Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 671

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 665

←

Archive 669

→

Single Purpose Account

What exactly is the policy on accounts that are setup for a specific purpose. I came across User:CelenaSkaggs in Afd, the account was setup 5 days ago, the only edits that editor has done is to send 13 pages to Afd, today that person installed twinkle and immediately sent 6 German authors to Afd. (some of the prior 7 nominations were also authors/bloggers, I don't know if they are somehow related. see log. Some advice appreciated. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 15:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You can add Special:Contributions/EC Racing User:EC Racing to this issue also. that account did minor edits then directly into commenting on (related) AfD discussions, and some unrelated ones. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 15:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

* Reply: I have no connection or WP:COI with CelenaSkaggs at all. I was working on comments on the most recent Afd as they are easy to read and add interaction and comments. If I was not commenting properly based on the rules and guidelines of Wiki, please let me know where that is the case and I will be happy to revise and learn as I am just getting started on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 17:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

sorry, i thought i was helping out. went through about 50 articles on bloggers, and marked the ones for deletion that don't seem to meet notability guidelines. what's wrong with this? won't they be discussed and then deleted or retained on merits? CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

btw, i've just looked at my 13 AFD nominations so far and it seems there is consensus to delete on 5 of them, with most of the others not yet attracting comment (not counting A Guy into Books' contributions) CelenaSkaggs (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes absolutely, its just some editors do what is called sock puppetry, so engagement in a administration area of Wikipedia straight off is generally suspicious. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, its just odd for a newcomer to grasp Wikipedia so quickly. VΑ Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 16:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

After looking a bit more, I could understand that one could be suspicious about the CelenaSkaggs/EC Racing interaction, but I would assume (at least for now) that the latter is just another newbie jumping into AfDs with more or less success (at least they keep to !voting rather than nominating). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not a WP:SPA problem, but a WP:DISRUPTIVE problem. It turns out that (if ever things come to this extremity, which I do not think is warranted yet) the editor has a primary interest in AfD'ing articles, so that they could maybe be topic-banned instead of blocked if such editing proves problematic.

@CelenaSkaggs: marking for deletion articles that should be deleted is fine, but judging by your contributions, you do not seem to really understand the notability guidelines. For instance in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julia_Schramm you argue the subject does not mean GNG; but sources like this are plainly (1) reliable (2) independent of the subject (3) cover the subject in detail. It does not matter that you think that why the subject was covered is trivial or unimportant, if journalists in reputable newspapers deemed it otherwise.

It also seem that your nominations are a bit lazy; a few of them are textbook examples of WP:PERX (for instance Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Project_for_Public_Spaces). Finally, I am not sure you have read WP:BEFORE carefully: if sources lack in the article but can be easily found online, it is your responsibility to look for them at first, and refrain from nominating (ideally, add the sources yourself). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a general comment about SPAs. Being an SPA is not a problem in and of itself and lots of editors focus on a particular subject or genre of articles and edit for years without any problems. It's the quality of the edits and whether the editor is WP:HERE which matters. So, as long as the editor edits in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, they should be fine; it's only when that start violate these policies/guidelines that problems happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pixels

Hello, I recently (belatedly) learnt I should not add a px amount to image formats. Should I go back through my copy edit contributions to delete any pixel amounts or perhaps is there a bot doing this? Many thanks, Myrtlegroggins (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes there's a reason to specify an image size in pixels, often it's easier to accept the default. I'd leave them as they are. If any of them is causing a problem, someone will notice and fix it. Maproom (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom. I appreciate your reply. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Madam Secretary season 4

Would Russel and Matt get a love interest? Could we have a backstory on Nadine and Russel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blyons9 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Blyons9: welcome to the Teahouse, your question and some others you have asked are not what Wikipedia is about. There are forums that discuss plotlines for series but they aren't here. Nthep (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Would there be a plotline that involves the Obama care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blyons9 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not the right place to ask! Try googleing it. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

