball Wives (Miami),and I am having trouble with have season chronology on the pages in trying to have this page look like the Love and hip hop pages and I seem to have a very hard time with it.Can one of you help me? Rivera.m.e (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Rivera.m.e. I'm afraid it's not...entirely clear what it is you are asking to do. What do you meain by "looking like" Love & Hip Hop. Do you mean the colorized tables? Also, you fairly desperately need to read Wikipedia:File copyright tags, because it's likely all of the images you have uploaded will soon be deleted if not properly attributed. TimothyJosephWood 13:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

image permission form

May I have the link to the form that is sent into wiki for a photographer to have their image used. I have spent a half hour searching wiki for it. Ths. Imasku (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Do not require it, thankfully I had the form saved from another image. It is very difficult to locate these items on wikiImasku (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Imasku. I recommend that when you come across something that is fairly difficult to find, but that you will likely need to use repeatedly, start a section on your userpage for useful links and add them as you come across them. See for example the "useful" section I have on mine. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I still do not have the link, I went to my email and found where I had sent the form to another photographer or I would not have it at all. Ths Imasku (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Imasku, are you referring to this: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries? TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Need help to follow the proper channels to add sections to an article

Hi, Long story short, I was asked by my management to fix our Wikipedia page. Not fully understanding Wikipedia, I was banned. I created a new account not knowing what a sock puppet was and you guessed it, got labeled a sock puppet. After many hours of reading the guidelines and discussing what my true intentions were, my ban was lifted. You'll find I've made every effort to be a responsible editor.

My question: I would like to have factual sections added to our page that are on other publishing house pages - Awards, Notable Authors and Notable books and include links to the authors who themselves have Wikipedia pages. I want to do this properly but I cannot seem to find a guideline for having this done while also having been in trouble in the past. Again, my mistakes were not out of malice but rather ignorance for Wikipedia and their guidelines which I'm trying to change now by asking you for help. Am I allowed to add these sections and see what the other editor's do(revert?) Or do I use the article's Talk page to request what I want added and someone else will do the editing? I'm really trying to do the right thing here, and I can't seem to find the info I need. I appreciate your help, Thank you.Prplns (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Prplns. The appropriate avenue is to request changes on the article's talk page. If it is an active page, someone will likely review your suggestions and accept or decline. If it is not an active page, you can put {{request edit}} on your post to add it to the list of requested edits.

The best way to get what you want added is to ensure that it is specific and includes sources for the information you would like added. Requests that fail either of these criteria will likely be declined. TimothyJosephWood 16:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate your time and assistancePrplns (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

submission reference not showing notability

Hi, It seems that my submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. I have referenced 18 different sources for the submission. Can someone help me out? Manisha2chamarel (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Manisha2chamarel. It looks like one of User:KGirlTrucker81's main concerns was relying heavily on Youtube video's as sources. They're really not the gold standard as far a reliability goes, and most of the current links appear to be broken anyway. Instead, it's usually better to rely on things like news stories. See for example the results of this news search.

Additionally, articles need to include sources that are independent of the subject. So if I'm CEO of TJW Inc, you don't really want to link to TJWInc.com as a source. It's better to link to the article by, for example, Business Week (or another news outlet) about how I took over as CEO of TJW Inc. That shows that not only is it true, but it's also important, because somebody took the time to write about it besides the guy to made my website (since he's probably my employee anyway, and he'll write whatever I tell him to). Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Manisha2chamarel: I've also noted a few concerns about the draft. Some deal with notability, some are different issues. I'm happy to help with any of these matters, so let me know if I can help you out:

Some claims seem not to be quite right. Tiwari wrote an article for the Washington Post, but was not covered by it (by another writer) as the sentence suggests. This should be corrected to say that Tiwari was a contributor to the Washington Post.
The overall tone of the article feels that it is promoting Tiwari and their social work, whereas the purpose of articles should be to describe their subject in a neutral tone. Phrases like "spearheading the operations" and "dismantle the machinery of trafficking" are appropriate on a resume or a CV, but not on an a Wikipedia article.
The YouTube links do not lead to an actual video, and generally, YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources. These sources include things like newspaper articles, books, and scholarly papers. Offline sources are also appropriate, if you are aware of any that discuss Tiwawri or their work in detail.
Finally, the phrasing of the article needs to be changed, since much of it is directly pulled from this "about us" website of the organization that Tiwari founded. We expect editors to summarize coverage about topics and put it in their own words, because 1) the owners of the website own that content, and 2) The tone of that content is normally not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, as it is often promotional.

