Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 329

use of one's own book for article submitted
I produced a book on the history of the Catholic church in a country (not yet covered in Wikipedia) and would like to use in a Wikipedia article chunks of the material I wrote for this book. I would give credit to the book as the chief source for the article besides more ample citation where other books are consulted. Is this permitted, or must I use quotation marks for all material I've previously published?150.199.113.164 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)150.199.113.164 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)150.199.113.164 (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Was your book published by a reputable publisher? That's the first step. My grandfather paid to have his books published, and if you did that, the book doesn't count as a reliable source.


 * Getting back to my situation, one of the books I updated when my grandfather ran out of copies and people still wanted them. So I'm a published author, sort of, except my mother, acting on behalf of my grandfather who was no longer able to do such things, paid the publisher with his money. I always told people if they use the book as a source, they should really see where my grandfather or I got the information, if a source was given. The best thing for you might be to use the sources that you used, if such a thing is possible. But on Wikipedia it might be true that some sources aren't considered acceptable and we would have to use your book.


 * Using your book might be seen as a conflict of interest. It's not necessarily a bad thing as long as your edits genuinely improve the encyclopeida and are not promoting the book. But disclosing that you wrote the source is best.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Google map of area in Wiki article
I want to add a map to the article "L Streets, Dallas".

This Google map shows the area perfectly.

How do I cleanly display the map in the article?

Thanks for your help. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Google maps are copyrighted and can't be used in Wikipedia articles. You can find map making resources at WP:MAPS and at WikiProject Maps. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added a template to the article. By clicking on the coordinates, readers will be taken to a page where they can select a Google map (or any of a variety of other maps) showing the neighborhood. Deor (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Article editing advise
Hello,

It would be awesome if someone at the teahouse could take a look at our draft and provide any assistance in getting the article ready for submission in Wiki.

