Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 377

revision deletion
Hello, Wikipedia Teahouse my question in regards to revision deletion is that i know that more than two user contributions can be revision deleted however what i also know is that when two user contributions are revision deleted between the two user contributions they were in fact individually revision deleted but not because some other user just wanted to use the difference button and revision delete the both of them can you further clarify on that?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Like for instance on the example photo on how revision deletion works it shows that between those two user contributions they show that two straight lines are being used for those two particular contributions and i just want further clarification on whether or not those two were individually deleted or did some other Wikipedia user decided to use the difference button on those two contributions and just decided to revision delete the both of them?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, Freshmangrandcaravan. The key to understanding revision deletion is that it doesn't delete contributions or edits; it deletes revisions; that is, versions of the page. When you see the line through an entry in the edit history, that means that that version of the page contained material that needed to be deleted, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the deletable material was added in that version; it could've been in it from before.
 * So to illustrate, say someone adds the words "he is a poopyhead" to an article on a living person. (Normally, we wouldn't bother to revision-delete that, but say we do for this example.) Let's also say that that addition goes unnoticed for some time, and three people edit the article before someone finally removes it. So we have these entries in the page's history:
 * poopyhead added
 * innocuous edit
 * innocuous edit
 * innocuous edit
 * poopyhead removed
 * Now, naively, one might assume that all we have to do is revision-delete edit #1. But that won't cut it, because revision deletion deletes versions of the page, not actual edits; versions 2, 3, and 4 will all still have "he is a poopyhead" in them, because it wasn't removed until version 5. Revision-deleting only version #1 becomes pretty silly, since the offending content is still there in the rest of the edit history. So, what we'd really have to do is revision delete versions #1, 2, 3 and 4, which will remove all of the versions in the history that contain "he is a poopyhead". (Version 5 can be left, though; that edit removed the phrase, so it's no longer in that version of the page.)
 * So that is why it happens often that multiple history entries in a row will be removed all at once. It's not because of how the "diff" function compares two different revisions; the "diff" function will fail even if only one of the two revisions has been deleted, so deleting extra surrounding diffs isn't necessary. Does that help? Revision deletion is a pretty complex function, and even many admins don't really get how it works at first. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Either is a possibility.  That they are consecutive edits suggests that they were revdel'd at the same time but only a check of the deletion log for that page would confirm it. Nthep (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh okay but can you please explain your response in a more easier way for me?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like help with my article.
Hello, so i just recently tried to get my local youth rugby team a wiki page. We are the oldest youth rugby team in scotland. This is pretty significant. If someone could help me it would be really appreciated. My submission was not accepted.Rhysjeffrey (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. notability, in the specialized Wikipedia sense, is based primarily not on how old or even how important a subject is, but on how much others have already written about it. Wikipedia summarizes already published content, it does not do Original Research. I looked at Draft:Hawick PSA RFC, and at the moment it has no cited sources at all. In order for this to be accepted as an article, there will need to be multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the team in some detail. This means not from the team/club itself, nor interviews with team members or coaches, nor press releases or publications from from people affiliated with the team, as those are not independent. This means not blogs, online fora, fan sites or one-person web sites,  as these are not reliable. This means not directories or passing mentions, or listings of games or other events, as these do not have much detail. Also, sources should not be purely local press coverage, as thjat does not indicate that significant note has been taken of the organization. See our guideline to notability of organizations for more detail.
 * Many youth teams do not have this kind of coverage, some do. If Hawick PSA does not, there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it at this time.
 * For details on how to format those citations once you find them, see Referencing for Beginners and then Citing Sources.
 * Also please note that you sound as if you are involved with the Team. If so, you have a conflict of interest. In such a case it is better if soemone not involved edits any article, but if you do create and edit the article, you should be particularly careful to observe neutrality and to declare your WP:COI up front, on your user page. Do read the COI page linked above. It will help you avoid problems later. DES (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How do we protect pages from cyber bullies?
There is a page for a writer named Chaker Khazaal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaker_Khazaal

I have followed Chaker's career from the time he started his work with Nations United and an admirer of his books and life journey.