Again, let me know if I can help you address any of these issues. Take care, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your suggestions, it's very helpful. Manisha2chamarel (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Page issues

How long can a page be given one of the page issues templates like {{cleanup}} before someone should delete page or deal with it, some have them for years or decades. 109.155.83.184 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

They can be removed once the concerns have been addressed. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There isn't any particular period, IP user. Anybody may deal with it at any time, and if nobody chooses to, it will stay. Deleting it may not be appropriate, but if it isn't, AFD will probably spur people into looking for sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Page size change vs +/- lines as an edit size metric

Hello,

A minor annoyance I have with Wikipedia is this: next to the edit, the page size difference is indicated. That's better than nothing, I guess, but I am used to the diff-like output of tools such as SVN or GIT, which tell me how many lines have been added or deleted (a modified line counts as both).

This is much more pertinent, because an edit changing all a's into b's in a page will register as +0 with WP's system, which masks its scope, and as +X -X, for a presumably large X, in pretty much every VCS.

I don't know how Mediawiki does versioning behind the scenes -- and I am afraid to find out that they reinvented that wheel... in PHP! brr -- and if that info is not stored with each edit, it would probably be too expensive to recalculate... (Also, WP articles are not code, and lines can get quite long)

Nevertheless, my question is is there some kind of plugin I can install to get more informative info instead of the near-useless size change?.

Cheers, Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Gamall Wednesday Ida. Our purpose here at Teahouse is to help new users use Wikimedia software to create content on en.Wikipedia. Highly technical questions about Wikimedia software is beyond our scope. You may be able to find answers at the Village Pump, but I suspect this may be beyond them too. You may have to go to the help desk at Wikimedia. John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon... now that you put it that way, I see your point. Shockingly, not everybody uses VCS on a daily basis (:-P). In the future I might go directly to VP, since this is the second time that happened. Is it still all right if I leave the question here until it is archived before moving to VP? There is still a chance someone might know; I should think the question is fairly obvious within the "techie" demographics, if, I grant, somewhat unintelligible outside of it. (PS: for some reason, I wasn't pinged, despite your double-signing when correcting your "Gamaliel" (I'm not related to that long-time user). Not a problem in that instance, but something to be aware of. ) — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gamall Wednesday Ida. Just a quick tip while we're discussing technical matters: because you added a ping after signing your post, it won't actually have triggered a notification for John from Idegon. My edit now will, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh. The silly thing is that I knew that (that's why I expected that his second signature should have pinged me)! Thanks for catching it, Cordless Larry! — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Minimum age for registering

What is the minimum age for people to have a Wikipedia account?టి.సాయి కిరణ్......... (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Saikirantangirala and welcome to the Teahouse.

Do you remember being asked for your age when registering for an account? It hasn't been all that long since I did and I don't think the question came up. Since one can edit Wikipedia without an account, there does not seem to be a need for an age restriction on people who do register. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and/or Wikipedia:Advice for parents, Saikirantangirala. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Help reviewing article about a deceased artist

I'm looking for help reviewing this article about GH Rothe, an artist renowned for her Mezzotint work, but with a body of work that is not very well known to the general public, even though it was shown last year at the galleries of the San Francisco Art Institute. I need help reviewing "peacock" language, and places where there might be claims that I can't make without an appropriate reference. The link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gatja_Helgart_Rothe Thanks Juan Pablo Pacheco 21:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

Hello Juanppacheco and welcome back to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that Teahouse contributors may be a little shy about doing article reviews since there is a different set of editors who review newly submitted pages and give feedback when the pages can't be accepted. Your first resort should be to the editor who reviewed your page, Robert McClenon, since they will have spent the most time looking at it. If you don't understand their comments, feel welcome to bring your questions here, but not requests for a second review in hopes of a more favorable outcome.

In the case at hand, with Draft:Gatja_Helgart_Rothe, you've been given the feedback that the language of the article is not written in encyclopedic style. Follow the link WP:PEACOCK and read what the style guide has to say about that. If you haven't read it yet, the essay Your first article has some important advice about how to create an article that will pass review. Your citations are currently just URLs. Read WP:Citing sources to learn how to do this better. You may find that some of your citations are to sources that do not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Finally, every factual statement in the body of the article (after the intro, which summarizes the body and does not need citations) has to be verifiable through a reference. Early life, South America, Switzerland - all of these sections need proper references. You also have to establish through these references that the subject of your article is notable in Wikipedia terms. That's not "notable" in its everyday English meaning; on Wikipedia it means that there must be sufficient writing by reliable, independent sources to demonstrate that the subject should be included in the encyclopedia.