Here's the link Draft:Tae Brooks

Thank you for any help you could give in advance. Best regards, CHE OfficalCHE (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I looked at your draft and did notice a few things. I will post some specific suggestions at Draft talk:Tae Brooks. This is not a guarantee that your draft will be accepted, but it will help clean it up a bit. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Section headers
Bit pointless but... Are section headers supposed to be like this: == References == (with the 2 spaces) or this: ==References== (with no spaces). Does it even matter? Thanks! —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really matters... it just makes the editing window easier to read (and better-looking) if all the headers are done the same way. CabbagePotato (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , you come up with the most interesting questions. The Manual of Style does not explicitly state, but all the examples there are without leading/trailing spaces.  However, the edit tool (Advanced > Heading) inserts the spaces.  So I agree with  - in an existing article, keep consistent with what is there. In a new article, you have permission to do as you see fit! --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another quick thing while I'm here. Is it called a "lead section" or "lede section"? —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the Manual of Style, it appears that the lead section can be called either the "lead" or the "lede." Probably just spelling differences in English, so both should be correct. (Although it seems to me that "lead" is more commonly used on Wikipedia.) CabbagePotato (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. :) —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the same thing as well a while back so I googled "lede". It seems to be an older spelling that is now specifically used as jargon in journalism/publishing to avoid being confused with lead according to The Free disctionary and wikt:lede - Marchjuly (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio problem
Some of the material in the section Lohagara Upazila, Chittagong is a copyright violation but in the other sections this is not the case. Do you know how I can get the other sections back? Sorry I got told this before but forgot. Rubbish computer (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's right there on your talk page. Please don't forget to follow the instructions, on the displayed template itself, for reporting the matter at the daily log of Copyright problems. Deor (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot where it was. Thank you for your help. I didn't notice that it said that on the template, sorry about that. Rubbish computer (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Writing to confirm that the cleanup process works. On the same day, I discovered two articles with similar suspected copyright violations. I followed the steps and at Copyright problems/2015 March 16 I did bookmark this page. Then wait for article and article history to be cleaned of the violating material. It may take several days. Lastly, I returned to articles to re-post non-violating content that did not survive the cleanup process. Of the two articles, one was 100-percent good and the other needed some additonal fixing. In closing, I'm thankful for the team of WP experts that focus on this much needed process. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JoeHebda I will add nonviolating material if it does not survive the cleanup. I would also like to thank the WP experts that fix these problems. Rubbish computer (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and organizing an Edit-a-thon
I'm new to Wikipedia and am working on organizing an edit-a-thon for an academic library. There is a lot of information out there and I've been reading it. I've also been completing many of the training opportunities for new editors. My plan is to start small, build on my success and learn from my mistakes. The more I learn about Wikipedia, the more it seems there is to know. It can be overwhelming. I'd appreciate any advice on "must-do"/"must-not do"etc. Thank you! Archie0401 (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, welcome to Wikipedia. If you are new to Wikipedia, I would recommend the co-op, where you can get matched one-to-one with an experienced Wikipedian who commits to being there to guide you along and answer questions. As for edit-a-thons, I do not honestly know too much about them, but perhaps I JethroBT -- incidentally also the manager of the Co-op -- would be able to help you with that. I would head over there and see what they can do for you ... it is a great program for introducing new editors to the encyclopedia. Let us know here if we can be of further assistance or if you would like clarification on any of the above. Happy editing!  Go  Phightins  !  22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestions!Archie0401 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Outreach Wiki has some good information about edit-a-thons. See the main edit-a-thon info page, this other how-to for people associated with GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums). There are lots of people using the Meetup space for edit-a-thons, too. If you let me know where you are (either in this thread or at my user talk page), it's possible I may be able to connect you to someone to help in your area. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ...For context in relation to 's advice, the co-op is a great resource for general help with Wikipedia (including, possibly, edit-a-thons) and I'd still recommend checking it out. I just work with the Education Program/Foundation so wind up communicating with a lot of people interested in edit-a-thons in particular. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I have been looking at the Meetup and GLAM sites. As I said, I'm starting small and I view this first attempt as a test run of sorts. I appreciate all the help and suggestions. I am in Sonoma County, Northern California. Archie0401 (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well SF is one of the areas of higher Wikipedia activity -- it's where Wikimedia's offices are, after all. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to get someone to help. You might want to subscribe and post to the wikimedia-sf mailing list. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Donate to Wikipedia
Hello and Good Day, I was just about to donate to Wikipedia but it said in the text below that at that point I would be agreeing to giving Wikipedia my personal information. In this case, are you referring to my name and email only? Or are you referring to the number on my debit card? I'd be more than happy to donate, however, not with providing my personal debit card number to a large public forum. Thanks, Matthew 79.145.53.93 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there - thank you for considering a donation! Wikimedia's Donor Policy should hopefully answer your question. Wikimedia will collect the basic personal information you provide to them, while I believe that financial information (credit card info, etc.) is processed securely through third-parties, who manage that information on their end. If you don't want to give Wikimedia your credit/debit card information, you can donate through another transaction service, like PayPal or Amazon. Note that all information is privately and securely retained, and isn't publicly accessible like most of Wikipedia's information is. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted link tag
The Ferranti article is tagged with local blacklisted links but I’m not really sure why these links were blacklisted. Cyberbot II has commented on the talk page that this issue has been resolved and it has removed the tag. Is this an oversight by Cyberbot II, or is the tag still valid?CV9933 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I am requesting that the operator of the bot answer this.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Many thanks for your hard work improving the Ferranti article.  Look in the edit history at this diff where the bot removed the tag, then placed it again a few days later.  The note on the article talk page was placed when the tag was removed but no talk page notice was posted when the tag was again added to the page.  The website cbronline.com is currently in the Spam-blacklist (use your browser's Find feature to find it).  As of a minute ago, references 16 and 22 cite that website.  If you can find another source to support the text, that would be best.  If those two references are really essential to the article and you can't find another source to cite, you can request that the two specific links be whitelisted at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist.  Hope this is helpful, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 23:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for your help. Using a search engine on Cyberbot II with the blacklisted cbronline URL, pulls up various WP articles where Cyberbot has been busy. Cyberbot II removed the tag from This article but not from this so there is some inconsistency about cbronline URL's I will await a response from Cyberbot II operator.CV9933 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cyberbot regularly scans the DB and the blacklist regex to find links that are blacklisted. However given labs instability, its possible there may be some data loss when the bot recovers from a crash.  That may explain the inconsistency.—cyberpower Chat:Limited Access 13:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replaced those blacklisted links, does Cyberbot II automatically remove tags or is this done manually?CV9933 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should yes.—cyberpower Chat:Limited Access 18:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinks in the lead section
If you include wikilinks in the lead section, should you include those same wikilinks further in the article? For example, if the lead section includes a wikilink for a famous person's name, should you also create another wikilink further down in the article when you mention that famous person's name again? Or is not necessary?Lupine453 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . This is a matter of editorial judgment, and in my opinion, the best choice is related to the length and complexity of the article. If the article is brief, only the single wikilink in the lead is necessary. If the article is much longer, and especially if there are several intervening sections where the "famous person" in your example is not discussed, then a second wikilink when the article starts to discuss them in greater detail may be useful to many readers. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you Cullen. Lupine453 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

which takes priority?
Hi. I have been previously told not to make posts on a user's Talk page. I unfortunately find myself in a position where I feel it necessary to raise an ANI against this user. The ANI page says I must let the editor know I have raised an ANI against them. But, which takes priority please. Thanks in advance for the help.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Your obligation to notify takes precedence over any request made to you by an individual editor. You can however easily ask someone else to make the notification for you; I'd be happy to do that if you wish, just say the word. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that kind offer - please inform the editor for me and thanks for the advice.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-written article needs help
I'm a newbie, learning by studying and some bumps and bruises to my ego from the rejection of my first article. It was full of original research and un-reliable sources. I have completely re-written it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Coates_%22Charlie%22_Walker

I would really appreciate help from someone who is familiar with acceptable sources and this type of thing. Thank you. Willbeaden667 (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome! Definitely good enough to move to pass AfC, I have accepted it and move it to Charles Coates Walker. Good job! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! This article has been a long time coming, and much work involved in sources.