He is the 36th most powerful Arab under 40 in the World: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/100-most-powerful-arabs-under-40-589646.html?itemid=589459

In the last few days, a Wikipedia user (and his friends) have been flagging Chaker's page. The Wikipedia User is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plot_Spoiler

Chaker Khazaal wrote an article for the Huffington Post that went viral last week and sparked a lot of controversy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chaker-khazaal/jeffrey-goldbergs-assault-on-free-speech_b_7979886.html

This article's subject was Mr. Jeffrey Goldberg, an Israeli-American journalist.

The wikipedia user PLOT SPOILER who has been flagging Chaker Khazaal's page has a history of editing Jeffrey Goldberg's page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Goldberg&action=history

This is a clear violation of Wikipedia to flag a page only because a journalist (Chaker Khazaal) practiced his right of Free Speech and now being cyber attacked by Jeffrey Goldberg's person who edits his page (note that this looks like Conflict of Interest to me)

I, as a Wikipedia supporter, donor, reader, and contributor, condemn this Plot Spoiler user and believe that Wikipedia needs to be aware and take measures to protect the internet and keep it as a safe environment.

What can be done?

GlobalWikiCitizen (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Plot Spoiler's edits to the page appear perfectly reasonable to me. The article as it stands is not a very good one -- appears promotional, uses lots of poor quality sources, etc.  I would recommend collaborating with Plot Spoiler to improve the article, rather than accusing him/her of cyberbullying. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Calliopejen1 I did some edits based on Plot Spoiler's notes. So that I appreciate and you are right, I should not accuse but rather resolve. However, Plot Spoiler has a history of going after those who mention Jeffrey Goldberg in a negative way in their journalistic right of expression (that's where I saw COI and I wanted advise.) I will reach out to Plot Spoiler, thank you once again GlobalWikiCitizen (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate these absurd personal attacks to stop ("cyber bully" etc.) and meritless accusations of WP:COI. The bottomline is that Mr. Khazaal's page is too promotional and some editors that are essentially single-user accounts are not open to improving the page and ensuring it abides by Wikipedia policy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GlobalWikiCitizen has also removed the problem tags on the page again without addressing any of the underlying issues. This is simply devolving into edit warring. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of new article before moving it to namespace
I have created a new article about Antoni Koper. It still lacks an image, but is otherwise a fairly complete first draft. Before moving it, I am hoping another editor might review the article and advise me whether they agree it is ready to publish, and, if not, how I might make it so. Thanks for any help. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have repaired your broken wikilink. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Malcom Gregory Scott, if you want to submit for review by the Articles for creation procedure just add to the top of your article, and then it will be reviewed and either accepted or comments made on what the problem areas are. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both.--Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory statistics
In the cleanup category Category:Articles with a promotional tone, the listed total number of articles at the time of writing is 19,174, combining the figures for each month, but Category:All articles with a promotional tone contains 18,059 articles. Why do the two figures differ and which is right? Thanks, Rubbish computer 19:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be that the template logic in was replaced with a lua module, for no great benefit and introduced a bug.  Or there could be other items that are in the relatively useless "all.." category.  I shall investigate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Thank you . It has been like this for at least 6 months. Rubbish computer 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. In September 2010 I started a mini-project to remove the "All articles " categories..  Someone took exception and reverted all my changes.  They missed one.  I fixed it.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks. --Rubbish computer 01:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

My first wiki page - adding references
Hi,

I have successfully(?!?) created my first Wikipedia entry. I took the general help page and used a similar page as template to create a page about "Targeted Covalent Inhibitors". But I am unable to figure out how to add references. I tried reading the help page but it is a little over the head for me. Is there a simpler set of instructions - like step by step instructions or a wizard?

Also how do I acknowledge the experts whose help and feedback I took in creating the content for this page?

Finally, I would appreciate feedback from more experienced users (and admins) on what I could have done better (or did completely wrong).