adding information to existing pages

Hi, I am having problems adding information to existing pages. Almost all my aditions have been omitted by a user named Fuhghettaboutit under the reason given as "copyright violation". I do not really understand this and have also altered the text a bit and rewritten and tried to add again. It still gets omitted. How do I overcome the hurdles to be able to contribute with new scientific information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Figgep: Hello and welcome. Wikipedia cannot allow text directly lifted or even closely paraphrased from a source to be in an article; we must take copyright issues very seriously. I can't look at the edits to tell you specifically what the issue was as they were redacted(although the mere fact that they were redacted indeed means it was a serious copyright issue). Depending on how "new" this scientific information is, it may not yet be appropriate for inclusion in an article, if it has not been properly peer reviewed and accepted in general by the scientific community. I would suggest, before attempting to edit an article, that you discuss what you want to do on the talk page of the relevant article(click "Talk" at the top of the article when viewing it, that will take you there). You should also click WP:COPYVIO and read that page to learn more about this issue. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you for prompt response. The copyright issue is strange as some of the texts were written with my own words and what was used came from my own writing on the Human Protein Atlas page. We are there adhering to the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License for all copyrightable parts of our database". Will anyhow try again and I have also tested to discuss on the talk page of a certain wiki page. As for how "new" this information is, it is very recent, but fully accepted and published in Science (a peer reviewed and highly respectable scientific journal) and also available at the Human Protein Atlas webportal. Thanks for all help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 12:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Figgep: If you yourself wrote the text and you own the rights to it(and not, say, a publisher or other superior) you may be able to donate the materials to Wikipedia; you can read WP:DCP to see if this is possible. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot, I will check and also discuss with our IT people at the Human Protein Atlas. It should not be a problem since we adhere to the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License" for all copyrightable parts of our database. Will now try to slightly modify some words in sentences to make sure nobody experiences this added text as a copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Figgep: Please do not do this. A dictionary of synonyms is not enough to magically not be a copyright violation anymore.

I have not checked your assertion that the source is under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but assuming it is, it cannot be used on Wikipedia because the Wikimedia Foundation legal team deemed it incompatible with our CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, see WP:Compatible license. (Don't ask me why, there is probably a reason but I could not be bothered to search.)

The easiest way out, I think, would be for you to dual-license your text at the HPA as CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or another compatible license) in addition to 4.0. Then, it could be imported into Wikipedia with no modification, but we would still need to comply with the "BY" part of the license; to do so, use something like Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Figgep, I'm afraid there's more. Separate from the question of copyright is the question of verifiabililty: any information you add to an article should be supported by (and preferably cited to) a reliable published source. If the source is your own work, that may be acceptable, but it should not be you that adds it, as that is seen as a conflict of interest. It would definitely be preferable to suggest the change, with citation, on the article's talk page so that the decision of whether or not to include it can be made by somebody else. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: additional discussion at this section of my talk page (and surrounding sections)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thank you, but please, I understand that "A dictionary of synonyms is not enough to magically not be a copyright violation anymore", and that is exactly why all contributions I have written the last two days have been off the top of my head to avoid both copyright issues and plagiarism! If the goal is to keep text concise and informative, there are certain formats of sentences that can be preferred. Would be extremely happy for constructive feed-back as to how you would modify this type of text! Will check up on compatible licenses and donations of copyrights from us, but for now I will avoid copying and just write text with my own words.

Figgep (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thank you, I was almost expecting more. The questions you raise I think are fine and my response to firstly verifiability, would be that all facts and data that I write about have been published in the top peer reviewed scientific journals (which are also cited in my texts), mainly in articles published in Science which, alongside with the Nature journal, is the most renowned journal publishing scientific knowledge. Secondly, it is not my own work, the knowledge I am trying to add comes from 1200 man years spent on the Human Protein Atlas, a non commercial academic project funded by a non-profit organisation. There is no COI to transmit the publicly available data and knowledge provided in scientific journals or the HPA website! I have also tried writing on the talk page of specific entries, to get a discussion on where text best should be added and to get constructive feed-back on format of text etc.

Figgep (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

I would like to add an infobox for Indian Head Rock but none of the templates seem to fit. Suggestions? Mephiboshethsmaid (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Try Template:Infobox artifact. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try it.Mephiboshethsmaid (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Publishing my article

the Dhevaakar article is still not published yet? I would need the reasons.Dhevaakar Suppiah Actor (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dhevaakar Suppiah Actor

Your article has not been reviewed because you have not submitted it for review. I've placed a template on your draft to allow you to do that.
If you submit it for review as the article stands now, it will certainly be declined. You do not have one single reliable source on the article. Wikipedia no matter what language, is never a reliable source.
If, as your username indicates,you are the subject of the article, you shouldn't be writing it at all. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

John from Idegon (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dhevaakar Suppiah Actor. Are you also the same editor as User:Dhevaakar Suppiah? If you are, please don't register for any more accounts to try and create articles. One account is all you need. Moreover, since Draft:Dhevaakar Suppiah exists, I suggest you blank or edit your your user page accordinlgy so that it does not get tagged for speedy deletion per WP:FAKEARTICLE. You are allowed to add some personal information about yourself to your user page as explained in WP:UPYES, but you've pretty much exceeded what is typically allowed. In addition to the link to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY provided above, I also suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference as well.