Willbeaden667 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought you produced a well-researched, well-composed article, Will. I'm gald you didn't get discouraged, or at least didn't let it stop you.

Denny (Enzephyron)208.70.28.122 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

What happened to my "Common edit summaries"?
One for major and one for minor changes. Choosing one made it appear in the summary box. I must have changed something in Preferences, but I can't figure out what. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi deisenbe, welcome to the Teahouse. It's "Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries" under the Editing heading at Special:Preferences. If you have a checkmark and they don't show then something may be preventing the JavaScript from running in your browser. The code is at MediaWiki:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Two articles on the same topic
A few minutes ago, I happened to discover two Wikipedia articles (The Philip Morris Playhouse and Philip Morris Playhouse (TV series)) about the same television program. The contents are similar but not identical.

The same user name appears as page creator for both. It is displayed in red, which I assume means that account is not active.

I thought perhaps an administrator might want to look into the near-duplication. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good catch, Eddie Blick! They do look identical. It doesn't need attention from an admin right now but a merger should probably be proposed. Then an admin can delete one of the pages. As for a red username, it simply means that the editor doesn't have a main user page. That can either because they are new or just because they do not want to have a user page. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I appreciate that. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch indeed! I've redirected both to our article on that topic, Philip Morris Playhouse. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the redirects. I wrote the Philip Morris Playhouse article, and I was doing some searching related to that when I discovered the two versions of the article about the TV program. I appreciate your help. 173.217.227.78 Eddie Blick (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC) 01:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What to change to get accepted?
Hey there Wikipedia guys and girls,

I created a new page about a company that got rejected. The reason as the comment says is about not having a verifiable sources.

I worked very hard finding all the sources you see in this post and in fact i wrote the article working with almost every one in the live wikipedia chat. Those guys said it was ready for publishing and yet it got rejected. Believe me when I say that I wrote that page line by line with the help of those guys :)

Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:180Vita

Please tell me what to change or add.

Thanks in advanceTolkinas (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Tolkinas. I'm sorry you apparently got incorrect advice, at least to the extent you were assured the sourcing as presented was clearly sufficient. What we are looking for are reliable, secondary sources exercising some measure of editorial control and having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (e.g. books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources). These reliable sources should be entirely unconnected with the topic. Inclusion of such sources through citations demonstrates notability – by showing that the world has taken note of the topic by writing about it substantively in quality published sources – and allows an article to be written entirely with verifiable information. With that in mind, the article cites nine sources but none of the sources you cited are are obviously reliable and independent sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.  Looking at the nine sources cited:
 * The first is Vita's own website, so it's not an independent, secondary source, and the page linked to at its website does not even verify what it is cited to verify, though other internal pages might;
 * The second is just a list of stats by some online service, not substantive, not clearly reliable, says very little;
 * The third appears t be the best source but it is just a tiny blurb;
 * The fourth is a press release from Vita, so it's not an independent, secondary source;
 * The fifth is a commercial website selling poker services, nothing reliable appearing about it and it doesn't even mention Vita180 or PokerVIP;
 * The sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth (the last doesn't even mention Vita or PokerVIP) are all poker-specific sites and it's not clear how independent or reliable they are though I'm not discounting them entirely as gap fillers.
 * In sum, if you could find even one substantive newspaper article, for example, that might be just enough. After looking for other sources and finding nothing else to add, I don't think an encyclopedia article on this company is warranted at this time. See also No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Date error in citation/source
Hello, Could someone help me understand what the issue is with an error message about a date in a citation as it says "Check date values in: |date=". I checked the help resource and can not find out what the error refers to. The article is Julia Gillard and the citation number is N°182. Thank you for your help. — <strong style="color:#000; text-decoration:underline"> L udo p edia (Talk) 03:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . "September" was spelled incorrectly. I fixed it so everything should be OK now. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . Oh I feel silly now. Thank you for your help with this, I am very grateful. Have a great day. — <strong style="color:#000; text-decoration:underline"> L udo p edia (Talk) 04:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?
I wanted to link to commons help desk whose short cut is COM:HD. But the link was not appearing. So how to link to the sister projects correctly? aGastya   &#9993; let's have a constructive talk about it  (: 05:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That shortcut only works on the Commons. You'll want to take a look at WP:INTERWIKI, which shows you how to link to pages on other wikis.
 * For the Commons, you can link to a page there by using, or  . The link you wanted would be c:COM:HD. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 05:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay so that c: was missing! Thank you for the help! aGastya    &#9993; let's have a constructive talk about it  (: 05:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

