Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

citation needed tag

Hi,

   I have seen some articles in which in some places, after a word, where the reference number
   is supposed to be, it says [citation needed]. I have found some articles which need that tag,
   but I don't know how to put it in.

                                           Commander2006 (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
                                                      
   

Just got a response from Wikipedia on article I submitted

This was the response. "Needs to be formatted and references moved inline"

Can someone assist me in making those changes? Cllgbksr (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cllgbksr. Your question has already received a reply at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#20:25:16, 4 August 2016 review of submission by Cllgbksr. See also Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly Cordless Larry I'm not computer savvy and this is like writing code for me. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok Cordless Larry, I fixed the headers using the ==Header==. Now I have to get the references inline. Fingers crossed I can figure this out. Appreciate your help.Cllgbksr (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mduvekot, Wiki had no problem with the content of the article or the sources. Only the formatting and needing inline.Cllgbksr (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Mduvekot, who is unlikely to have seen this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

articles for creation?

Hi I don't have much time here so I will make this brief, where can I submit a article for creation? thank you very much for your time. Zortex7161 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The Transhumanist 17:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How to remove promotional tone from article

Hey guys, new to the Wiki community. I've written a stub about a men's lifestyle company called bespoke post, the link to which can be found below. Was just wondering if any of you could help me with fixing the problems and removing the template tags so it looks like an actual Wikipedia stub that I can later expand on. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bespoke_Post

JustinRagolia (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look overly promotional to me, at least not at first glance. I'm going to ping @Me, Myself, and I are Here: to this thread since they added the tag, and see if they can give any more specifics. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that a bigger issue with the article as it stands is that it does not sufficiently demonstrate the subject's notability. JustinRagolia, I would suggest expanding the article based on what has been written about the company in reliable, independent sources - these need to demonstrate that the company has been the subject of significant independent coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! If you think I should remove those template tags, I'm not familiar with that process. Would you mind giving me a tip for going about getting those removed? Seriously, thanks so much for your help.

JustinRagolia (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the advert tag, because I'm not sure it really fits right now. But I agree with Cordless Larry, the other tags are currently appropriate, and the article will need more sources to justify removing them. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disregard that last post I made in the forum. I am in the wrong box. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Need a template to mark external link

the link does not contain what the article says it does, or only a portion of it. deisenbe (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

deisenbe, the template you used, {{dead}} is the correct template for marking dead links, but is usually used in references and not the external links section. See guidance at WP:ELDEAD. If an archived or updated version of the site cannot be found, the external link should usually just be removed from the article. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

page deletion

I submitted an article on 3 August 2016 and I cannot find it. Was it deleted and, if so, why? The article was named The Donkey Sanctuary of Canada. It is about an animal rescue charity in Canada. Thank you. SandraSandra pady (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The redlink The Donkey Sanctuary of Canada will show you the reason for deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Do I need to have an account to edit? What are the implications? How do I register?

Do I have to register an account with wikipedia to edit? What are the implications of registering an account? How do I do this? 90.206.106.34 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If you register an account, your contribution to article will be thanks from the page creator. Moreover, you can edit semi protection page and it will be accepted automatic (at least 200 edit/ 500 edit) instead of waiting to be accepted. You may ask other too if you need some help.

Kingsho (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 90.206.106.34, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've left a message on your talk page that includes some of the many benefits of registering an account. It also includes a link to a page listing other benefits. Registering an account requires no personal information, not even an email address (though you can add one later on for additional benefits). -- Gestrid (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

how to unhide languages

I noticed today that all of a sudden, the behaviour of the language selection pane has changed.

When I open a page in English, everything is as usual – I get to choose any language in which that particular article exists.

When I open the Russian version of the article, though, the language selection is decreased to a handful of languages which someone or something has chosen to hold for important. In order to get the full choice of languages, I have to click on "ещё 32" ("32 more"), and even then I don't simply get the list, but a little box opens where the languages are grouped by geography or something.

It is rather inconvenient to have to switch to English every time in order to see the page in another language.

How to make the language selection behave the way it used to, that is to always display all the available languages in the left pane?

88.196.43.87 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a feature called Compact language links. Different wikis sometimes make different choices. Registered users have a lot of customization options. This can be changed with a setting at the bottom of ru:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. It's free and easy to create an account and has many benefits. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

how to avoid the speedy deletion

i just post the article named "Airwheel intelligent electric scooter“. thanks Airwheel2016 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Airwheel2016, to avoid speedy deletion, write an article in neutral language, provide reliable sources (not blogs), and your article "Airwheel intelligent electric scooter“ was deleted because it only promotes company, or something else (not encyclopediaic).—M++ ^C++ 12:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I can no longer read Airwheel intelligent electric scooter because it has been deleted, Airwheel2016. Has the subject been written about in reliable, independent sources? That is a prerequisite for us having an article about a topic. If it has, Wikipedia:Writing better articles has some tips on how to write articles, and you should also consult Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Creating the article via Wikipedia:Articles for creation will allow you to receive feedback on drafts and avoid speedy deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Refilled page got added to my watchlist

I used refill on a page. The page was added to my watchlist. I removed it from my watchlist. I don't want that all pages for which I use Refill to fix bare URLs, to be added to my watchlist. Rainbow Archer (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rainbow Archer! I think that if you toggle the Do not watch the page when using Wiki as the source option (under Toggle advanced input) then the pages you edit with the tool should stay out of your watchlist. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit alarming that we have a high use tool that in its settings reinforces the painful misuse of "Wiki" as short for Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving Draft to Live, How?

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia article creation. Couple of weeks back, I created an article titled 'Dr.Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar' which was immediately coming under 'Speedy Article Deletion'. Then I again created as Draft:Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar before moving LIVE. But, I'm totally stuck, how to find the issues in my article content and move it to live. Please help....please help...Catalogcits (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Catalogcits, in order to get your draft moved to the main article space, you have to submit it for review and wait for a reviewer to come along and either approve it or deny it and give you suggestions on how to fix it. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: The draft was submitted for review some days ago. It received a number of comments for a reviewer, but Catalogcits has not yet addressed those comments. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Notable People Rules

I would like to be able to edit Wikipedia occasionally, but I usually am just unaware of the specific rules. I was wondering if someone could point me to the Wikipedia guidelines for Notable People. Specifically, I want to know what qualifies as being "from" somewhere. For example, I looked up a comedian who was born in one city, and raised in another. He is listed as a notable person in both cities. What about someone who has moved all over the country? Thanks, --Littledj95 (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You can find most information about the notability of people at WP:PEOPLE. However, I'm not sure if there is any single way that is defined to determine where to say a person is "from." -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Littledj95. Determining where a person is "from" requires reliable sources but also editorial judgement. Obviously, a person's birthplace is a significant biographical fact. If a notable person has lived for several years in a certain city or town, and multiple reliable sources indicate that they have been involved in the cultural or civic affairs of that community, then consensus may be to include that in the article. But if the person just rented an apartment in the town for five months and established no roots in that town, and moved away as soon as possible, then it would be unencyclopedic to describe them as "from" that town. When in doubt, start by discussing the matter on the article's talk page, with the goal of seeking consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Cullen328. I suppose I should be more specific. I was really just curious in regards to putting people in lists "from" a city. Jim Gaffigan was born in Elgin, Illinois, grew up in Chesterton, Indiana, but currently lives in Manhattan, New York City. Would this warrant inclusion in three different "Notable people from" lists? Littledj95 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The first step is to read the sources, Littledj95. The source that claims he grew up in Chesterton, Indiana is his New York Times wedding announcement when he was 37 years old, that says his parents lived there. Maybe he grew up there, or maybe his parents moved there after he was an adult living on his own. I have no idea one way or another. So, that source does not support the claim that Gaffigan grew up there. Either find a source that is more "on point" or remove that claim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, I seem to have found a discrepancy on the town where Gaffigan was born. His article states Elign (as does the source), but an interview directly with him lists Gaffigan stating he was born in Barrington, IL. I also noticed him mention he grew up in Munster, Indiana. I don't know if that should be considered as a place where is from because it is the first time I have found out this information, and I know he moved to NYC when he was 19 and hasn't left since. 1 I have heard all of Jim's jokes, and watched every episode of his tv show. He is constantly mentioning how he grew up in "northwest indiana" so I just wanted to make sure my favorite online encyclopedia had updated information. Littledj95 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft: China Rapid Finance

I reviewed User:Chitecfan16/sandbox and declined it as reading like an advertisement. I then received the following message from User:Chitecfan16:

Hello. I'm writing because I don't understand why my entry on China Rapid Finance was rejected. The only feedback received was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources"

In fact, my brief article was neutral in tone and included 13 citations of "independent, reliable, published sources" including the South China Morning Post, Bloomberg, Financial Times, TechCrunch, Crowdfund Insider and other relevant sources.