Finally, you uploaded File:DS5371C- Dhevaakar Suppiah.jpg to Wikimedia Commons as your "own work", yet you are the subject of the photo and you claim it was taken by "a friend or professional photographer at a shooting spot". You cannot claim a photo taken by someone else as your "own work" and you cannot release such a photo under a free license without the explicit consent of original copyright holder, who is typically is the photographer. It seems you've had a number of other photos deleted from Commons for similar reasons, so you need to be very careful with the files you upload to Commons. I strongly suggest you carefully read through c:Commons:Licensing before uploading any more files because your Commons account will be blocked if your uploads continue to be deleted for lacking proper permission or for other copyright related reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems as if you might have created User:CINEFRAME as well for the same purpose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

3Qs

I want to ask 3 questions:

1. What i should do to rename an article?

2. What I should do to change my username?

3. Some user accounts like User:Aaa have been renamed, no such user exists today. We can not have a account with such name. Why? Mir & Sauda (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

1. an article can be moved, you should say which one it is.

2. I will let others explain how to change your username, i believe it is quite hard.

3. some names are disallowed (if they exist already, or if they are rude etc). any username used before remains as a attribution of that users edits.

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mir & Sauda.

Mechanically, pages are renamed by the move function, which imports the page history to a new title (just note that renaming a page is not done by copying and pasting content to a new title). See Help:How to move a page. Moving a page is not always possible to do yourself, even once autoconfirmed, which your account is not yet, though it will be after you make six more edits.
When you cannot move a page yourself, and the request is uncontroversial, you can ask for the move to be carried out at the technical section of the requested moves project. If controversial, however, you would follow the instructions at the main section of the requested moves project.
In either case, please read Wikipedia:Article titles, to see whether the move you are thinking of is appropriate under our article titling conventions—many of which people find surprising, such as that we do not particularly care about the stylization choice of companies, e.g., Macy's (not: macy^*s); Skechers (not: SKECHERS). The common names section of the policy has a particularly wide reach.
See Wikipedia:Changing username. There is a potential problem with your username and maybe with your account. You username implies shared use, which is a problem under WP:ISU, and your use of "we" above, is indicative that you are actually sharing this account, which is not allowed (see WP:ROLE).
Putting aside the role account issue, above, AFAICT the username Aaa can be requested at the changing username project. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have requested to change my name to Red Fire. I am alone. I grouped every user and said 'we'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mir & Sauda (talk • contribs) 14:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

external client did not provide page information

I'm trying to link from page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cicada to a page in a different language e.g. https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA under Languages --> add link I choose the language - hewiki, type in the link to the page but get the error:

A page "https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA" could not be found on "hewiki". The external client site "hewiki" did not provide page information for page Carmitsp (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

When I tried to create the same link from Cicada to ציקדות [he], the message I got was "The page you wanted to link with is already attached to an item on the central data repository which links to Auchenorrhyncha on this site. Items can only have one page per site attached. Please choose a different page to link with." I didn't find this helpful. Creating interwiki links is not easy. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Carmitsp, this is a long-standing (and still unsolved) problem with Wikidata: articles in different language Wikipedias may have different scope, so a single article in one Wikipedia might correspond most appropriately to several in another (as is the case here). d:Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items explains the problem and advises how to handle it at present. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

how communicate with several people here

Hi,

I have started to try to contribute to the wiki community and I am receiving feed-back on various pages and from several different people. If I want to clarify something or convey a message/text to several of those who have provided feedback on different pages. How? Should I copy this at all different talk and user pages or should I do this on my own user page and somehow notify those I want to read this? What is the preferred strategy to use here? Figgep (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Figgep:--Assuming you wish to reply to the different messages people have posted on your talk-page or on an article talk-page, use {{ping|Username}} substituting the username of the account, you wish to reply to , add your reply and necessarily sign your post.If you are going to reply to someone's talk page, you need not ping; just indent and draft out the reply. And, remember, it's always preferrable to keep any conversation at one place.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Figgep. Good question. Like many on Wikipedia there is not one single answer. If the message relates to a particular article, the article's website is the best place; if it doesn't relate to a single article, but to a topic area for which there is a WikiProject, then the project's talk page might be a good place. Or (especially if the discussion has already started on your own user talk page), you could continue it there. In fact, if the discussion has already started on any page, it would be a good idea to keep it there. In any case, you can notify other users in the way I have notified you of this: there are various templates, but I use 'U'. So I have written {{U|Figgep}}. What you should certainly not do is copy the discussion: it is not forbidden to copy material within Wikipedia, but it is rarely the best solution, and there are licensing requirements if you do so. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Referencing new music material

I was wondering how I can best document and reference an article if there isn't sufficient information on a new album other that the mixing, mastering, track lists and personnel available to the general public. Is it alright to reference physical media if there are no other sources avaiable?

Most references I've found on music album articles tend top come directly from reception and background sections, when this information is either not avaiable yet or if no information exists yet on these, should the article not exist in the first place?