renaming
hello,

I had to do a wiki page for an assignment and I put use:(title here) and I just need the title of the poem not the user in front of it how do I change it to just saying that so when people type it in online it is easier to find. Thanks! Lme19 Lme 19 (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! Listen its late at night, but I'll do my best here, sorry for any typos. To do that you would use the WP:move function at the top of the page. Click that link to find out more. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with my computer or Ask my question?
Most of questions I'd asked recently, none of them appeared for the first time on teahouse: and I typed those aGain. So is that a problem with my clicking the button or the button itself is faulty (some kind of bug or what?) Even this question did not appear! aGastya   &#9993; let's have a constructive talk about it  (: 06:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but it appeared in mine. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 06:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Outdent
Hello again, Teahouse!!! When is the appropriate time to outdent my post? I have outdented 3-4 times and all of those I wasn't sure whether it was the right time for an outdent. –DangerousJXD (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day . The guideline here is not prescriptive; it just says to consider outdenting when "a long discussion can cause indentation to become too deep".  The template defaults to 10, but IMhO that is perhaps too much, especially for somebody following the discussion on a mobile device. Personally, I would probably go for about 6-8 levels, but it's another matter of using your common sense.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why my article was rejected
I submitted an article on a Japanese drum company, Sakae. They are a family business since the 1940's. This makes them one of the oldest drum companies outside of the USA. They made drum shells for Yamaha Japan for 40 years - and no-one knew about it. Yamaha moved their operations to China in 2013. The owner of Sakae turned down Yamaha's offer to leave Japan and make drums in China. This resulted in Yamaha dropping it's entire line of high-end drums. This move was the biggest news in drum manufacturing in the past 20 years. It generated a huge amount of conversation amongst drummers since the connection with Sakae was not known by ANY drummer who bought one of their kits. In particular, the Yamaha Recording Custom Series is arguably one of the most recorded drum sets on the planet. With assistance from Yamaha (! - would this have happened in the West?) Sakae now sell drums under their own name, because they didn't want to abandon years of Japanese wood working tradition.