Given that just about every fact in the entry is attributed to independent sources, what else do I need to do to have the entry accepted for publication?

Thank you.

I would like the opinion of other experienced editors as to tone. I declined it for tone reasons, not for notability reasons. It appears to me that it is written to promote the subject company, but I welcome the opinion of other editors.

Also, does the author have an affiliation with the subject company? If so, it must be declared as conflict of interest.

Thank you for any comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What I don't understand is what is wrong with the tone? What specific language is seen as promotional? If there is specific language that needs to be revised, I can edit it but to reject the entire thing out of hand with no meaningful feedback leaves a contributor wondering what they are supposed to do. I've been following the China Technology industry for 6 years and wanted to start sharing the benefit of some of my knowledge with the community. The post to me reads as informational rather than promotional but if there is specific language requiring adjustment, I'd be happy to hear about it. Chitecfan16 (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chitecfan16. Your draft article is packed full of highly promotional language like, "Beginning in 2010, CRF applied its knowledge of China’s credit market to create an advanced marketplace lending platform, using the company’s predictive selection, credit scoring and automated decisioning technologies." That is advertising and marketing language, and what we call highly promotional puffery. It belongs in a company brochure or on a company website, rather than in a neutral encyclopedia article. If you want meaningful feedback, let me offer some: Do not try to use Wikipedia to promote your preferred business ventures. Please read about Conflict of interest and comply if it applies to you. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Tone issues aside, the article should also probably have an infobox, and it should definitely have its format fixed to look more like the other articles we have on Wikipedia. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an affiliation with the subject company? (When an author says, "If there is specific language that needs to be revised, I can edit it", sometimes they just want advice, but often they really want to put an advertisement in for their employer.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes are optional. However, when you have put in a summary of facts about the company in something that looks sort of but not quite like an infobox, it should be an infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A good size for an image

I want to create a userbox, and I am wondering what would be a perfect size for an image in a userbox so it won't be too big? 2luze (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

43px, according to Wikipedia:Userboxes#How to construct the box – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My first Article about a person

My draft article already had 2 declinations, seemsy due to not enough reliable references.

I really do not know which references will have more weight that will lead to inclusions, Can I reference a Wikipedia articles mentioning the subject's name?

Thanks.

See draft:Janine_Berdin Jose berdin (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jose berdin. No, you cannot use one Wikipedia article as a reference in another Wikipedia article. Although we strive for accuracy, this is a website freely edited by anyone, so vandalism and inaccuracies make their way into various articles. Reliable sources have professional editorial control, and Wikipedia doesn't. The type of sources that demonstrate notability for an actor are articles in major regional or national newspapers and magazines with good reputations for accuracy, and the articles should devote significant coverage to this person. Brief, passing mentions are insufficient to establish notability. How much coverage is "sufficient" is a matter of editorial judgement, but I think that most experienced editors would agree that we are looking for several paragraphs of biographical coverage in each of several reliable sources. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jose berdin In addition to what Cullen328 posted above, I also you suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Since your last name is the same as the person you are writing about, it appears that you might have a conflict of interest (COI) with respect to Janine Berdin. Although Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, it is something that is highly discourage because it can be hard to write about someone or something in a neutral manner when you have a close connection to the subject. If you are able to show that Janine Berdin has received the significant coverage referred to above by Cullen328, then it might be better to request the article be written by someone other than yourself. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to follow your suggestions. By the way, should I wait for the article to be published so that others can contribute about the subject? Because as of now only what I know can be written on the draft.

Jose berdin (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Jose berdin. Like articles, anyone can edit AfC drafts, but most experienced editors will refrain from doing so out of deference to the draft's creator unless there is a serious policy related matter (e.g., copyright violation or biographies of living person violation) which require immediate attention or they are specifically asked to do so. AfC reviewers will post comments and suggestions on things they feel need to be done in order to bring the draft up to Wikipedia standards, but they too will not really directly edit the draft. Occasionally another editors may help clean up the formatting/syntax of lists, tables, references or headings, etc., but you're pretty much on your own when it comes to adding the content and finding the sources needed to establish notability. Once a draft becomes an article, however, it's there for anyone to edit anytime they want regardless of who created the article; it's even there for anyone to nominate for deletion if they feel it's not up to Wikipedia's standards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I really appreciate your help on this, As for the subject, COI could be my main issue, because of the my surname. but I tried to be transparent so editors will know that I am not hiding anything. In your opinion, this draft still have a chance to become a Wiki article?

Jose berdin (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If your only connection to Janice Berdin is that you both just by chance share the same surname, then you don't really have a COI. Apparent COIs can still be problematic, so you may just have to explain that the same surname is just coincidental when another editor asks you about it. Anyway, even having a COI with the subject of your draft does not mean you cannot continue to work on it; it just means that you might have to make some extra effort to try and keep your draft as neutrally worded as possible. The AfC reviewers will offer suggestions on ways to improve the wording and point out things that are too promotional/bias sounding. The main hurdle you need to clear is establishing that Berdin has received the significant coverage needed in multiple independent reliable sources required for Wikipedia notability. Promotional sounding content, etc. can be revised/removed through editing, but all the editing/formatting in the world is not going to make someone Wikipedia notable per WP:CONTN. I suggest you take a look at WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PEOPLE to see what kind of things are used going to be used to assess Berdin's Wikipedia notability.

I am not an AfC reviewer and this is only my personal opinion, but out of the 10 sources you cited in the draft only source no. 1 seems to specifically discuss Berdin at all, but that is only a very brief mention so it's likely not sufficient to show notability. Source no. 2 appears to be user-generated or possibly even a mirror so wouldn't even be considered a reliable source for any purpose. Same goes for sources nos. 4, 6 and 7. Sources nos. 3, 5, 8 and 9 basically just mention Berdin by name and therefore are too trivial for establishing notability. Finally, source no. 10 just appears to be the same as source no. 1, just posted on a different website. So, in my opinion, the sources you've cited do not establish Wikipedia notability and much better ones are needed if you want the article to be accepted by the AfC reviewers. It possible that it's just simply too soon for a Wikipedia article to be written about her right now, but as her career progress she will receive better and more significant coverage that will easily establish her Wikipedia notability for a possible future article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to create an autobiography page

I was just trying the sand box Nunovin (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nunovin. If by "autobiography page" you are referring to writing a Wikipedia article about yourself, then you should know that doing so is something that is highly discouraged per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY because individuals often have a hard time writing about themselves in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. The best thing to do if you feel you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people might be to request an article be written about you or simply wait until another editor writes one about you instead. You should also be aware that you will not have any ownership rights or final editorial control over any article written about you; it can be edited by anyone anywhere in the world who has an Internet connection which means things that you prefer not to be mentioned may possibly show up in the article one day, so there can be a downside to having a Wikipedia article written about you.