Thanks for any help guys :)

Trizk (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Trizk. If, by physical media, you mean books or periodicals whose content is unavailable online, those sources are generally acceptable. However, care needs to be taken to ensure they are reliable, and details such as page numbers need to be documented so that readers have a chance to look it up for themselves. Liner notes are acceptable but only in very limited contexts because they're primary sources. {See WP:PRIMARY for an explanation of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.) In general, if reliable sources independent from the subject do not yet exist, it would be premature to create an article. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for criticism of COI content

Hi! I’ve written a new article on Siemens’ MindSphere software, accessible at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:David_F._Erhard/sandbox/MindSphere. As this is a case of COI (I work for Siemens; cf. flag on the article’s talk page) I haven’t yet officially submitted it for review but would like to use this forum to make sure I haven’t transgressed Wikipedia’s guidelines in any major way. Obviously, I’ve tried to maintain encyclopaedic tone of voice and only present objectively verifiable information. If (an) experienced editor(s) could point out any changes that should be made to make this ready for review that would be great. Thanks! David F. Erhard (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"These insights can then be utilized to close the loop"? The draft is written in PR-speak. Maproom (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but its overly promotional. This is the main reason we have a COI policy. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, David F. Erhard. Thank you for being open about your position, and asking for guidance. I'm afraid that, beside the point the others have made (I notice "leverage" and "drive new business insights", which are both meaningless PR speak), more seriously, there is not a single reference that is independent and about the subject. The first four are all clearly based on presentations or press releases from Siemens. The last one is independent, but not about Siemens or MindSphere. There is nothing wrong with these references (though the first four may only support statements that go "Siemens says that ... " or similar, not the thing that Siemens says); but on their own, they are not enough to establish that the article is notable, or most of the claims in the article. To succeed in the difficult task you are attempting, what you need to do is to find several truly independent sources, that are not parrotting what Siemens says, but obviously writing from their own knowledge; and then forget every single thing you know about the company and the product, and write exclusively from those sources (in your own words, of course). Wikipedia is simply not interested in what Siemens says about it, or what you know about it, but only in what independent people have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Declined Article

Hi there. I've been working on this Article, Asian Institute of Finance and it has not been accepted as my submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. How can I improve this? And yes, I am aware that it was deleted before. Thank you in advance!Sandrapriya (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sandrapriya. Generally when an article has been deleted multiple times from the article namespace, it's helpful to try and figure out why it was deleted and who deleted it. One way to do this is by checking Special:log for any record of deletion. In this case, Asian Institute of Finance was previously deleted for the reasons shown here. It looks like the article has been speedily deleted multiple times per WP:A3, WP:A7 and WP:G12. The G12 reason is the most serious of the three because it means that some actually copied-and-pasted or directly added copyrighted content into the article which is not allowed at all per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The article was subsequently re-created, but deleted once again per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Institute of Finance in June of this year.

Assuming that the draft you're working at Draft:Asian Institute of Finance does not include any inappropriately added copyright content, you should try and fix the problems pointed in that AfD discussion and see if you can better establish that the organization meets the notability guidelines listed in either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Articles tend to be deleted when a consensus is reached that the subject matter is not Wikipedia notable. It may simply be too soon for a particular subject to have received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that is required to establish Wikipedia notability. It's also possible the subject is simply never going to be considered notable enough to justify a stand-alone article. I can't really say for sure which is the case here since I can't see the last version of the article which was deleted. I can say, however, that the editors who participated in that discussion are quite experienced, and if there was a way for the article to have been kept, they would've figured it out.

It's OK for you to continue working on the draft, but articles deleted via AfD discussions are not typically recreated after only a few months have passed per WP:G4 unless the situation has drastically changed. So, my suggestion to you would be to ask Ad Orientem, the adminstrator who closed the AfD discussion, to look at the draft and assess it in comparison to the version deleted via AfD. Ad Orientem should be able to tell if you're at least moving in the right direction or if whether you're wasting your time. Be advised though that repeatedly trying to recreate articles (even as drafts) which have been deleted multiple times might be eventually be considered disruptive and an administrator might decided to intervene and lock the article name to prevent any further spurious recreations. I'm assuming good faith with respect to this draft, but you need to realize that these multiple deletions are quite a hurdle to overcome and some editors might be a little unwilling to give you the benefit of the doubt. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sandrapriya, one thing I notice about the draft Draft:Asian Institute of Finance is that not one of the references mentions the institute in its title. On its own, this is not diagnostic: it's perfectly possible to have an article about a subject which does not name the subject in its title. But that fact that none of them do suggests to me that they just mention the institute in passing (I haven't looked at them to see, so I could be wrong). That, combined with the previous deletions, suggests to me that the subject is not currently notable in Wikipedia's terms, and somebody is clutching at straws, trying to adduce references which don't really do the trick. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI I am currently on an extended wikibreak and am not functioning as an admin right now. I have already addressed this subject on my talk page but I cannot see the deleted version as I handed in my bit for the duration of my break. I hope to be back in a few weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

My question regards the cultural use of "Reading of the names" connected to genocides and mass killings.