Yet this is not "notable" enough for Wikipedia. Smacks of elitism to me, not conservation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulkneipp (talk • contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Notabilility resides entirely in whether people unconnected with the subject have written at length about them, published in reliable places. Anybody can say anything about themselves on their own websites, but that doesn't make them notable. You need to find articles about Sakae (not just listings or articles based on their own press releases, but evidence that some journalist or writer unconnected with them has found them important enough to write about).
 * By the way, Wikipedia handles footnotes and numbering of references automatically: please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , just to add a note to what has already said: there's no requirement for the sources to be in English. It's quite likely that most of the coverage of this topic, if there has been any, will have been in Japanese. If that's a language you don't speak you could consider asking for help at WikiProject Japan; you might find someone there who would help look for sources, and translate small portions thereof. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * These responses sound lame to me. Are you asking me to post articles written by journalists about Sakae when these articles cannot be be verified as truthful? What I posted was the truth. Facts. I supplied verifiable truths and they are not acceptable. I'm beginning to see Wikipedia as like any club - you are in it or not in it. How many people making these decisions have qualification to do so?Paulkneipp (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I can see how the replies might sound that way; but Wikipedia is a huge community which has developed (by consensus) a lot of policies and rules. We're asking you to add references to articles published in sources with a reputation for fact checking: it's true that even such sources may sometimes get it wrong, but that's the best we can do. You describe what you have posted as "verifiable": the question is, how. How can a random reader next month or next year or in 2019 check that a fact in the article is true? The text in the Wikipedia article is, oddly enough, quite unreliable: somebody might have vandalised it five minutes before. So we require references which you can follow if you are dubious, or if the information is critical to you. And we require that they be somewhere where a reader can reasonably expect them to be accurate.
 * There is absolutely nothing to stop you ignoring the review, and moving the article to mainspace yourself: that is within the rules. But if you do so, it is very likely that somebody will notice the new article, look at it, come to the same conclusion as did, and propose it for deletion. If they do, there will be a public discussion at which anybody may contribute arguments for or against. After a week or so, an administrator will come along, evaluate the arguments (this is about strength of arguments according to policy, not about voting) and decide whether the article should be kept or deleted (or some other option, such as merging it into an existing article). The purpose of the review mechanism is to avoid going through that process.
 * It is very easy, when you don't get the response you want, to see it as a clique keeping you out; but speaking for myself I do not want to exclude anybody from contributing to Wikipedia, and I want to include articles whenever they meet the criteria. Though I have never applied to be an administrator, I am something of an expert in (some parts of) how Wikipedia works - and that is the only kind of expert that is relevant here. While expertise in a subject is certainly valuable in writing an article, it is not relevant in deciding whether a draft article meets Wikipedia's own criteria for acceptability. --ColinFine (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Can Anyone Answer a Question Here?
Can anyone answer a question posed here, or do you need to be approved as a host? I ask because I just read two I could have answered quickly. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can answer questions. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You have to click the "Join this discussion" button next to the question in order to respond Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Please have a look at WP:Teahouse/Host start. While you can answer a question here, there is a level of experience and an approach to answering which we aspire to here, that newer editors may not yet have. I have seen cases where somebody answers a question, and only gives part of the answer, or suggests something that is really not the best way to do it. Even experienced people can do this sometimes, and as long as you follow the behaviour in the link I gave, nobody will slap you down; but what I would suggest is that you hold back from answering and see if somebody with more experience does so. If the question goes unanswered for a day or two, and you have an answer, offer it then. --ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Link
Already discussed question similar to this. What is the criteria of linking? When to do it and when not to? Example: Freundlich equation of chemistry has link to mass and that, I feel, is really pointless as per WP:OLINK. But still W.carter once mentioned that articles are for readers. Still for one learning something of chemistry and not knowing mass is very rare aGastya    &#9993; let's have a constructive talk about it  (: 06:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The idea is to use your best judgement over this. Linking to mass is neither a good nor a bad idea of itself. It is the context that matters, not an absolute decision. Fiddle   Faddle  09:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why can't I add Images?
On a page I have been asked to do for my school, the school being Oakwood Friends School, I have updated and fixed many errors and added many new facts and notable alumni to the page. I added some photos that were scanned straight from the school's archives, all rights belonging to the school in which I am their Wikipedia editor and enhancer. I would like to add the photographs back to this page, please, this is a school project. MattVoorhees15 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . If looks like the images your referring to were deleted from Wikipedia Commons so they were automatically removed from the article by a automated bot called CommonsDelinker. Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia are sister-projects and belong to the same foundation, but they each have their own rules and policies. Some of these overlap, but many are different. The images were deleted by c: User:Fastily for being "out of scope". I'm not sure exactly what that means other than the images were not deemed suitable for upload to Commons. You might want to contact Fastily at c:User talk:Fastily for more specific details.
 * Finally, you said above that you are the "Wikipedia editor and enhancer" for the school. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide just for reference. Some editors might feel that "by editing on behalf of the school", you might have difficulty editing in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is might be partly why the article has been tagged with a "conflict of interest" template. Conflict-of-interest editing is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is typically discouraged because it can easily lead to problems. The article is about your school, but it is not owned by your school, so any information (including images) added or deleted can be undone or challenged by other editors. It might be a good idea for you to discuss any major changes to the article beforehand at Talk:Oakwood Friends School just to get feedback from others, especially if you find your edits frequently being undone. Just a suggestion. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I suspect the answer to the out of scope question will be that the images lack encylopedic use. Unless they depcit something with some potential use or context setting then they aren't useful.  Taking one which hasn't been deleted, probably because you already added it to an article, File:Oakwood12.jpg - the description merely states Oakwood.  Nothing to help anyone looking at the image work out, where? when? what's happening?  it's not just the image itself but the information that goes with it as well.  I think there is also an issue about the copyright. You've labelled this image as being authored by Oakwood Friends School, I don't doubt that the print is the property of the school but I have doubts as to whether the school owns the copyright.  Under US copyright law the copyright belongs to the person who took the original photo unless there is specific agreement that copyright has been transferred to another person or body.  I really don't think that such an agreement will have been thought about between the school and the photgrapher at the time so this images and the others are more likely to be author unknown in which case they are not yet public domain items (and won't be for a long time).  The exception to this might be if these images have previously been published, e.g. in the school year book and no copyright notice was attached at the time of publication.  If publiction was prior to 1978 then the images will be public domain and can be uploaded.
 * I'm sorry to be the bearer of potentially bad tidings, especially where even with scant information images like these are records and reflections of the society that they were created in, but US copyright law is notoriously complicated and is taken very seriously both on Wikipedia and Commons and unless images can be categorically affirmed to be public domain items or used with consent of the copyright holder then the tendancy is to delete them. If you have further information about the images which might help to make a more positive decision about ownership and/or public domain status then please come back here and we will see what can be done. Nthep (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