Now, if by "autobiography page" you're referring to your userpage, then you can simply create one by clicking on User:Nunovin and adding content. You should read through Wikipedia's userpage guidelines though because there are limitations placed upon the type of content deemed appropriate for such pages. Also, please understand that Wikipedia userpages are designed to serve a specific purpose, and they are not social media pages like Facebook or personal websites. You do not own your userpage, and any content deemed not to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may be removed by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing to correct a name

I was trying figure out how to do a minor edit to change a name of a musician in an article. When I went on the page and changed it, they removed my edit as vandalism which it isn't. It is a true and correct fact that Larry Sapp is now Raine Von Kiska. This person has transitioned their gender and would like their current/correct name listed. I am obviously not technically savvy enough to figure this out, so once I accomplish getting my friends name corrected on her old band page I will most likely be done for a while. I have found published online sources I can reference to show the information as fact. How do I submit them? Here are several published online sources verifying the information I am trying to edit.: <ref> https://www.discogs.com/artist/1474948-Larry-Sapp https://www.metal-archives.com/artists/RVK/129877 https://www.discogs.com/artist/252275-Brutality https://www.metalstorm.net/bands/band.php?band_id=3648 https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1268402 https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-gay-death-metal-vocalists <ref>

How do I get this done? I keep getting accused of vandalism. This is not vandalism, I am trying to make the page accurate and give Raine her proper credit.Sunnybunny5us (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sunnybunny5us. It looks like you're referring to the edits you made to Brutality (band). First some general information about your edits. They were probably marked as vandalism because you did not leave an edit sum (i.e., explanation) when you made them. Such edits are often flagged and reverted as vandalism by bots or specialized scripts when they are made without an edit sum, especially edits for fairly new accounts, just because there are over 5,000,000 articles currently on Wikipedia and only so many volunteers around to go and check the specifics of every edit made. So, you can reduce the chances of this happening in the future if you leave a proper edit sum when you make an edit.

Now more specifically, it was OK for you to be bold and make the name change, but the next thing to do would be to initiate a discussion about it on Talk:Brutality (band) since your edits were reverted. Just start a new thread, explain why the name should be changed and provide links to the sources which so that this person now goes under a different name. Please note that Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons extends to all living persons mentioned in any article, so other editors are going to be naturally cautious regarding such edits. In addition, please note that the band itself does not own the article written about it, and has no final editorial control over its content. So, the sources you're providing are going to have to be considered reliable enough to support such a change being made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks,

Thank you for your help. I still don't fully understand the process, but that's partly due to my own lack of technical skills. I'm going to ask my daughter who is more computer literate than I am to help me do this. Hopefully I'll get it right. It may take a couple of days for her to get around to helping me, but it's been taking Raine several years to get these things done anyway. Are the sources that I'm listing here sufficient? If not, can you suggest what kind of sources would be better? (Also maybe my daughter can help me figure that out too) Sunnybunny5us (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Change Main Bio Photo

I am wondering how I can upload and change the main bio photo that shows just above the background info.

Thom E Gemcity (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thom. If this is about Paul Oakenfold, then it's important to understand that the image used in the article may not necessarily be the best image from an aesthetic or contextual standpoint, but it is a free image (one bearing a Creative Commons copyright license that is suitably unrestricted to meet our copyright licenses). It can only be replaced with another free image, if that exchange is warranted. We cannot use an image of him that is non-free at all. That may make your question moot. If not (the image you had in mind was also free), then please give some specifics and we can delve further. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the photo would fall under fair use as it's being used in historical context, although it's possible I do not quite understand what can constitute free and non free. Let's chat please, guidance appreciated.

Thom E Gemcity (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Thom. With some exceedingly rare exceptions that would not apply here, photographs of living persons cannot be claimed as fair use at all. That is because of the doctrine's requirement of there being no reasonable opportunity for a free equivalent to be created by someone snapping a photo tomorrow and anon. That is not the case after someone dies; once someone is deceased, no photo can ever be taken and so at that point, if there are no free images in existence, a non-free photo may be able to be validly claimed as fair use.

Here, this is somewhat besides the point, because not only is a non-free photograph disqualified from fair use because the subject is living, but since there is a free photo in existence – the one already in the article – a non-free photograph would directly fail the free equivalency test. So, no valid claim of fair use could be made. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't edit

How come I'm not able to edit some Wikipedia pages? It always says how the page is locked, which I understand is to prevent vandalism, but what if I know details on the person or page and I can't edit it? For example: Frank Iero. I know many details about him and they're some wrong details in his Wikipedia page. Please help, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmaohatemyself (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The page is locked due to persistent vandalism, as you noted. If you do have information you feel is notable, and you have sources to validate it, you can make a request on the talk page to have the information added. You'll need to use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template to add what you would like to have placed on the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lmaohatemyself. If you do make a talk page request as RickinBaltimore instructs, please be sure to tell us what specific reliable sources verify the changes you are seeking (and/or show certain items of information should be removed because they are incorrect). Wikipedia runs on verification of information through reliable sources–and chiefly on such reliable sources that are secondary in nature and entirely independent of the topic. A model request would incorporate citations to such sources, though we don't expect or require that, especially from new users. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Merging draft with existing article

OK, I'm not exactly new here, but I'm asking because I've never done this before. A new editor created Draft:Lucy Davis (Equestrian). Today, somebody else created Lucy Davis (equestrian). The draft has more detail about her early career and relevant information, like how she lives in Europe but is on the US Olympic team, and I was wondering if it's possible to just merge the two? I have no clue how to perform a merge. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi White Arabian Filly I've requested for a history merge- this requires an admin to do it, and will merge the histories of both pages together. Joseph2302 20:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have never attempted a merge and was afraid if I tried to just merge the articles themselves it would create a mess. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly, Joseph2302:. History merges and merges are two different things. History merges are for pages that don't have separate origins (as these two pages do). Think: cut and paste moves, with edits occurring after the "move", or one person copying an existing page and then making changes. In such cases we splice the histories together because they are contiguous. We don't do history merges (generally) when articles on the same topic have independent origins. A merge, on the other hand, maintains separate histories, but folds edits from one page into another, with copyright attribution provided (typically via an edit summary upon the merge), and the source page is then redirected** to the page where the merge was done. What's very messy with a merge from a draft is that the merge source (the redirected page, with its history) must be maintained to comply with copyright since its history provides the copyright attribution for the merged content. It's awkward for drafts to sit permanently as attribution sources and processes down the road are always looking to clean up such pages by deletion as eventually stale. I think it would be best here is to ask the draft creator to make whatever changes they want directly to the mainspace article, and let the draft die on the vine. Nevertheless, if you think there is good, verified content to merge here, and you did not want to do so yourself, following instructions at Wikipedia:Merging, that would be proposed by using, e.g. {{Merge}} or {{mergeto}} {{mergefrom}} and creating a talk page discussion, and not {{histmerge}}, which I have removed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

**Unless you can attribute the source to the author(s) and link their name(s) in the edit summary rather than the page, thus providing suitable copyright credit under our licenses—but that mostly only works when the merged content only has one author, which is not the case here.

How can I find out what a reliable source is?