I'm curretnly writing a book, and in it I reference "The reading of the names" in connection to 9/11. Upon which it dawned on me I don't actually know when and where the "Reading of the names" traditon started. I first did the standard Google search but could find nothing with the topic of "the Readings" as a focus. Only mentions of it in the context of commemorative ceremonies. Moreover, the oldest accounts I could find go only as far as the Holocaust. Which surprised me since the tradition feels much older. But I suspect now I could be wrong and maybe it only started in connection to the genocide of the Jews.

It was at this point I came here to search the topic, but found nothing. I don't know if I should write an article with the scant information I found, which as I've said, does not have the "Readings" as a focus and is only mentioned in larger articles of the ceremonies.

But this seems to me to be a worthy topic of articulation. What do you think?

Adrelianism (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Adrelianism (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adrelianism, and welcome to the Teahouse. The bar for creating an article for any given topic on Wikipedia can be summarized in the following way: Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If you can only muster "scant" sourcing, it's indicative that the significant coverage criteria is not met. What counts as significant coverage is, of course, subjective, but judging from your message, I'd say the answer is probably 'no'. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adrelianism. I agree with what Finnusertop wrote above and have a side note: You just might be able to get some help with the underlying research question for your book (rather than for an article here), by posting to an appropriate section of Wikipedia's reference desk. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

SORRY ABOUT THAT

Thanks I found the responses and I apologize for missing them. My main concern at the moment is Herman Armour Webster who was a member of Berzelius. I will get together documentation before I list him. The problem is not all of it is readily available to the average reader. I will try to find things that are available but some may be in French. He lived in France from 1904 until his death in 1970. He now has a Wikipedia page and I have to see what is listed. Unfortunately one reference has MANY biographical errors. I will leave word about that on the article's talk page.Nicodemus (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you identify the problem in the Lead I am having with editing "Hyponatremia?

The edit page does not have the same material as the Article. What I want is to delete is not on the edit page to be deleted. I am trying to delete the entire paragraph which begins "Treatment..." Can you fix it or tell me what the problem is? Thanks. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If you click the main edit button at the top, between Read and View History, then you can edit the whole section, but it would be unwise to remove referenced material without replacing it with a better section and better references. You seem to know what you are doing, though, so I'm puzzled as to why this isn't working for you. Dbfirs 21:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi IiKkEe. Without delving into whether that material should be removed, are you talking about where it says next to Treatment: "Based on underlying cause"? If so, that is in the display of the Infobox, which is placed through a template (in this case {{Infobox medical condition (new)}}. If you use your computer's find function (typically ctrl+f, for a PC; ⌘ Cmd+f on a Mac) you will able to see where the words Based on underlying cause are inserted, but they are next to the template field: |treatment =. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps I've misunderstood. Fuhghettaboutit's advice is probably what you were looking for. Dbfirs 21:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I thought exactly the same thing ("probably using a side edit button"), but then I saw the user had successfully made a change in the lead...)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was only later when I looked at contributions that I realised IiKkEe was an experienced and knowledgeable editor. Apologies for suggesting a very basic solution. We usually get questions from novices here. Dbfirs 21:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi IiKkEe, welcome to the Teahouse. The lead does have a paragraph starting with "Treatment..." and it is there when you click the edit tab. I have a guess at the source of your confusion. In [1] you removed the comment end --> from . Content inside  is a non-rendered comment. See MOS:COMMENT. By removing the comment end but keeping the comment start <!--, you created a long comment from the comment start to the next comment end much later in the lead. Probably due to this, you copied non-rendered text in the large comment to outside the comment so it now occurs twice in the source of the lead, a non-rendered version before the treatment paragraph and a rendered version after it, maybe causing you to look for the treatment paragraph in the wrong place. I don't know the subject or what you want the lead to say but please try to fix the confusing source. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning

Excuse me but is there a way to warn anonymous or other editors from wrongdoings and disruptive editing? You see in my country (Bangladesh) there are many editors who don't cite sources and write whatever they wish to. Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League doesn't even try to fix things.

Hello, Mahir M, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes there is. You can use the codes found on the following page to produce warning messages. Simply copy and paste the code to the talk page of the user you want to warn, and a warning message will appear: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that anonymous editors may use a different IP address each time, or a different IP address may be used by a different editor, due to the way internet companies assign IP addresses, so don't take the identifying numbers for granted. This also means some of your warning may never be seen by the person you are sending them to. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

que significa Tacuaruzù ?

que se significa Tacuaruzù 186.138.56.19 (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Lo siento, IP 186.138.56.19, no hablamos español aqui. ¿Help:Reference desk?