inappropriate external links
Hi, I have been accused of 'inappropriate external links' but don't know why or how to contact and talk to the person about why they accused me of that. Here is what they said: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gas cabinet. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. More of the same. E8 (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Here was my response which i added by 'editing' their comments (not sure if that is the right way to respond). E8 I did NOT add any links to the article Gas Cabinets. I WROTE the article and after working with someone here on Wikipedia, who determined it was a needed topic, we got it published. But all the links were already in the article. I did not do this for search engine rankings because, as you stated, it doesn't matter. But the links ARE relevant to the topic, even if one of them is to Critical Systems Inc website. Should i not link to them? They are a company that works in this niche and develop new technologies all the time. I would think that is relevant to Wikipedia? I'm having a hard time trying to understand this, as I had help writing this by a Wikipedia person. Tyankee (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse, Tyankee!
 * The relevant policy is External_links, particularly the section on links to be avoided. Generally, unless it is a link to a company's website and they are the subject of the article, links to commercial entities are discouraged no matter how useful they might be to a reader. There are plenty of consumer-oriented sites or guide websites where these links are not only permitted but encouraged. As you might imagine, if Wikipedia included a link to one company, all of their competitors might also want placement in an article and Wikipedia likes to keep external links down to a minimum. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks Liz. The reason i got involved with Wikipedia is this one company that i do work for is in a niche where there is so much information missing from Wikipedia. It is a newer industry, so i'm guessing that's the reason. We wrote 2 articles now that are published and they (the president and VP) are writing more articles to fill in the holes in Wikipedia. I sure hope that will be OK. Most of what they are writing is new technology so i'm not sure there is any information anywhere on these topics. Would that then be OK to include a reference to their articles or their website? Tyankee (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)tyankee


 * Hello, . I'm afraid everything in your last paragraph rings warning bells for me. If there is not any information anywhere on these topics, then by Wikipedia's fundamental principles these topics do not, at present, belong in Wikipedia. If your company and people associated with your company are the only people to have written articles, then trying to get the topics into Wikipedia looks like promotion, which is strictly forbidden. Once there are several articles, published in reliable organs, by people who are not all connected with a single company, will be the time to think about writing a Wikipedia article about the area. --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

how to write letter ask for change to title
i wish to change title of article called pegida. always called PEGIDA. why is it at pegida? i do not know how to make change. before i write to many requested move discussion, but never into make my own change to pages. this must fix. please help me move page and thanks. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Any user who has had an account for more than four days and made more than ten edits (which includes you) can move a page: you just pick "Move", below "More" on the editing toolbar.
 * But, in this case, you must look at the talk page Talk:Pegida, where you will see that the page was moved from PEGIDA to Pegida in February, after a discussion. If you were to move it yourself, that would be seen as disruptive. You are welcome to start a new discussion on the talk page, but unless you present a new argument, it is unlikely to be moved again. --ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Important article keeps getting declined. Can you help, please?
Hello!

For a few months I have been attempting to create and publish an article on university Study Centers. Each time I make edits and submit, it gets declined. You can see all of the editor's comments at the link below, but here are the two most recent issues:

1) "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."

2) Article "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

The second point is unfounded, from what I can tell. Almost nothing in the article is from the "creator of the subject." There are no more articles in the entire world that reference this subject -- meaning, I can't add any more sources -- so is my only option strategically deleting some of the ones I have?

Please help!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christian_Study_Centers

SamHeath4 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sam. At first glance it isn't clear that the article is about an organization rather than the topic of Christian study centers in general. (Some other Christian organizations on campuses are the Catholic Newman Institute, Campus Crusade for Christ, and the LDS Institute of Religion). So in this case the "creator of the subject" is the various Christian Study Centers themselves and the overall organization, the Consortium of Christian Study Centers. So find reliable sources independent of these that provide significant coverage, that is, don't just mention them in passing. The article also needs some reorganizing. It reads like a brochure for the organization rather than an encyclopedia article. I will take a look at the article and leave some comments there. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ValeriyaMechkova - there is no such concept on the English Wikipedia as "worthyness", so that cannot be a valid reason to decline the submission. Please give us a link to the draft article so that we can evaluate the actual problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . People new to Wikipedia often misunderstand the (Wikipedia) technical term "notable" as meaning "famous" or "important" or "worthy". It doesn't mean any of these. It means "Have several people already been interested enough in this topic to have written about it in reliable published places such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers?". If you're referring to User:ValeriyaMechkova/sandbox, declined it because there are no inline references to sources which discuss V-Dem, and without any, the article does not establish that V-Dem is notable. It's possible that some of the "external links" do so (I haven't followed them to look), but they need to be presented as inline references, and enough of them need to be specifically about V-Dem. Please see referencing for beginners for how to do references. --ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine that is very helpful. I will follow the advice and then resubmit the article. (ValeriyaMechkova (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC))

If I forget to log in before making an edit, can I do anything to remove my details after the event?Alterations (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If I forget to log in before making an edit, can I do anything to remove my details in the View History log after the event?