Hello! I've been writing a draft for the following entry draft: Thomas Youngblood. Today it got declined because of not enough reliable sources. My page is about a musician in the Heavy Metal Genre. Is there a way to find out which sources are reliable enough? Or shall I just use sources that got their own wiki pages? Also it was said that interviews, press releases, social media (including YouTube videos) are not allowed as reliable sources. I had been under the impression that interviews directly with the source would be reliable, since it came directly from the person the article is about? I checked lots of pages from important musicians (Nikki Sixx, Alice Cooper for example) and found interviews as sources, even youtube clips. I must admit it's quite difficult to decide what's allowed and what not. Any help would highly be appreciated. Xandra73 (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS is the relevant guideline for sourcing on Wikipedia. Youtube videos are allowed as sources in some circumstances, but if you want an article created you usually have to satisfy criteria at WP:GNG, which means you need to find secondary sources that are independent or unconnected with the subject of the article, something like articles in news sources usually work just fine. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! It's clear about youtube now and I will not use it. I'm still not sure about the interviews. Lots of information about the artist are printed as interviews on the web on news pages. So are they technicallly news that I can use? I must admit I can't see the difference between a journalist writing an article or doing an interview with the subject. Aren't both reliable in the same way? Xandra73 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam Link Removal

I'd like to remove what I consider to be a newly-added spam link on mobile marketing (^16: https://googlewebmaster.ro/location-based-marketing-can-make-money/) but before I do, I just want to make sure that's not a defensive-reflex over a page I've worked on. Could someone else weigh in? Thanks in advance. BologniousMonk (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the ref as promotional spam. It seems the IP has popped in at least two other times to add promotional links to Romanian companies. When in doubt, be WP:BOLD, and if someone reverts you can always discuss on the talk. TimothyJosephWood 18:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi BologniousMonk. Our external links policy is at Wikipedia:External links, and the section of that page at the shortcut WP:ELNO list criteria for "Links normally to be avoided". If you check the offending link against that list you'll see that it meets multiple bases there for disqualification. That is to say, having read that, you could remove that link with confidence, possibly linking in your edit summary to [[WP:ELNO]] as part of your reason for removal. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been knocked down a few pegs in the process of going boldly so I appreciation the validation. BologniousMonk (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

IP block exemption

How do you get IP block exemption? Just wondering because I would like to have it. --ThunderFan109 ^{(Thunder Up!)} 17:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@ThunderFan109: Wikipedia:IP block exemption states (emphasis mine) "Editors in good standing whose editing is disrupted by unrelated blocks or firewalls may request IP address block exemption [...] The right is given exceptionally and only for good reasons, and may be removed if concerns arise or when it is no longer needed." IP block exemption is not really something you should "like to have"—it is a last resort if you can't edit without it. Only 108 users currently have IPBE from specifically requesting it, and with so few edits I would imagine it is quite unlikely you will be granted it even if you have a valid reason for wanting it, I'm afraid. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Spunds good I won't request rollback or auto payroll until I hit the 500 edit count. --ThunderFan109 ^{(Thunder Up!)} 21:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

photos needed for review?

Being new to the Wiki world, can someone please tell me...do I need to wait for the photos to be posted to my article before submitting it for review? I sent the photos permission verification to the Wiki OTRS a few weeks ago, and don't know if I need to wait before submitting? thanks Spacestar7 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It is very seldom that important to have photos, and so it is seldom worth delaying submitting a draft for review because you are waiting for photo review. In looking at your draft of Draft: Scott Nute, I would suggest that you should focus on documenting the fact that makes him ipso facto notable, which is that he played Major League Baseball. That is more important than his off-diamond or post-diamond career. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with Robert McClenon's suggeston is that Nute had only a brief career in minor league baseball. He never played big league ball. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the wording of the draft is confusing, because I read it as saying that he had played Major League Baseball. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I see the issue. It says: 'As a left-handed pitcher for the Detroit Tigers minor league organization, Nute recorded one win against the Boston Red Sox, and one save against the Chicago Cubs, and he had an earned run average (ERA) of 2.17, and he led the New York-Penn League with eight Pickoffs.' He didn't pitch against the Red Sox or the Cubs, only against their farm teams. The implication that he pitched against MLB teams is confusing. However, as to the original question, it is not important to include photos in drafts before submitting them for approval. A photo is a nice-to-have, not necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hi, my name is Sturgeontransformer; please allow me to introduce myself. Currently, I have contributed three articles, the most recent being Environmental racism in Europe. I have also uploaded a handful of photos to Commons. At this point, I would say I have largely become familiarized with most of the basic finer points of image copyright standards here at Wikipedia. This said, I do have a question.

Two weeks ago, I uploaded an image using a fair use rationale. I provided a detailed explanation in the template. Now, it is my understanding that at a certain point, editors will peer-review the image and confirm whether or not the image has rationale by adding a special tag. I have noticed that other images I have uploaded to Commons--all under appropriate Wiki-friendly Creative Commons licenses--received confirmation of validity fairly quickly. Seeing that two weeks have passed, I am starting to wonder if the Fair Use photo I uploaded is scheduled for review, or if maybe I should let someone know that it appears to be sitting unreviewed. It's been on my mind, having an image posted without confirmation of valid rationale. In any case, here is the image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Essential_Oils_Distillery_Explosion,_Mitcham_March_30,_1933.jpg

Thank you kindly, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images are not routinely reviewed. 18:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The above reply above was added by Ruslik0, whose signature is incomplete. I have moved this question to the top of the page, where it should have been posted, because it might attract more responses there. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It is helpful to know this. I am also very happy to see that today, someone came along and marked the image with a tag determining that the image has rationale Thank you Ukexpat for doing this, and to Finnusertop for having the image re-sized so that it meets Wikipedia code. Much appreciated! And thanks to everyone at the Teahouse. You're all awesome Regards,Sturgeontransformer (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC) (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

How to be more encyclopedic for my draft article

I drafted an article for submission on an old Chapel in our neighborhood, after seeing others from historic neighborhoods on Wikipedia. I tried to keep the article as based on historical fact but I did include a line stating the Chapel is still used occasionally, which could sound like a sell. I plan to remove that line but am wondering what else i can do to make this article more encyclopedic. The draft can be found here.

Thanks for any help/input.

David Davidelig7 (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, David. Nice to have an eager new contributor. It seems this is your first effort, and unfortunately our guidelines don't much discourage starting by adding a new article. Easier if you had started by adding a paragraph to an existing article, for example one about the local town. Usually a first try comes out much worse than this one, however, and there is reason to hope for success even with this more difficult approach. I have made some minor improvements in format and tone, and further discussion ought to be in the talk page of the draft. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Uploading an image for use in a page under construction

Hi there- I have hit what appears to be a catch-22. I have a page under construction and I need to upload an image for the page. Using the Upload Wizard, there is the required field: "This file will be used in the following article:" but when I enter the name of the article, I am confronted with "This article doesn't exist!"

So what is the mechanism for uploading an image for use in a page under construction. Not that it matters - I think - the page is "Vasily Konovalenko".

Thanks!! Gene McCullough Gene McCullough (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gene McCullough: If you need a page name, then in this instance you can use "User:Gene_McCullough/Vasily_Konovalenko." -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gene McCullough and MorbidEntree: This is not the case. If you are asked to supply a name of an article, it's because you are uploading a non-free image. Non-free images can be only used ("fair use") in the articles for which rationales are written for (the Upload Wizard prompts you for information for one). Furthermore, non-free images may only be used in articles, not article drafts, sandboxes, etc. If that's the case, you will have to postpone the upload until your article has been moved to article space. If on the other hand you are uploading a free image, do so at Wikimedia Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate suggestion , but apparently I can't upload the image until the article has been moved into mainspace. Seems an odd way to do things. I have tagged the image "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and this is leading to the rejection message:

This is not an actual encyclopedia article! The page User:Gene McCullough/Vasily Konovalenko is not in the main article namespace. Non-free files can only be used in mainspace article pages, not on a user page, talk page, template, etc. Please upload this file only if it is going to be used in an actual article. If this page is an article draft in your user space, we're sorry, but we must ask you to wait until the page is ready and has been moved into mainspace, and only upload the file after that. Unless you or someone else can suggest a way around this, I guess I'll just have to insert the image after posting the article. Gene McCullough (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Gene McCullough (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gene McCullough. If you are talking about uploading a non-free image in compliance with our policy on use of non-free images, then please be aware that such images can be used only in an encyclopedia article, and not in a draft article or an article being developed in a sandbox page. There is no exception to this rule, and if you want to add such an image, then you must wait until the article is live in the encyclopedia before trying to upload it. On the other hand, images free of copyright or properly licensed under an acceptable free license can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and used anywhere for any purpose without permission. Attribution is the only requirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. That's what I've come to understand so I'll just insert a placeholder. Thanks…