(I'm sorry, IP 186.138.56.19, we don't speak Spanish here.) —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Spanish language version of that page: [2] RudolfRed (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to the embassy: WP:Embassy Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested for speedy deletion

I had added two images without the owners consent, now i intend to delete it as soon as possible. Please help me remove it as soon as possible. The image names are moxtra logo and moxtra timeline

Punith331994 01:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punith331994 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Punith331994. I have deleted the two files. Please be careful in the future to comply with our policies and guidelines when uploading images in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Gdeepmusic

Hi all,

I tried submitting a page twice for South Asian Music artist G-Deep but it has declined twice. I would like to understand how can I get this page published.

The comment by the user were declined as; "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information."

Please advise.

Thank You Gdeepmusic (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gdeepmusic. The username you have selected indicates that you are here to promote G-Deep, rather than to improve this encyclopedia. Remove all promotional content from the draft. Your first job is to show that this person meets our notability guideline for musical performers. We have very strict standards about biographies of living people. There are numerous statements in the article which are unreferenced. Every substantive assertion must be properly referenced. You have a list of bare URLs at the end of your draft. These should be formatted as inline citations with full bibliographic detail. Please read Referencing for beginners and Your first article, and follow all of the advice you will find there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Hi All, I've come across an AfD nomination that I need help with. Three users who're defending the article nomination (apparently a poorly sourced biographical article) have their entire edit histories relating to that particular article, and their first edits are either yesterday or today. I suspect a COI here, or even worse, the same user using multiple usernames (going by the edit log and style of writing). Though I understand there's no way to know if they're the same person, I'd like to know Wikipedia's policy towards suspicious accounts. Any advice would be of great help. Mark the train^Discuss 09:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The policy is to mark them with a Contributerdc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic type message, which as been done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Jha, whoever these people are, they clearly have limited experience with AfD, as they have commented on the talk page of the AfD. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I've also noticed the user pleading on the nominator's talk page, appears purely promotional. Mark the train^Discuss 10:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Making changes to article

Hi, I've created a page about a living person Iqua Colson. This is the 2nd time that I am creating a Wiki page, but need clarification before I continue. Thank you to the person who fixed the tag needed to identify Iqua as a living person.

I love history so have always gathered stories about artists for instance in different genres. Many of them are black and I have gotten to know them over the years. Sometimes I read the Wiki pages and am concerned about the lack of presence and accurate information about these artists. Particularly in music and I was a dj for many years where I interviewed a lot of filmmakers and performing artists. One artist who's page I've edited but did not create is that of the dub poet Lillian Allen. These days I have been creating websites for some of the artists. Some do pay me for the website work. Because of being uncertain re COI, I have been hesitant to add pages, my first one was about the leader of the first British reggae band. He was a friend of a friend and I offered to set up the page as there was wrong information being attributed to him. But my entry was deemed to be conflict of interest as I was using my company name as the Wiki, and there was worry that more than one person might be posting as me. But it was and is only me. I changed my name to my current user name to try to clarify that it's only me.

Thing is the experience put me off. But I decided to try again because I am frustrated with the lack of Wiki pages for artists who have made significant contributions although their online presence appears to be mostly promotional or many of the citations are in books or journals that may not be online.

Iqua is one example where I do work with Iqua managing her website. She isn't paying me to create the Wiki page as I volunteered to create the English Wikipedia page for her and also one for her husband as they each are AACM longstanding members.

I think Wiki is very important as an encyclopedic resources, and would like to make sure that I am complying with Wiki rules. I had started going through the tutorials finally last year but have had some family illness that slowed me down, but am back now. So thought should ask before going further as would like to contribute in a consistent manner.

I was going to add a COI message but wasn't sure how to add it, thought better ask first. I'll be grateful for any feedback. Ackee123 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ackee123. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your contributions and your willingness to comply with Wikipedia policies regarding conflict of interest. (As an aside, you can abbreviate Wikipedia as "WP", but "wiki" is not a good shortening.) Ordinarily I would suggest the use of {{Template:Paid}} but, since you have so many people to list, plain prose may be better. I would suggest listing the artists alphabetically by last name (or group name) using the format:

I am personally acquainted with [artist A].
I am personally acquainted with [artist B].
I am personally acquainted with and have a business relationship with [artist C].
I am personally acquainted with [artist D].

etc. as appropriate. To format your list with bullets as I did above, simply begin each line with an asterisk * (but not a space). The full list of your conflicts of interest should go on your user page (not your user talk page), and you should also state your relationship with each artist (not the full list) on the talk page of that artist's article. In addition, when creating articles about anyone you have a personal or business relationship with, you should begin the article from Articles for Creation, and, once any article about which you have a conflict of interest is in "mainspace" (not prefaced "Draft:" or "User:"), you should ideally suggest changes to such articles on their article talk pages, rather than editing the articles directly.