Thanks AP (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC) For reference:
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best page I can refer you to is Referencing for Beginners. I will post some step by steps on your user talk page, as they might be a bit lengthy for this page. DES (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Writing a Wikipedia article is very different from writing a scientific paper. Apart from the lead section (which should contain nothing which is not in the main body of the article) almost every single statement in the article should be individually cited to a source, especially any statement which is in any way evaluative, or represents a conclusion, judgment, or analysis. So the first sentence after the lead in Targeted covalent inhibitors is "Over the last 100 years covalent drugs have made a major impact on human health and have been highly successful drugs for the pharmaceutical industry (Robertson, 2005)). I can't look at Robertson's paper (which is not in itself a bar to citing it). But does it say expicitly that covalent drugs have made a major impact, or that they have been highly successful? If it does, well and good (though it is preferable to cite a page where it says that). But if those statements, or something very like them, do not occur in your reference, then they must not occur in the Wikipedia article.
 * A principle of Wikipedia which is especially difficult in articles on scientific subjects is no original research. It may be that you have followed that principle; but if anywhere you draw a conclusion or advance an argument that is not in your source, you will have transgressed. --ColinFine (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone help with a URL error message which chokes on a foreign web address?
In the article Alberto Gómez Gómez about a Colombiano artist, I attempted to reference one of the most respected online news and opinion sources in Colombia: "El Siglo Nuevo Bogotá." The URL which I supplied for it (www.elnuevosiglo.com.co) is completely correct and complete, and actually the only one which will access this online publication, but the citation that appears below shows a red error message and a dire-sounding warning. What am I missing? Thanks Rmark1030 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rmark1030. I have a few suggestions regarding the formatting of that particular reference.
 * I think problem you're having with the url is that you forgot to add the "http://" to the beginning of the web address you're using. The url parameter needs this for the link to work. Try using "http://www.elnuevosiglo.com.co/" as the web address.
 * Since the website is in Spanish, I suggest using the parameters language and trans-title to indicate that the link leads to a non-English website. Just follow example for "Foreign language and translated title" listed at Template:Cite web and you should be OK. You might also want to consider using the quote parameter to make it easier for non-Spanish speakers to find the particular information you are citing. You should also either provide the date the article was published or accessdate the date you accessed the website (if the date of publication is not known). You can use this mark up as a guide if you like:
 * which looks like
 * Since it looks like you want to cite the same source multiple times, you might find WP:REFNAME helpful. Using "ref name" eliminates the need to use the full ref template markup for each use.
 * Finally and probably most importantly, if you're going to provide a link to a source, you should be using a direct link to the article you are citing and not just the general link to the "El Siglo" homepage. Linking to the main page is not really helpful to the reader when it comes to verifying the source. It's like linking to Yahoo.com when you are citing a specific Yahoo News article. The information found on the main page is probably changed daily, but a direct link to the article should always lead the reader to the right place, unless the link is later overwritten or archived.
 * Hope that helps.- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally and probably most importantly, if you're going to provide a link to a source, you should be using a direct link to the article you are citing and not just the general link to the "El Siglo" homepage. Linking to the main page is not really helpful to the reader when it comes to verifying the source. It's like linking to Yahoo.com when you are citing a specific Yahoo News article. The information found on the main page is probably changed daily, but a direct link to the article should always lead the reader to the right place, unless the link is later overwritten or archived.
 * Hope that helps.- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Helping edit first project
Hi, I have just received my first denial, and understand the comment about changing it from a more neutral position, but I'm a little lost when it comes to referencing. I thought that I did it right. Can someone look at this work and give me feedback. Thank you!

JChewning (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note, draft is Draft:David Chackler. Does WP:Referencing for beginners help? Also note that IMDB, because it is user-created like Wikipedia is not deemed to be a reliable source, and that Amazon sales links aren't either. --ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Wikipedia articles must be written from the neutral point of view, containing no promotional language whatsoever in Wikipedia's voice. Your draft article is full of just that kind of promotional language, often called "puffery" here. All of this type of language must be removed from the draft. Any praise or positive evaluations must be attributed to a reliable, independent source. This is not negotiable.