Gene McCullough (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gene McCullough. Why did you redirect your user page to St. Martin's Chamber Choir and user talk page to Talk:St. Martin's Chamber Choir? I do not think that is something you should have done per Wikipedia's user page guidelines. Userpages/User talk pages and articles/article talk pages are designed to serve completely different role on Wikipedia. A userpage is where editors will go to find out about who you are and a user talk page talk page is where other editors will post messages directed to you as an a editor. Articles are where editors look to find about specific information about a particular subject and article talk pages are where editors post comments regarding how to improve the article in question. For example, posting Template:Teahouse talkback on your user talk page would be perfectly acceptable, but it would make no sense to post such a template on the talk page for "St. Martin's Chamber Choir". -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That was not done through the direct creation of a redirect but because a redirect is left behind automatically by a move. And it appears to have happened back in 2011. That's not how things are supposed to work, but clearly there are few obvious consequences.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}

Thanks for the explanation jmcgnh and thanks to David Biddulph for the fix. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That's right, Gene McCullough. Images are a "nice to have" in an article, which should be attended to after the important stuff (especially referencing). But in the case of non-free images, they may not be used or uploaded until the article is in main space. --ColinFine (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

article review

Can someone please review my article and tell me if the subject meets the Wiki criteria for notability and references? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scott_Nute thanks Spacestar7 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Spacestar7: This isn't the best place to ask this. It would be better to click the button at the top of your draft that says "Submit your draft for review!" That will send it to Wikipedia users who are better versed in reviewing drafts. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Verbatum quotes from a German statute

Hello teahouse. What are the wikipedia rules governing the use of verbatum quotations from a German statute? Can you simply cut and paste from the sections you wish to use and then attribute it? Or do you need to set the text in quotation marks as well? I suppose it comes down to the copyright status of such statutes? Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robbie. It's not a copyright issue but a fidelity of attribution and plagiarism issue. (German statutes are in the public domain, per (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG [translation].) If you are quoting verbatim, you indicate that with quote marks, and provide an inline citation. However, you don't need quotation marks if you set out the text as a block quotation (do so if you quote "more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or [it consists of] more than one paragraph, regardless of length"; see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Many thanks for your quick and informative reply. I see from the translated Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection page that there is a "prohibition of changing" the content. I need to work up the material I am using with some care then. Many thanks. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What all tasks can i take in the beginning

Hi Everyone,

I am Sonia, I just wanted to know how can I start working on Wikipedia. I mean as a beginner what all I can do?

45.121.101.254 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sonia and welcome to the Teahouse! I have left you a welcome message on your talkpage with several links that you should read about getting started as an editor. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You will have several privileges available by creating an account that you do not currently have. Please considered registering an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

An example of something that you can do after creating an account is this:

You can edit semi-protected articles once the account is four days old and has edited at least 10 times. Users who edit without an account can't edit those kinds of articles for various reasons. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Template?

I want to know if there is any template available to edit the pages. Like for adding a new section and citing web pages and scientific review/research articles? Thanks EN14.139.95.68 (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to know if there is any template available to edit the pages. Like for adding a new section and citing web pages and scientific review/research articles? Thanks ENEduca.Neurosci (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Educa.Neurosci: If I understand you correctly you are asking for three different templates? One for adding a new section, one for citing web pages, one for citing scientific articles? If so, then there isn't really a template for creating a new section (as far as I know), but there is the {{cite web}} template for citing sources found on the web. However, for scientific sources, you should take a look at WP:SCG as it has a host of guidelines for citing scientific sources. I hope I was able to answer your question. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 19:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Educa.Neurosci. I'm guessing you mean "template" in the usual sense of some sample text to copy (we use Template to mean something a bit different in Wikipedia-land). As far as I knowm, there are not such templates; but there is is information about how to lay out articles. The Manual of Style has a lot of information about it, and I think some Wikiprojects do as well, so if an article you want to work on is within the are of interest of a particular WikiProject they may have some recommendataions.

In general, what I would suggest is to find a Featured article or Good article on a similar topic, and copy the organsation of that article.

There are some templates (in Wikipedia's sense) and other tools for managing citations: please see Referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My page keeps getting deleted by the same admin after another admin said the page was good.

My page keeps getting deleted by the same admin over and over even after another admin had approved the page. My page is setup just like 3 other organizations that have pages on here and they same admin keeps sending it up for speedy deletion. What do I do because I am starting to get pissed.(Mbrown79 (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mbrown79 and welcome to the Teahouse. For an organization to have an article in Wikipedia it already needs to be well known. That means it first has to have been written about outside of Wikipedia by people independent of the organization. Delta Omicron Alpha Sorority, Inc. is very new, founded May 15th, 2016!. There hasn't been time for it to become well known; it is much too soon for an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got to be *&%$*%^ kidding me. Well thank you. At least you have been helpful. Mbrown79 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You can request that the article be moved to your user space via a Request for Undeletion. However, the article will not be undeleted if the reasons for deletion included copyright violation. One of the deleted copies was marked as violating the copyright of the sorority on its web site. Many new editors don't understand that Wikipedia enforces copyright very strictly (even if other web sites do not). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Another point that newcomers to editing Wikipedia often don't understand, Mbrown79, is that no organisation in the world has an article in Wikipedia: Wikipedia has articles about organisations. The difference is important, because such an article does not belong to the organisation: the organisation and people connected with it have no control over the article, and are discouraged from editing it. The article is required to be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the organisation have published about it: what the organisation says or wants to say about itself is of almost no interest to Wikipedia. If follows that until several people unconnected with the organisation have thought it worth publishing substantial material about it, Wikipedia cannot have an article about it. Soirry. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Quick edit for personal use

I need to view multiple wikipedia pages without the citation needed and the [1], [2], etc. reference links. I want to cut, copy, paste the parts that are useful to me and would like to remove the clutter. Is there any easy way for me to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo Nott (talk • contribs) 13:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Halo Nott: Hello, in order to remove the references (and other things that might get in the way of printing), you can use the Print Page link that is found in the sidebar under the Print/export section. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 19:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Kindly guide,if any article has been deleted with a title several times,due speedy deletion,how can it be requested for a restoration,without recreating it, if it needs to be improved Junosoon (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Try requesting that the article be moved to your user space via Requests for Undeletion, and then submit it for review via Articles for Creation. However, you say that the article was deleted "several times". What was its title, and who created it? This is your only non-deleted it, and you don't have any messages requesting speedy deletion. Did you create it using a different account name (which is deprecated)? Was it created by someone else? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

How come Wikipedia administrators focus more on keeping articles they know about personally and delete others, instead of being willing to learn more about verifiable articles about other notable people and brands? And why are there no serious penalties for Wikipedia's administrators acting recklessly and deleting articles for faux unreliability, even when it only has trustworthy sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin2424 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Devin2424. If you have a dispute with any other editor (whether or not they are an administrator) your first step is to engage in discussion with that person. If you cannot reach a resolution, then report it at a noticeboard such as WP:ANI. Nobody can answer your questions unless you point us to the specific instances, and show that they support your aggressive claims. While it does occasionally happen that an administrator behaves badly, in general they are hard-working and conscientious people who freely give their time and effort to make Wikipedia operate. (I am not, and have never been an administrator, by the way). --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I link to reference links on 'gated' sites like The Times?