I have already logged in, undone the edit (removing my details from the undo summary) and redone it. Any advice greatfully received. Alterations (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Deleting sensitive information from the history is called oversight. You should email your request to User:Oversight. --ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already dealt with it - no need to email the oversight team. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, both of you. Alterations (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Video game that has the name of a dictionary word.
Hello!

I recently created a page for a video game I've been following for quite some time. The developers got a publishing deal so I decided this might be a good time, in the spirit of public interest, to have some information about the game play and a summary of the awards they had won readily available here on Wikipedia.

The game in question is called Defunct. Since this is a dictionary word it already had a page that linked to the Wiktionary article. That is why I decided to create the page with the extension '(video game)': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defunct_(video_game). To avoid confusion.

Since most people searching for 'defunct' probably is looking for the dictionary definition I didn't want to change the 'Defunct' page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defunct without consulting someone more experienced editing Wikipedia on how to go about if I were to add something like "Did you mean the video game? Press here.".Gnysty (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Gnysty sounds like your just looking for the For template &mdash; i.e gives:  Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , a simple hatnote was what I was thinking as well but Defunct is a redirect to the Wiktionary article so I'm not sure what the answer is. A quick read of WP:Disambiguation doesn't show an immediate solution either, it might be that Defunct needs to become a disambiguation page. Nthep (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I originally thought it should be a disambiguation page as well - but doing a quick search didn't turn up obvious candidates to list as so many articles have 'defunct' in the title as a descriptive rather than primary term. For now the change made by works well enough, but I do expect their are other articles that exist to make a proper disambiguation page if anyone is inspired enough. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't proposing to trawl through all possible articles looking for the word defunct where is may be used as a distinguishing term but just whether a disambig page listing the two titles Defunct - a term meaning inactive and Defunct (video game) - a video game would look better than a hatnote above a redirect. It's only a style question but the way it looks at ther moment, due to the formatting of the redirect box that the hatnote is a bit lost in the background. Nthep (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Wiktionary redirect is only indtended for cases where no existing article could have that name. The similar English words Inactive and Former have articles on little known topics and use the small wiktionary to link the common meaning at Wiktionary. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Content/behaviour issue - not quite sure where to bring up
I am presently busy cleaning up behind an editor who keeps adding external links to a basically content-free Thai database and misplaced images to fish articles, by the score each day (e.g., ). They have been admin-warned about spam asked to avoid spamming by another user, and I have tried to contact them as well, but they just seem to ignore anything on their talk page.

As I don't quite know my way around the infrastructure yet, I'd like to ask for a pointer here of where to get some reinforcement at the "just get the guy to talk about it" level. Is this a content issue? behavioural? Where would I first ask for someone to help make an attempt to get this user to communicate? Elmidae (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a point when this becomes vandalism, and any editor is entitled to give a formal warning to another editor over this. Quite reasonably, you want to be sure of your ground first. A good way is to invite a friendly and experienced editor (on their talk page) to look at the things that gives you concern and either to school you in the action you should take (the better approach) or to take that action anyway.
 * We have a tool, WP:TWINKLE, that is able to issue suitable warnings, and I believe that any editor may enable it and use it. I've been here so long that I forget who needs what privileges to use what! I probably need to get a life. Fiddle   Faddle  09:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have inspected the editor's history and issued a final warning. We will need an admin to perform bulk reversion of their dits, a simple task for an admin, a tedious one for an ordinary editor. Fiddle   Faddle  09:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Most of the fish articles (generally stubs) in question are in need of some cleanup anyway and I wouldn't mind working my way through the list and doing that in one wash. However, that kinda depends on Mikitoruz stopping with the spam now, otherwise he's going to run away from me at the current rate...
 * What's your opinion on his new stubs (e.g. Butis koilomatodon))? Laudable undertaking, but every one of these needs major cleanup and de/re-linking too. If he kept adding them but in a useful format, that would certainly be a net gain. So I hope he'll start talking now :) Elmidae (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns. I would prefer them to have used their time to generate decent articles, or, at leat useful stubs. I am also worried about the copyright of the pictures. Nothing is urgent on Wikipedia, so I suggest you see what happens and then decide whether to adopt and improve the items. Meanwhile I'm going to flag the copyright worry at Commons, if I can work out where! Fiddle   Faddle  10:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On further thought,, why wait? If you improve the articles then you improve them. I was being overly cautious. Take one, shake it and make it fly!, Well, make it swim!! If you remove the usual link then that is fine, unless you judge that the link is s good link after all. I have my doubts. The great swathe of articles suggests to me that the editor's purpose is the improvement of the linked site rather than the improvement of Wikipedia, however hard I WP:AGF. Fiddle   Faddle  11:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. I'll start from the bottom, with the extant articles they added the link & image to, and maybe things will have clarified by the time I get to the new stubs. Elmidae (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How to add an image to a wikipedia page?
Hello, my colleague has recently created the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Waggon_Train - however, I have just started working here and I am slightly less adequate at this! Does anyone have a foolproof guide to adding images to the page? Many thanks! Rwteditor (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This question has been answered on their talk page. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome Rwteditor


 * One of the senior editor Yunshui has made it easy, please read here.