 * Examples include, "several career titles under his belt", "launching the careers of several legendary artists", "one of rap/hip-hop music’s ground-breakers", "Grammy-winning rock legend", "life-long following", "resumes that are miles long; and both of them are pioneers in their field", "incredible success", "vast knowledge, education, and experience", "natural abilities and industry knowledge", " career spans numerous decades, genres, and mediums", "unprecedented success", "did not rest on his laurels with his past successes", "Always at the forefront of new trends in music", "A music visionary who always stayed ahead of trends", "in a move that was a surprise to the industry", "love for music and nose for talent, has allowed him to remain a household name in the industry", "extensive ear for music and talent provided the natural progression to creating", and on and on and on. Every single trace of this overtly promotional language needs to be excised from the draft, and it all needs to be rewritten in a scrupulously neutral style. In addition, every substantive claim of importance needs to be referenced to reliable, independent sources, or removed. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

help question
Hi teahouse guests, I have a question regarding on deleting a section. How/where do I explain on why the section should be deleted? I want to delete a section but don't know where to explain on why I want it deleted. because i don't want to just delete it without explaining. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacbradley2 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! All Wikipedia articles have a talk page where you may discuss improvements to the article. That would be the go-to spot to explain why you want to delete a section, or any other edit that may be controversial. It is especially useful for when you have a disagreement with another editor over content—it is important that you do not start an "edit war" by constantly undoing each other, and instead discuss the issue on the talk page and hopefully come to a consensus on what to do. Make sure you respect our talk page guidelines. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Could use some insight
Hi everyone. I am a fairly new user to wikipedia and I seem to be having an issue with my edits. It appears that no matter what I edit 1 user is undoing it. A few examples are ...


 * Edited article to fix grammar errors such as capitalization. Another instance is I corrected a company name from Fibrefab to the correct company spelling of Fiberfab. Was undone
 * Added additional useful info such as additional info on car new manufacture with their webite. Was undone
 * Edited company to reflect the company website and not a web list that it was pointing to. This one is odd because there are over a dozen references to this web list when a good majority of the companies have valid websites. I would think the company info from their respected website would have more authority then a list with a company name, address, and photo. It is odd to me that the website list has all those references but a link I added was considered spam. Was undone
 * Updated company info of a page to reflect a timeline. Included cited a URL that provided the timeline as well as internal company documents to back up the info. Not sure what would cause this to be removed with "Spam" being the reason . Was undone

I have added historical images from my own collection in an attempt to make these pages more useful. I do not claim to know it all on the topic but I do know more than most.I am an enthusiast/historian on this subject. Any insight you can give me on being a better user would be great.

Thanks Kitcarguy (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know why you may have been reverted without seeing the actual edits. Could you link to one or more of the articles you've had your edits reverted on? ~ RobTalk 04:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Where to report threats of violence?
I'm not sure how seriously to take this, but I found some disturbing language on the Talk page for the article "Trachtenberg system". I reverted the edits on the Talk page as vandalism, but if you look at the previous version (April 9, 2014), under "Two Finger Method", you see the writer threatens to stab the original author in the throat. Should I report this? If so, to whom? (Warning: strong language.) [] SimpsonDG (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you did the right thing by removing the message. Personally, I would treat it as any other vandalism disruptive editing. The user said that the author "should" be stabbed in the throat, as opposed to a substantive threat that they would stab them in the throat. Without a doubt, the comment is highly inappropriate and unacceptable behavior for any collaborative project, but I don't think it is a serious threat of violence. Thank you for your diligence, however. In the future, if you discover serious threats of real-life violence, take a look at Responding to threats of harm and privately contact a Wikipedia administrator and the Wikimedia Foundation using the information at that page so they can notify the relevant authorities. —Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You are right to be concerned, and to remove the utterly inappropriate threatening language, and to ask about it here. Thank you very much. On the other hand, the comment was made in frustration, about 16 months ago, by an unregistered IP editor, probably by an immature person, on the talk page of a low visibility article. If the same person resumes disruptive behavior, then perhaps some administrative action can be taken. But at this time, I think we can call this matter "stale". Cullen328   Let's discuss it  04:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding on, . Your comment made me realize something, and I would now like to revise my initial response by stating that the comment was not "vandalism", but more broadly "disruptive". Although the editor's communication skills were lacking, it is important to realize that they too were still editing in good faith and wanted to improve the encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