I'm assuming not but, if my best references are 'protected' like this, is there a solution? Many thanks?NewtonsPetBat (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you can use them. see WP:PAYWALL for more information. -- GB fan 13:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanksNewtonsPetBat

How to assume consensus

we've been discussing on the talk page for weeks. the opponents have refused to continue talking. and this policy says "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." so what should we do? --HamedH94 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

One possibility would be to edit boldly and see if you are reverted. A better option would be to use a Request for Comments. Do you have a specific example? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

actually it's about the case that you opened at drn and then made an rfc. the first/last name stuff. since polls aren't binding, and I still find the opponents' arguments illogical, I'm confused what to do now that they don't respond while some of them revert my edits. is it considered disruptive editing so that I can complain at ani? --HamedH94 (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You are in the minority. Consensus is against you, which is why your only remaining option is the RFC. Your only real option is to wait for the RFC to run its course for 30 days. It isn't clear to me why you even ask whether you can report them at WP:ANI for disruptive editing. They are trying to maintain a consensus, and you are editing against what is at this time a consensus. If simply continuing to try to discuss further would stop the editing, then that would encourage editors in your position (that is, in a minority) to filibuster. By the way, the statement that polls are not binding is not really correct. If an RFC reaches consensus, that consensus is binding, and that is the one way that binding consensus is established. So just wait for the RFC to run its course. You do have the right to report them at WP:ANI, as anyone has that right, but please read the boomerang essay before reporting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, User:HamedH94, you don't always get your way in a content dispute. I haven't read the arguments because I don't intend to be the closer. However, you seem to be looking for every possible way to get your way, even if it involves wikilawyering and pushing. Wikipedia isn't always about winning. Consensus appears to be against you. Accept that graciously rather than pushing and pushing and pushing. Otherwise, when the RFC is closed with consensus against you, you are likely to set yourself up for block. Can some other experienced editors point to guidelines that this editor should read? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

if the closer announces first name usage, I'll accept it. but is it possible that I be blocked just because I started an rfc that didn't approve my position, while I haven't committed warring or disruptive editing? --HamedH94 (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

First, you won't be blocked for starting an RFC that doesn't approve your position. Second, you didn't start the RFC; I did. Third, you did say that you were continuing to edit-war to push your position through and that you keep being reverted. You can be blocked for edit-warring. You can be blocked for ignoring a close or a consensus because you don't like it. For now, just leave the RFC alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple dots in ref link

I have added ref 9 to the candle article. The link breaks off atbthe multiple dot section

https://www.pewterbank.com/Joseph_Morgan_Pewterer_..A_Light_in_Victorian_ England....40.pdf

How do i fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringlet (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved this question to top here. — JoeHebda • (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Stringlet, and welcome to the Teahouse! The only problem was that there was a space in the web address that shouldn't have been there. I've gone ahead and fixed it. (You can see what I did here.) All should be well now. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the reference from the article, Stringlet, as I see no evidence that [1] meets our standards as a reliable source. It looks like a hobbyist or enthusiast site run by one person to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble formatting my signature.

I want to be able to format my signature to have colors and be italic and link back to my user page, and I'm having trouble. Sage (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sage, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want it to look like in [2] then you can add the required link with '''''[[User:TheSageOfNE|<span style="color:Green">Sage</span>]]''''' to produce Sage. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I tried it before and apparently you need to order things correctly or it turns out weird. Sage (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note, you can create a subpage in your userspace and transclude it into the signature box in your preferences if you want to be able to use the editor to create your signature (like I did here). -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 19:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: Sage created the account yesterday and may not know what subpage, userspace and transclude means. None of it is required knowledge at this point and can be ignored for now. Transclusion of signatures is forbidden by WP:SIG#NoTemplates. What you actually do is substitution but it's discouraged and you still break WP:SIG#NoTemplates by using {{nbsp}} and {{tlx}} in the substituted signature. At Special:ExpandTemplates you can see what code the signature produces but it's more than 255 characters so you are not allowed to use all of it by WP:SIGLEN. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Sorry about that, I should have checked his user page before writing (along with my vocabulary). And regarding my signature, it should now conform since it substitutes and the final length is now 189 instead of 277 and it uses no templates. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 00:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

My page was being deleted due to G11, A7 regulations, Can wiki mates assist on this?

The page on "Global Halal Data Pool" was being deleted, can you review again or give some guidance on how to write the right wiki page? Thanks.. Martinkhu (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Martinkhu, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, be sure to check what those deletion reasons mean: G11 means that the article was written like an advertisement. This has got to do with what kind of facts you present about the topic, and how you present them. A7 means that the article did not have enough context to determine why that topic is important in its field. Both of these together must mean that you have probably written the topic by using adverts or other source material that is not reliable, and have tried to replicate their tone which is not neutral. You have probably also assumed that the reader knows what the topic is about, even when they've come to read the article to find out. You should give the reader enough context. You should read this help page to learn how to write proper articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Kayla Day

I found many reliable sources for this player. Does it actually fails WP:NTENNIS?

When should tennis bios be created.? Rainbow Archer (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

AFD templates on articles say that the article should not be blanked while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For athletes, there are two types of notability, sports notability and general notability. Sports notability is a form of what I call ipso facto notability. There are particular achievements in particular fields including sports that, in themselves, qualify as notable, such as being on an Olympic team. For sports notability or other ipso facto notability, the reliable sources are needed only to verify the achievement. General notability is based on in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. It appears that Kayla Day does not qualify for tennis notability, such as in Grand Slam play. As a result, she is only notable if she qualifies for general notability guidelines. The real question appears to be whether she has been covered in sufficient depth for general notability. Those are my comments at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Blanking the article while a deletion discussion is in progress has the appearance of a tantrum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want the article moved to user space, please put a request in the deletion discussion requesting userfication in place of deletion rather than interfering with the AFD by changing what space the page in question is in. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Help implementing edits

Hello, I have suggested some changes to Centre Point's page. I have been transparent that I am associated with the company that own the property. I have made suggestions but I haven't received any comments nor are there are any recent users for the page. What are the next steps? I don't want to make any edits as I am associated with the company but would very much like the factual inaccuracies amended. Many thanks Property2016 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Property2016 - Firstly, thank you for not editing a page where you have a conflict of interest
Looking at the page information for Talk:Centre Point here that page has "Fewer than 30 watchers" which could mean that no-one (possibly other than you) is watching that page.
You did not include a {{request edit}} template with your request, so it will not have appeared on the list of requested edits - a centralised list for such edits - although even then it can take some time.
Normally, I would try to deal with this, but am due out shortly, so please add {{request edit}} to your request, in case no other editor picks up this thread - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and both put your post under a section header and added the {{request edit}} template. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Gestrid and User:Ariayay , thank you very much for your help Property2016 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement template

I would like to add the ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement template to one section within an article, not the entire article. However, the template refers to the entire article. How can I direct it to only one section?

{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}

Thank you. KamelTebaast 16:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the above post so it only links to the template instead of displaying the template and adding the Teahouse to the ARBPIA category. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kamel Tebaast, and welcome back to the Teahouse. The template you mentioned is actually meant to be used on talk pages of articles, not the articles themselves. As for mentioning a specific section, I don't believe that's possible, as there is no |section= parameter, according to the template documentation. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast: I can confirm what Gestrid said, the template is not for use in articles, only on article talk pages. Its placement is better left to those who know the ArbCom case. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, yes, I meant section within a Talk page (not article as written above). However, if I place this template, it outlines that the entire article falls under the 30/500, which is not my goal. What is my solution? Thank you. KamelTebaast 21:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast: Edit in another area with less conflict? What is it you want to accomplish and in which article? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the section: [[3]] The article should not be ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, but that section has become. I'd like to highlight that on the Talk page. Thank you. KamelTebaast 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

General sanctions are used in high conflict areas. Hank Johnson and the little section regarding what he said about Israel and how other parties reacted is just a matter of discussion and collaborative editing. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast and Sam Sailor: More to the point, only administrators can use that template as it implements editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.... maybe not. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions says it's an admin task, but the arbcom decision has, "Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Interesting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How to upload a picture and add necessary copyright information

I am new to writing articles for Wikipedia and I am currently working on developing an article for something that I thought needed to have an article on here. I have run into a problem in terms of adding a picture into an infobox. I read the articles on here about this topic, but it still makes no sense. So, how exactly do you upload a picture? Also, when doing so, how would you provide the necessary copyright information for said picture?