 * Best wishes


 * Aftab Banoori (Talk) 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Chemistry
Will someone please help me with the question?

Describe in detail what you know about the enthalpy, entropy, and free energy changes when a sample of gas condenses to a liquid. How does temperature affect these changes?108.33.159.120 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse - we're a place for editors to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can or . If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. You may also find our articles on enthalpy and entropy to help with your understanding. Thanks! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 17:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * After I try and solve it myself, will you tell me if I'm right or wrong?108.33.159.120 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you can explain your thinking and/or show your work, quite possibly. Also, you may want to ask at Reference desk/Science, which is designed to answer the question. So, work the problem out as best as you can, explain your sticking point, or perhaps explain your own understanding, and we can correct you and/or direct you to the correct answer.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I really appreciate it. 108.33.159.120 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is free changes the same as spontaneous? 108.33.159.120 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Submitting Letters of Permissions for Photos
I would like to say thank you to the tea house for answering questions! I want to use some photos that I need letters of permissions from outside sources and they are gladly sending them to wikipedia for me, my question is, if I don't get around to uploading the photo for a few days, while I build text and cite sources, will they still have the letter and apply it to my photo? Sometimes it's hard to coordinate getting the photo up and then getting the letter of permissions fast enough.....so I have them send the letter first, if they are willing23.243.160.44 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse! The time period between when you get permission and when you submit the permission is not vital.  See Donating copyrighted materials for details on how to do it properly.  Also, going through those steps is not necessary if the person who took the picture is the same as the person uploading it, and they fill out the permissions as they upload it.  If they are willing to license the photo properly for use at Wikipedia, have never published it before, and have clear ownership of the copyright, they can just upload it to Wikimedia Commons and that would be fine too.  See This information page for more information on how someone can donate their own work to Wikimedia Commons for use at Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How to reset/clear user sandbox?
I worked a rough draft of an article on my user sandbox, but now I want to clear all that stuff out. Is there a way to reset one's sandbox to go back to being empty?

Or do you just make an edit deleting all the stuff you had previously posted? Lupine453 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You could just clear it all out, but if you wanted to start a page with no history, you can request it be deleted by typing Db-u1 at the top of the page. That's a speedy deletion tag.  db means "delete because" and u1 is one of the allowable criteria for deleting a page, specifically "user requests a page in their own user space".  Someone will be along in a little while to delete it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Thank you Jayrom32. Lupine453 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability and References
I have recently attempted to publish an article which has been rejected. The reason was because I did not show notability of the subject of my article in my references but my question is: how many references from independent sources are needed for 'notability' and shouldn't the links in the 'external links' section count toward that?

Thanks

ChrisKohl (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . I assume you are talking about Draft:Jon Keyser.  Unfortunately, the information there is not sourced to independent sources.  All of the sources are either a) not in-depth (that is, they do not discuss his life or his work in detail) or b) they are not independent, that is they are written by his employers, organizations he is a member of, etc.  independent sources are those with editorial oversight which have no connection to the subject.  Independently written biographies published in books by reputable publishing houses, magazine and newspaper articles about the subject (that is, which discuss his life and history in some detail, and don't merely name him) are what is being looked for.  This is all because we want Wikipedia articles to be essentially complete and comprehensive, and we also want them to be verifiably connected to reliable, independent sources.  If the information about a person's life doesn't already exist outside of Wikipedia in published sources, then it can't be in Wikipedia either.  ANd if there is no good information, we can't have an article.  That's how it all works.  I hope this all makes sense.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . In answer to your last question, no, the links in the "External links" section do not count towards notability. Sometimes people insert as an external link something which could be used as a reference: if it is so used, then as a reference it would of course potentially count. All three of the current could probably be used as references (I say probably, because the third one seems to be a broken link), but they would not be independent sources, so they would not contribute to notability; and they could be used to support only uncontroversial factual data. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How to add a map
I would like to know the procedure of adding a map on my Wikipedia page showing a location(uagnada,Kampala,Rubaga road,ESOM School of music)? Is it possible to add a map from the Google earth maps? Thanks Kind regards Dan Basimbe Basimbe 09:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basimbe (talk • contribs)
 * hello and welcome to The Teahouse. It looks like you tried to sign but you use four tildes like this: ~ . To answer your question, no, Google Maps would be a copuright violation, and you can find more here.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)