Based on your contribution history, you may fall into the category of single-purpose editors. While this is allowed, here at the Teahouse we usually recommend that new editors spend considerable time making smaller improvements to existing articles and learning the ropes before they tackle the rather daunting task of creating an entirely new article. I say "daunting" because many first-time submissions by new editors are rejected, deleted, or lead to such frustration that the new editor leaves Wikipedia entirely. The Teahouse is here to help. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a shortcut for referring to a section of a WP article

I want to generate a link to a Wikipedia article, but not to the top of the article, rather to a particular section. Obviously, I could use the URL format, https://en.wikipedia.org/(page name)#section-name, but i don't think that would look the way I want. Is there a [[...]] sequence for referring to a particular section? Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to do that. I think it's just random what link it goes to.Wikiphoenix56 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, just put #sectiontitle at the end of the wikilink, like this. Rojomoke (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bgoldnyxnet and welcome to the Teahouse.

The canonical way to refer to a section is the one you already knew about, using # and an anchor name. By default, each section header generates an anchor of the same name. You can also introduce your own {{anchor}} into an article if there's a particular part you need to refer to elsewhere (don't overdo this, other editors may remove your anchor because they don't see or don't agree with your reason for adding it). This method is applicable both to URLs and to Wikilinks.

As for the appearance of the link, that's what you use the "pipe" symbol in Wikilinks for. You can see an example in Rojomoke's comment just above, if you look at it in the edit view.

There, hope I'm not too redundant. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bgoldnyxnet: you are just about there. Instead of using the whole URL, just use the part from the page name onwards, surrounded by double square brackets. For example, a link to the section on Eggs within the Butterfly article is [[Butterfly#Egg]], which gives this link: Butterfly#Egg. Or as jmcgnh says, you can use a pipe to have it display something different.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

how do you make references?

hello, I'm new and I'm wondering how to make references on articles.Wikiphoenix56 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You can edit the references By adding {{reflist}} and citing sources which means referring sources.టి.సాయి కిరణ్......... (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You should look at Help:Referencing for beginners. Rojomoke (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Saikirantangirala, please use the "Show preview" button when you make edits, before submitting them to the wiki. I've altered your post above so that it displays as you intended. Rojomoke (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wikiphoenix56: Welcome to the TeaHouse. I have left a message on your talk page with a collection of links to information that should be helpful in learning about Wikipedia editing. If your question is about referencing in particular, then Rojomoke's suggestion of Help:Referencing for beginners is ideal. They can be a little tricky so be sure to use the Preview button, to be sure they are correct before you save (also Rojomoke's suggestion). I am often surprised how it takes me two or three goes to get it right - better to do that before saving it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

How did this IP inserted pictures within edit summary? Marvellous Spider-Man 17:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Marvellous Spider-Man! Those are emoji, and are just Unicode characters. You can't insert them using the source editor's Special characters menu at the moment, but you can copy and paste them from elsewhere or use your OS's special characters insertion system. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

making a page about a specific person

Hey, I was thinking to make a page about a political figure in Russia. He is a young politician, yet rather well known in Moscow, serving as a member of the district council (from the municipal perspective) as well as being a member of the city-level party internal council. During the last Parliament elections he scored rather high but not high enough to pass, still, a lot of people voted for him (more than 15 000) and considering he has appeared on various media platforms (both the ones considered pro-government and pro-opposition) I reckon information about this figure on wikipedia will be helpful. I have gathered some facts about his biography that I want to share. The person's name is Aleksander Sapronov, and I am planning to write that article in English and Russian languages. This is my first time making the article, so I still have to go through all the stages of learning how to make a page, but my first and most essential question is: is it ok to make such a page? Gaifut (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gaifut and welcome to the Teahouse.

Before you do anything else, please take a look at Your First Article. This will give some guidance as to how to go about writing your first article. It is up to you to establish the notability of the subject by referencing reliable, independent sources. If you can find enough material that meets Wikipedia standards, then yes, it's okay to create the page.

Most contributors to the Teahouse recommend that you spend some time improving other articles and learning the ropes before you attempt the somewhat daunting task of creating a whole new article. The Teahouse is here to help. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)