Metternich1815 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Metternich1815, and welcome to the Teahouse! To upload a photo, just go here, read the instructions, and upload the picture. The upload wizard will ask for which copyright you want to use. However, if the name of the article currently starts with "Draft:" or the article is in your sandbox right now, you shouldn't put copyrighted photos in it until it actually becomes an article. Also, if the image is copyrighted, make sure you have permission to upload it or, better yet, ask the copyright holder to upload it. (The latter option makes the process on Wikipedia much easier for you.) Make sure the copyright holder is ok with uploading it under one of the licenses available here. I hope this answers your question. If you have any more or you want some clarification, be sure to reply here for help. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Metternich1815. It very much depends on the picture, its licensing, and depending on that, on what page it is intended to be used. There are essentially two paths: 1) The image is in the public domain or retains copyright but bears a free copyright license that is suitably unrestricted for use at Wikimedia Foundation projects; or 2) the image is non-free copyrighted and so could only be used here under a claim of fair use, if it meets our stringent standards for that exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law.

The link Gestrid provided above is to an upload wizard at the Wikimedia Commons, which only allows upload of public domain and suitably free images. No non-free images intended to be used under fair use may be uploaded there, and must be uploaded, if at all, to this wiki – the local upload wizard is here.

If, as I suspect, you are seeking to upload a video game cover, then that might meet fair use once the draft you are working on is ready for the article mainspace (do not use or even upload it until the article has been accepted in the mainspace). Once you are ready, you might consider using the template {{Non-free use rationale video game cover}} to provide your rationale. Note that the image must be reduced to a relatively small size to meet fair use. If you provide the detail on what you are seeking to upload and where, we can tailor our advice to those specifics. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid, it is essential to make a clear distinction between the type of images that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and the strictly limited non-free images that can be uploaded here on Wikipedia. The first group of images are free of copyright, or have been freely licensed by the copyright holder for use by anyone for any purpose. Only the copyright holder can execute that license, and it must be in writing in a legally acceptable form. Asking them if it is "OK" as you said is simply not adequate.

The second group of images which are uploaded here to Wikipedia, are described in our policy on use of non-free images, and are irreplaceable images, and include book and album covers, movie posters, portraits of people who are dead, images of artwork or historic photos in the context of critical commentary, company logos and so on. We use them quite restrictively under the legal doctrine of Fair use and in compliance with our policies, only in one article per each formal written rationale, and in low resolution form to protect the copyright holder. If the rationale for their use is correct, then there is no need to obtain permission from the copyright holder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, Cullen328. I should've been clearer: When I said they should get permission from the copyright holder, I thought it was implied they should get legal documentation, as copyright permission even outside of Wikipedia usually requires it. As for the rest, it's clear to me now that I need a little more experience in the "File:" namespace, as well as Commons, to be able to answer a question like this. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow

Whoa, i wonder. Someone a bot invited me to Teahouse, and i wonder that its the place to meet other editors like me. And i also wonder that how wikipedia's other users are soo much active, as they suddenly reverted my edits.FxdhMxdh (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, FxdhMxdh! If you want to meet other editors – some new and some more experienced – you've come to the right place. You were probably reverted so quickly because some editors had those pages on their Watchlist. Having pages on your Watchlist lets you easily an instantaneously see if a page has been edited. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Referencing problem

I am not able to use this with proper ways in this page Kayla Day

https://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=100203304

The page is nominated for speedy deletion. I tried to add it properly instead of bare URL, but always it showed error. Rainbow Archer (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Refil could not generate a cite, but Yadkard could, except for the title. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The article's speedy deletion was declined, so the article is now being considered for deletion. You have a few days to revise the article. Note that the main reason it's being considered seems to be this, so I suggest you revise the article with that in mind. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:Upload - post nonprofit logo and pics?

I want to add a logo and three pics to Wings of Hope (charity). In doing this, I want to protect these images from use from others. c:COM:OTRS allows broad access for anyone, so is there a way to use special:upload to upload some of them only to the English Wikipedia as fair-use?WoH62 (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The logo should be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, under a claim of fair-use - see Wikipedia:Logos for the reasons, rationale and how-to. The other photos would almost certainly not qualify for "fair-use", so your choice is either to freely licence them, or leave them out. We do not have "only for use on wikipedia" licences. - Arjayay (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WoH62 I see you have already had 6 files, three logos ??, and three photos, deleted from Commons. The article only needs one logo, and as stated above, this needs to be on en.wikipedia, not commons.
I note there are several "Wings of Hope" pages, Wings of Hope about a Werner Herzog documentary, Wings of Hope Children's Charity and Wings of Hope (charity). Although a hatnote on the documentary points to the (charity) page, there are no other interlinks. I think there should be a disambiguation page, be that Wings of Hope (disambiguation), or by moving the documentary to Wings of Hope (documentary) and using the straight title as the disambiguation page. I am not clear if the documentary is the prime subject, - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Strike my suggestion as I have created Wings of Hope (disambiguation) - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arjayay Thanks for all of your help, and thanks for creating the disambiguation page.WoH62 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi WoH62. Notwithstanding Arjayay's comments above, I think there are other issues with the article that you would best focus on before worrying about images. The tone of the article is a bit promotional sounding with a few sentences such as "We work in Africa, the Americas and Asia, partnering with communities to improve their:" not really written according to WP:NPOV, and the "History" section you added here is completely unsourced, so it may be removed per WP:V. FWIW, much of the information in the article is not supported by citations to reliable sources, so any such content too may be challenged and removed by another editor. So, instead of trying to add images, it might be best to focus on finding better independent, secondary sources which allow verification of the article's content and show how the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. As it is, the Wikipedia notability of the subject is not clear, so the article seems like a candidate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Finally, it appears from your choice of username that you are somehow connected to this particular organization in some way. Although Wikipedia does not expressly prohibited conflict of interest editing, it is something highly discouraged. If you have a COi, then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to familiarize yourself with what is expected from COI editors. Please understand that even the appearance of a COI can potentially lead to problems. So, if you are completely unconnected to "Wings of Hope" and just are interested in improving the page, then you might want to consider changing your username to avoid any misunderstandings with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How to create pre-filled "new section" edit form

For once I'm asking a question instead of answering it. Anyway, I'm currently working on improving the look of my talk page, and I'm wondering: How do I create a pre-filled edit form (such as those generated when using the AFC wizard or on other user talk pages)? -- Gestrid (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Uhm, what would you want to preload on your own talk page? Why not just use a plain link with &action=edit&section=new added? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: At the moment, I'm trying to think of ways to reduce the clutter on the talk page, and having each conversation (not including the section header) inside the {{cot}}/ {{cob}} templates would be one way to do that. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you should do that per default; I'm just going on my gut feeling here, I have never seen pre-emptively collapsing of discussions (or "hatting" as it is also called, cf. {{Hat}}) done this way, it's normally something we do exactly as a bit like you have done it here, with big chunks of text that are e.g. OT or just tl;dr, see WP:TPO. Your talk page looks nice and tidy. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Addendum: The cot/cob on your talk page could maybe have been for only the long list of references. Leaving just the editors greeting and signature visible might be misunderstood. They were very friendly. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: I also think the suggested use sounds problematic. For the technical part, you cannot do it for the new section tab but you can display a link like New section elsewhere on the page. This will preload User:Gestrid/Preload and display User:Gestrid/Editintro above the edit box. You can change the page names at preload= and editintro=. You can omit one of them if you don't want both. Depending on their content, some users may find them annoying. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. After your input, I probably won't do that. Perhaps I'll just request via Edtnotice that long lists like those references be placed inside it. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Complex reference: Did I do this right?