can I share the information and the references before actually updating it on the account.
Hi, As written before about Dr Ashok Gulati's articles, his books and other information about him to be managed in an organised way along with required editing on his account on wikipedia.Is it possible if I share the information with you along with the references before uploading it on his account?This is to make sure that I am doing it the right way so that this is updated successfully.We also want to update his picture as well.Please guide us.Priti Rajput, PS to Dr Ashok Gulati, Indian Council For Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi (ICRIER)(203.92.34.114 (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OWN and WP:COI and the terms of use and WP:NOTRESUME. The best thing to do is post your suggestions on the article talk page. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With regards to a picture, see Donating copyrighted materials. Note that this involves release the picture for free use by anyone, and there is no guarantee the the community will not decide that some other image is better suited for use in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With regards to an account, almost any person can create an account at any time. Howver, each individual must have their own personal account, see WP:ROLE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please Help
I got these messages but I was not contacted since from the day. I need mentor. Welcome to the Co-op! We have a mentor for you.[edit] Hello, Ras Benjih! Thank you for your interest in the Co-op. You've been matched with I JethroBT, who has listed "writing" in their mentorship profile. Your mentor will be contacting you soon to get things started. HostBot (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Co-op! We have a mentor for you.[edit] Hello, Ras Benjih! Thank you for your interest in the Co-op. You've been matched with Calliopejen1, who has listed "technical editing" in their mentorship profile. Your mentor will be contacting you soon to get things started. HostBot (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ras Benjih (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Ras Benjih, those messages that you received at Wikipedia_talk:Co-op/Ras_Benjih were from an automated robot-program called User:HostBot. Since the Co-op program is relatively new at wikipedia, it is possible the robot is malfunctioning, or it is possible that your assigned mentors are just busy at the moment.  Let us ask them to comment here, and see if we can figure out what is happening with your mentorship.  Ping User:Calliopejen1 and User:I_JethroBT, can you help Ras Benjih with getting their mentor-mentee relationship corrected?  And maybe check if HostBot is broken somehow, and assigning multiple mentors?  Or maybe that is intended bot-behavior....  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * please see above. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:I JethroBT did contact you, a while ago. I thought that he was helping you out.  Do you have any specific questions I can help you with?  Please leave a message for me on talk page. As a sidenote, I see that you are working on User:Ras Benjih/Drugs in Tuberculosis.  I would recommend not developing this article further, because it duplicates content at Tuberculosis management.  Also note that our standards for sourcing medical articles are very high (see WP:MEDRS), and your Drugs in Tuberculosis uses sources that are not acceptable.  You generally need to use review articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals.  Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor requested a new mentor here when they changed what they wanted to learn about in their learner profile in the Co-op, so the bot is working as intended. I have not had much success with mentoring this editor; they have made some good faith efforts to create articles, like the tuberculosis article, but I have not had much success dissuading them from creating articles that are autobiographical in nature or lack reliable sources, which has happened repeatedly.  Frankly, it was frustrating, and so I stopped. , I'm sorry to have dropped off the map in terms of mentoring you, but I tried, and I don't know how to help you.  I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Constructive crticism and the potential penalty for such
If I wish to chastise a fellow editor, but do so in a non-vulgar yet blunt manner, is this allowed? Would I do so on his/her talk page? If it is NOT allowed, what is the penalty - three days block, a week? I am weighing my options here and trying very very hard to keep my cool.

As an example, I | corrected a fellow editor recently, and was (rightfully) warned on my talk page. If I make a similar comment, without the swearing, what kind of penalty am I facing? I am doing this advanced because to be honest I dont want to get kicked off.