Please accept my apologies for your question not being answered in order, and please feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that info GrammarFascist. I will work on this later in the week. I will start with the list. To clarify, should I delete the Iqua Colson article and start over under Articles for Creation? Ackee123 (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Ackee123. Only administrators can delete articles; you could request the article be deleted, but I don't think that's necessary. If someone nominates the page for deletion it can be moved to draft space if necessary. For now, you can simply use the article's talk page to suggest whatever changes you think should be made (and I advise you to prioritize adding citations to newspaper or magazine articles, or coverage in books, as these are reliable sources and needed to demonstrate Ms. Colson's notability). Future articles you create should use the Articles for Creation process so that you can work on the draft directly. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GrammarFascist, I understand now. I will do start other WP pages as you suggest under Articles of Creation. I had read the info on COI, but still got myself confused. Clearer now. Before realizing this, I did add citations from 2 books that Iqua is mentioned in and also a link to an online interview and an article that references her. Who looks at these to ascertain their suitability? The books are print books but both have an online presence through Google books and one through academia.edu Thanks for your patience. Ackee123 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Ackee123. I have edited the Iqua Colson article, largely to remove "puffery" (language such as "award-winning" — if a person or organization won an award, name it and provide a citation verifying that fact), something you should look at using the "diff" comparison in the article's history tab so that you can avoid similar language in the draft articles you're developing.

Unfortunately the sources you added do not demonstrate Ms. Colson's notability. Of the two books, one mentions her only in passing, and the other seems not to mention her at all; and the Capital Bop piece is an interview, and thus not independent or Ms. Colson. So long as her notability is in question, any editor can nominate the article for deletion, as any editor can evaluate any article for compliance with the notability policy. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 11:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, thank you for taking the time. I understand. Musicians like Iqua are deeply entrenched in the history of the music, but I see that there would need to be more 3rd party information written about her. I am grateful for this. Once I fully complete the tutorial, will prepare a simplified guide to WP for people I know as I have better understanding, I should have got this the first time I read through Ackee123 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist, I have begun adding the list of people that I am acquainted with and /or working with to my Talk page. I hope I am doing this correctly. I also haven't linked the names to pages, shoudl I do that? I didn't set up Lillian's page but I have edited it in the past as some details were incorrect, but haven't edited the page in a long time. There are things to add but now I do not wish to until I am clearer about my contributions in the scheme of WP. I have not been able to do any more at this time due to work and family commitments Ackee123 (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Ackee123. The text you added to your user talk page should be sufficient, but you should, yes, link to the articles about each person (by adding double square brackets around each name, like so: [[Iqua Colson]]). You should also move the notice from your user talk page to your user page, since that is where people would normally look for your COI declarations. If you need help with that I can move the content that should be on your user page off your talk page for you.

I'll also note that this discussion thread may soon be archived. If (or rather when) that happens, you should start a new question on the Teahouse main page, not edit the archived discussion. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 11:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you GrammarFascist. I'm beginning to understand more. Also thank you for the edits.

redirect

Hi I want to create a redirect from distributed manufacture to distributed manufacturing - but for the life of me I cant figure out how to do it.--Weldymom (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Weldymom, welcome to the Teahouse. I have created the redirect. New users were prevented from creating articles or redirects in the encyclopedia two days ago as part of Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. This means some of our documentation is currently misleading. You can make requests at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

In referencing can one reliable source be used for several citations?