One of the examples listed in Scunthorpe problem § Refused web domain names and email addresses revolves around the string CUM, which was the initials of a community in Montreal (Communauté urbaine de Montréal, in French). The English slang meaning of that string was defined, but with no citation. The best source I found online was of uncertain reliability, yourdictionary.com, but it credited its definitions to the reliable Webster's New World College Dictionary (1910), with permission "Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc." The definitions were listed under "come"; "cum" was listed simply as "variant of come".

I used {{cite book}}, putting yourdictionary.com in the url and via parameters, and the definitions and permission in "quote". I put the cross-reference from "come" at the end, inside the ref but outside the cite book. The result:

come. Cleveland, Ohio: Wiley Publishing, Inc. 1910. Retrieved 31 July 2016 – via YourDictionary.com. INFORMAL to have a sexual orgasm: somewhat vulgar. ... SLANG: semen: somewhat vulgar ... Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Cross-referenced from cum: "Slang come (): somewhat vulgar"

Is this a good way to cite such a reference? --Thnidu (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu. Another possible source is Green's Dictionary of Slang, which is a more contemporary source published by Oxford University Press. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, that looks like a good source to bookmark. I'll try to remember to switch to it next month in the morning.

Still, such complex cites are apt to come up occasionally when obsolescence is not an issue. So is this a satisfactory treatment?

ETA: Make that, a good source if you can get it. Full access seems to be paywalled. And at least the first page of that link, with items 1–10 out of 130, has ONLY examples, no definition.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu, If you click on each of the first two listings for the verb form and the noun form, you will get definitions which are not behind a paywall. There is no restriction on sources behind paywalls, partially in this case. I prefer a more contemporary academic source for slang usage, and doubt that the unambiguous slang spelling "cum" was in use in 1910. Of course, I could be wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Cullen328. Yes, a modern source will be much better. And I'll take the next steps from my laptop instead of my phone, so I can see those pages better.

Since the 1910 Webster's New World College Dictionary cross-refers "cum" to "come", with the usage tag "somewhat vulgar" (see above, in the ref as I pasted it), I think we can be confident that the unambiguous slang spelling "cum" was indeed in use in 1910. But since I intend to switch to Green's, that's neither here nor there. --Thnidu (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I need to find some editors to help with an article on a forensic psychologist

I need to find some helpful editors that have written or contributed to articles about psychologists in the academia world and where to put or which boring papers presented, written, dissertations chaired and those who have cited his work and keep the article from not being deleted but also keep it from being boring. I am using Google Scholar and WorldCat. Right now the article has a big red bordered tag of: It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: "there's still nothing actually suggestive of his own convincing notability..."

I have added a lot of notes on the talk portion from Google Scholar and now need help on which ones to add to article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_S._Lipson

Thanks,

Joey JoeyD2010 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi JoeyD2010 and welcome to the Teahouse. A person is notable in the Wikipedia sense if the are already well known enough that other people have written about them in depth in reliable sources. Strangely enough what a person has written does not show that. How others have responded to the person's work is what is important. Before you put Lipson's work into the article you need to find material that is written about him. So far he just looks like an ordinary person doing his job, supervising students and writing articles, and and giving expert testimony. Has he had an impact on his field? Or has he done enough in famous cases that someone has written an article about him? StarryGrandma (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Only real thing I can find in text books and other books are people thanking him for all the work he has done that allows them to build on it and expand the field more.....

He gives a lot of interviews etc. in the San Diego area. I got interested in him because of his Dateline interview almost a year ago and then started researching all of his accomplishments and how journalists, etc. seek him out for his opinion.

I am guess that people "peers and successors" that build on his work does not make him notable. I honestly thought the fact he was cited as an important writer and even thanked in other books by peers for given them a foundation to build from made him notable...

So you are saying I should just remove the article?

05:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs)

I guess I am lost here, if a text book is cited 249 times in others work as he is a must read expert in his field of interest or other psychologists have thank him for helping them as in "notable" because his peers and succesors" cite his work in their work.... Strange you can be so well thought of in the world of academia that even the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) has asked him to develop course for others in his field to become certified..... I have spent hours on this doctor, and if he as a who's who in the work he does and in the writings built from his work is not notable then I am totally lost as to how many text books has to be based off of his research before he is notable in the academia world, which is why I added how many times he has been cited in others writings....

Frankly, I don't want to put another 20-30 hours on any person, no matter how many other psychologist build from his work.... he'll just have to be happy he's a who's who in his world of academia....

JoeyD2010 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

JoeyD2010, it is hard to find good information on academics, and I know it can be frustrating. I also have spent a lot of time on a person without having been able to find good sources. An analysis of the person's work and impact on the field has to be written up outside of Wikipedia first. There is no time limit here. An article can always be written later. Sometimes editors of books write an analysis of the contributors in the introduction which can be used. Then I found a woman who had made such a rapid impact on the field that she was editing the books and writing introductions, not being written about by someone else! I never did figure out what to do about her. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

StarryGrandma

Thanks, I have found 3 text books he has written chapters on and have included those and what the editors had to say about his contribution to the field with even that he mentored one of them. I have found forwards and acknowledgments in books talking about without his work they current book could not have been completed and thanking him for laying the path for their later writings.

However currently that and papers he has written that have been cited including one chapter in a text book still being used today at graduate schools has been cited up to 247 times in other work.

The nice editors helping me say even that is not enough to get him there.... I am now dropping the professor and going for notability as an author because his work has been cited so often and used to write other books.... I don't seem to be getting very far with that either with the editor that wants the page deleted.....

If it gets deleted I will redo what I have in my sandbox and work on it again after something significant comes out... This guy is even the director of his department at the college for students of forensic psychology and he is one of about less than 10% of all of them out there practicing that has been certified as a diplomate and that does not get him through this rigor test....

Thanks so much for your encouraging words and sharing you have been working one one project yourself for a very long time.

Now finally I have it posted correctly,

JoeyD2010 (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

JoeyD2010 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For some reason my remarks are being posted above the discussion and not with my original post.

JoeyD2010 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

StarryGrandma or anyone else that can help. Is there someway to remove the nominate to delete the page and get it back into my sandbox while I go through newspapers.com archives? Or will it be deleted automatically on August 6th and then will have to start over again?  ::StarryGrandma "Sometimes editors of books write an analysis of the contributors in the introduction which can be used." This is a great suggestion. All three textbooks he has written in the contributors part in the introduction all have great things to say about Dr. Lipson and how they built on his work. Three may not be enough to save the article but it is how I found that the NIH funded one of his research projects.

Thanks,

JoeyD2010 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think, and another editor will correct me if I am mistaken, that you should be able to move a page that has been proposed for deletion to user space as User:JoeyD2010/Glenn S. Lipson or draft spac as Draft:Glenn S. Lipson. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing

Hi! I am trying to add spouse information and I do not know how to do it correctly. I am trying to add a spouse to Kenny Glasgows Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillymealbizu (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't add a "spouse" to the infobox at Kenny Glasgow because Template:Infobox musical artist doesn't have a "spouse" parameter - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay and Sillymealbizu: From what I've seen in other articles about singers and other entertainers, I think such information would go in the article text, in a section on "Personal life". --Thnidu (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I also was wanting to do a minor edit to change a name of a musician in an article. This person has transitioned their gender and would like their current/correct name listed. When I went on the page and changed it, they removed my edit as vandalism which it isn't. I have a couple of published online sources I can reference to show the information as fact. How do I submit them? Sunnybunny5us (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)