Thank you Cavalierman (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:CIVIL, our policy on civility. You're welcome to have a constructive and civil discussion with an editor about a disagreement. If it's a content disagreement about an article, it's best to have that conversation on the article's talk page and ping the other editor by typing, where you insert the editor's actual username where I typed USERNAME. If you believe the other editor is vandalizing an article or something similar, you may want to consider placing a user warning template on their talk page. Under no circumstances should you swear at them, call them names, etc. Doing so is uncivil and likely to end in a block. There is no set time for such a block, but previous incidents would be considered in determining the block length. If you're weighing whether something is likely to earn a block, then it probably will. Not only will you stay on the right side of policy if you remain civil, but you'll find that you'll accomplish more as well. Is there a particular situation that you think the involvement of a third party may help with? ~ RobTalk 10:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Language link doesn't work propperly
Together with a friend I created a Turkish translation Kapalı ve Sığ Sularda Harekât Mükemmeliyet Merkezi of an article I wrote Centre of Excellence for Operations in Confined and Shallow Waters. When I linked the different language versions, the Turkish one was still as "Articles for creation". Now it has been reviewed and moved to normal article. Unfortunately the link from the English version still leads to "Articles for creation" version. I checked the WIKIDATA page and there the link is correct. All other language links work in all directions, only eng -> tur is broken. Can someone help me fix this please? Thanks in advance seabas57 Seabas57 (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems to be working now.--ukexpat (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How to add establish copiright of an image in wikipedia if the image is taken by myself
I have created an article in wikipedia. Its a biographical article. I want to add a picture taken by me in the infobox of the article. How exaclty can I establish the copyright of the picture that I took? How can I establish that I am the author of the pic? Went through many articles on this in wiki but still got no idea how to do it. I tried to add picture 3 or 4 times. But all got deleted in less than a week citing that copyright is not thereCampoandaluz (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Simply upload the picture to commons, and state that the picture is your own work and that you release it under CC-BY 3.0 (or is it 4.0 now). We normally take editors at there word on such matters unless there is a significant indicator that the image is in fact copyrighted. Let me check what happened with your past attempts. DES (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . The logs indicate that you have never uploaded an image file either her or at Commons (the preferred place for freely-licensed images) under this account. I also checked for deleted files, and found none of those either. I also didn't see any warnigns about copyright issues on your talk page. Was this done under some other account? Or did you try to add an image that someone else had uploaded? (There is nothing wrong with that, but it would help me find what the issue was.) Can you please give more details about the images you had deleted for lack of copyright notice in the past? What names were they using, if you know, and what articles or pages were they in? with links if possible, please. In general during the upload process when asked about the image, select "own work" and agree to release under a free license. That should be enough. DES (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

hi:No, I uploaded the file from this same account and got deleted four times before. I can still see the log.

Below are the responses I got each time:

1. Thanks for uploading File:Neeraj-Madhav.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

2. File:Neeraj-madhav-62779.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here.

3. Thanks for uploading File:Neeraj Madhav.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

4. File:Neeraj Madhav.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here.

Campoandaluz (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Campoandaluz. I see the warning you got on your talk page at the Commons that you've quoted from above. Unfortunately, I can't see what was actually on the image pages to check what you did and did not include or do after you received them. Some of those warning notices go on to say things like: "If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with  to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with   to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)" Did you follow those instructions and add any type of copyright license to the page?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * - The above messages are on the user's talk page on Commons, not here in the English Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Campoandaluz (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

1) Have your photos been released to magazines/other websites? - if so their magazine/website may say it is copyright, which is what the decision was based upon 2) Did you take the photos with a digital camera, and if so, are you uploading the original file? The original file usually contains meta-data (type of camera, date, focal length etc) which "proves" that it is an original file. If, however, you have altered the image e.g. photoshopped it, the metadata may say this, so it looks like an image you have copied. - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Campoandaluz as you say, on your commons talk page, (C:User talk:Campoandaluz), it says the pictures are copyvios. 2 questions:-

tables that appear not to be editable
Hi,

I've noticed that some tables in Wikipedia articles appear not to be editable. For example, when one clicks to edit the Summary section of the article on Kingdom (biology), there is no text to edit... just the word "center", followed by the words "Full biological kingdom classification", followed by the word "/center". How does one go about editing something like this? Any advice you have would be much appreciated.