Provided the source is from a published article or book with a Library of Congress reference and ISBN number and written or published by the user creating the Wikipedia article can it be used several times for reference citations? Presumably this information is in the directives for creating a Wikipedia article. May I know again where to find it.Palukiwa (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Additionally if the book is published by an private publisher in a foreign country: England and/or Thailand but printed in the US and is not eligible to receive a Library of Congress and ISBN number (since publishing in the US is required for this)what is the procedure required to make it a source for citations acceptable by Wikipedia for an article.Palukiwa (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Palukiwa. If the book in question is a truly reliable source, then it can be used repeatedly. However, if the book is written by the Wikipedia editor who is adding it as a reference, then there may possibly be issues with spamming, or promoting the book. Please read WP:SELFCITE, and defer to the judgment of uninvolved editors. The "ISBN" is the International Standard Book Number, and as the name implies, books published in any country (not just the US) can get a ISBN. Any book published in recent decades which lacks an ISBN will probably be subjected to increased scrutiny. Relianility is determined by the reputation of the publisher, the credentials of the author and the professional reviews that the book has received. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I clicked on your Cullen: "Let's discuss it" talk page but didn't know where to write so I came back to this discussion. I am not interested in promoting any published work of my own, however, I feel in order to make my draft article "Telakan Karen of Laytongku" comprehensible the only reliable source I know of is my own knowledge and experience mixed with a vast amount of research of which little can be used as source material. I have consulted with the Principal of my Alma Mater, St. Edmund Hall, at Oxford University, who is supportive in my efforts, and has suggested how several Anthropological Journals might be willing to publish that in which I can lay out all I know concerning the Telakan Karen people. Also The Siam Society since this topic is of interest for them to publish. (I do have in work a pamphlet being published by Theaum Press, Oxford together with The Siam Society which is condensed but comprehensive study of the Telakan Karen of Laytongku.) I am not doing this for pay or for any commercial reason but strictly as a scholarly tome that can be used as a reliable source in my article. Whether or not I can use it, according to what I read in WP:SELFPUB, as a source for my article is at this moment debatable but I have decided to have it published in any case since I cannot say in the Wikipedia article what I feel should be said. So I have no alternative other than to write a book on the subject. In any case whether I do publish anything outside Wikipedia what I write for my article will be worded by me and I suppose obviously looped around various sources accepted or perhaps unaccepted by Wikipedia. Most of what I find are just repeated information from other sources and finally come to no real value. I read the self-publish and citing from one's own work sections as you recommended. It helped me understand certain standards I face. I deliberately decided to create a Wikipedia article rather then write a book but it seems the Wikipedia adventure I have taken on is pushing me to write and publish a book in order to put in important facts and to add current events and up to date information on the subject. So I must be the expert authoritarian on the subject since no other exists. I dread to see my article become just something emulated through rephrasing bits from sources that contain little of importance. The best sources aren't acceptable by Wikipedia as I found out when I created the earlier article: Laytongku. I will have to ponder this and continue the best I am able and hope when I finish the draft and present it for review it won't be torn to pieces by others editing it and turning it into a Stub as was the case with Laytongku. Fortunately I keep the text copied and safe so I don't loose any of the material in case it is totally ripped to pieces and/or rejected and deleted without warning. Then at least I can use what I have written in a book instead since I have been working 24-7 from 1 September on Wikipedia. I must do what I often advise others in case it is rejected: "Suffer in silence and move on to another positive adventure. I should note that whenever I do a search on the Internet on any subject I always consult Wikipedia articles first since I have always felt they were the most reliable so there is good enough reason why I chose the Wikipedia path.Palukiwa (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You can get an ISBN for a privately published book, regardless of where it is published. Even self-published books often have ISBN numbers. (see ISBN.org). What matters is that the book is a reliable source, and being published by a publishing house is taken to mean that some editorial oversight has been applied. Thereby making it more reliable. A work published by reputable journal, or a book written by a recognized expert (even is privately published) may also be reliable. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the issue you encountered at Laytongku, you should note that once it is published, your thesis can be used as a source. You may also want to read ~~WP:BOLD~~ WP:IAR, which could well be relevant to this situation, and is a core policy overriding other guidelines, although you should use it with care, considering why you are here, (WP:HERE can help). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. If you haven't already seen them, I've left some topic-specific comments at Draft talk:Telakan Karen of Laytongku and Talk:Laytongku. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting article?

Someone's made a series of consecutive nonconstructive edits to an article. Is there any way to revert them all at once instead of doing them one by one? The Verified Cactus 100% 13:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. Yes, perform a manual revert. Go to the edit history → click on the date before the edits → click edit → fill out the edit summary field → save the page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 14:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

How to add links to an article?

How to edit an article and add proper links and citations to it? Also, is a newspaper article a high quality source?

Thanks!Motocoach vicky (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If the article is not locked, just click the "edit" button up at the top of the page. Information on external links can be found here and information on citing sources can be found here.

Whether a newspaper article is a high quality source depends on the newspaper -- WP:Reliable sources has more information on identifying reliable sources. I usually summarize it with "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

need help on my first page

My page has been rejected and I need assistance to fix it so that it can be published. The page is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:European_Air_Ambulance whereby EAA is the worldwide fixed wings activity of , which is the rotor-based activity and mother company. Why that page (as many others in the air ambulance sector, with less assets and less 'notable') is OK and mine is not? Really struggling to see the difference. Pinballdot (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Pinballdot and welcome to the Teahouse.

Comparison with other articles will get you nowhere. If you want to model your contribution on another article, be sure that the article you choose has a rating of GA (Good Article) or better. Comparing your article with an article with a lesser rating will get you nowhere, it's simply not an acceptable argument.

So, it seems that the reviewers of your draft have looked at your submission and compared it with the criteria of WP:NORG, which is the special flavor of notability used for considering organizations, and did not see that your current references establish notability. Notability, in the WP sense, can be difficult to understand when you first encounter it. What I usually tell people to do, when their article is being declined for notability reasons, is to bring their three best references to the AfC Help Desk and engage with the reviewers specifically on notability. Once you have achieved agreement there, you have a record that you can point to from the draft and not have to wrangle with each new reviewer on that particular hurdle.

That's not the last hurdle, but it's the one you seem to be facing at present. As I read the draft, I think that it's still written a bit too much as something the organization might have on its website to promote its services, so finding the right encyclopedic tone may still be a challenge. If you have a connection with the organization, you should read WPs conflict of interest policy and be sure you are in compliance with it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)