Thanks, tH0r (talk contribs) 15:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * that's a transclusion of a template called Template:Full biological kingdom classification; visit that page to edit the content. If you see tags, that indicates something is being "transcluded": content from another page is being included there. By the way, if you want to include code without it displaying, use "    " tags around the content. So you want to write , which will produce "  ". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

is a template which is transcluded onto the Kingdom (biology) page from Template:Full biological kingdom classification, where it can be edited. However, prior to editing it, please discuss your proposed changes at Template talk:Biological kingdom classification and obtain consensus for your changes. - Arjayay (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi tH0r


 * Hi Bilorv and Arjayay. Many thanks... your help is much appreciated.  tH0r  —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on Notability and References for a Start-up Company
Hello! I am attempting to submit an article on a start-up called BlueConic, and it has been rejected a few times now because of lack of notability and sufficient references. I have since included about 10 outside articles referencing the company in depth as well as many internal wikipedia references (not sure if you are looking for both?). As for notability, the company has been around for 5 years, and has clients such as Boston Globe, Putnam, ING, Volvo. The marketing technology industry is very new and growing rapidly with nearly 1,500 companies afloat today, and I believe BlueConic is a thought leader that other companies look up to for guidance. Thanks, -Quinn Quinnschafer (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The outside articles with in-depth coverage may be what we are looking for. You'll have to show us (if they are online, which they don't have to be) so we can evaluate them. Internal Wikipedia references cannot be used, but references from the Wikipedia articles might work. Now, as for the statement the company "is a thought leader that other companies look up to for guidance", such language cannot be used on Wikipedia because it is promotional. If independent reliable sources use the statement, you can say that the statement came from the sources. You don't say whether you are connected with the company, but if so, read about conflict of interest.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but your sources look like they might be what we are looking for. I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable to evaulate. Reuters I feel confident about. There is some marketing-speak remaining in the article (Draft:BlueConic), and it would be easier to read if the terms could be defined. Also, don't link your slogan (it appears as a red link) as that is unlikely to ever be a Wikiepdia article.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping User:Quinnschafer, most of your "sources" right now are press-releases (even the 'Reuters' one User:Vchimpanzee :-)    which is why BlueConic is getting declined every time.  I've added some legit WP:SOURCES to the draft-article, and instructions on how to summarize them neutrally per WP:NPOV.  Wikipedia is about boring facts, backed up by newspapers/magazines/books/academia/etc.  Concentrate on pulling the boring facts from such sources.  I've also added some press-release-URLs, which you should avoid like the plague.  You can leave me a message at User_talk:75.108.94.227 if you get stuck or don't understand something, click the link, click new section at the top, type your note, click save.  Good luck,  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again 75.108 and thanks. I should have mentioned my Internet is slow at home. My first time getting on Wikipedia each day there is a loooong wait, and this is true of the other sites I go to, but once I have accessed each site for the first time, it is normal. I couldn't very well check out those sources under the circumstances. And I forgot even Reuters could just print what the company asked them to.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  14:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

more information about revision deletion
@Writ Keeper your explanation about revision deletion was interesting and straight to the point but if possible can you please provide me some photo examples?

Also, when you see a page history can you obviously tell whether or not a contribution is revision deleted just by looking at a straight line going across?

And finally will a revision deleted contribution always be shown and visible on that particular page history?Freshmangrandcaravan (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

-- To ping somebody write Rubbish computer 00:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look at a page history and there is a line through a version and/or the editors name and/or the edit summary then that aspect of that version has been revdel'd. And yes they will always be visible on that page history.  Nthep (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Where do I submit my major revision of an article for review?
As I mentioned before, I am interested in improving the quality of articles regarding literary presses. I have focused initially on Backwater Press and Mayapple Press (the latter of which has COI and validity issues as well as many obsolete links.)  I have received some valuable advice in this forum and based on it have edited the Backwater Press article and I have re-written the Mayapple Press article significantly. How do I now share my Mayapple article with reviewers for it to be approved to replace or to be merged with the existing article? It currently is in my sandbox. I followed the prompt to submit it for review but that was a bad idea as it was returned because the reviewer presumed I meant it to be a newly created article and he replied there was already an article. Sorry if I should be finding answers to this question elsewhere, but I am still having trouble navigating all the guideline pages. Thanks for all the help.

Best,

Edward Dixon Edward Dixon (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Edward Dixon, welcome to the Teahouse! I know Wikipedia's guidelines can be tricky to navigate sometimes—if you ever need help, the Teahouse is a safe place to ask. If you yourself have a conflict of interest ("COI") with Mayapple, then the best way to submit new edit requests for review by a neutral editor is to use the talk page of the article and add the following code to the top of the section detailing your request: . Doing so will place your request in Category:Requested edits so a non-COI editor may review it an either accept or decline it. If you yourself do not have a COI with Mayapple, then you are encouraged to be bold and independently implement your edit directly, and if it gets reverted or undone, you can then discuss the issue on the talk page—it's part of a collaborative editing process called "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again, . We aren't really set up with a standard procedure for reviews of edits to existing articles. One can always post on the article talk page, but if it is an article not frequently edited, there may be no responses within a reasonable time. AfC is for drafts of newly created articles, so confusion is likely of you use it for reviews of edits to existing articles. I will look at your sandbox and give an opinion. You could, in future, create a page such as User:Edward Dixon/sandbox/Mayapple Press. Or you could just WP:BOLDly make the edit on the article and then ask for reviews from editors you trust, or here or at the Help desk. Remember that any edit can easily be undone, and as long as you aren't introducing copyright violations or libel or personal attacks, there is no harm on a not-too-active article in editing directly. On a large active article discussing a major rewrite on the article talk page might be a good idea, but in that kind of case creating a sandbox version is probably a bad idea, because other editors may have made changes in the meantime, which could be lost unintentionally when the sandbox version is inserted.
 * Oh by the way, it is helpful to provide links to articles such as Mayapple Press and Backwaters Press when you discuss them on a help page or a talk page other than the talk page of the article in question. DES (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Detailed comments left at User talk:Edward Dixon. DES (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

My page got moved out of my sandbox, and redirected. How do I move it back?
I have just started a page Gateway School of New York. I had it in a sandbox because it is not nearly ready to be seen. Someone moved it to a regular page. How do I move it back? How can I stop this from happening again? Thanks! -- PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Moved now to User:PeterLFlomPhD/Gateway School of New York, & tagged as userspacedraft. You hadn't put it in your sandbox, as you hadn't preceded the title by  --David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding a new page.
Hi there,

I found an article about my grandfather on the German Wikipedia and translated it into English. It is in my sandbox but I am not sure how to publish it. I also have the warning.: This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.

Any help is much appreciated!

Thank you! Frank Frank Moeckel (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * hello and welcome to The Teahouse. There were problems with User:Frank Moeckel/sandbox but I see some of those got solved in Helmut Möckel (soccer player). The draft whould have been moved but you might be too new a user to have that option. Anyway, it is better to wait for a draft to be approved.


 * You figured out that you could not use yourself as a reference. That is original research. One way around that, although it would still be a primary source, would be to get a reputable newspaper or magazine to interview you, and the article could be a reference.


 * And there is a procedure for translating also. You can't use the German Wikipedia article as a reference, but the references from that article could be used. They don't need to be in English.


 * Everything in the article should ideally be cited to an independent reliable source.


 * Also, you should disclose your conflict of interest.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RCP Help
I would like to become an RCP and do not know how? Any suggestions? Ben7cullimore (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Anyone can become a Recent changes patroller without asking for any special permission. Start by reading and studying Recent changes patrol and all associated pages. Do not just skim those pages. Study them until you truly understand them. Then, start patrolling. Go slow at first. Take action only when you are confident that your action is the correct one. Listen to feedback from more experienced editors. Thanks for volunteering. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you create an article (Is there more people editing?)
Wangh13 (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. See Your first article for information on this. Also be sure that any proposed article fulfills the golden rule. Then I advise that you use the article wizard. DES (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on citations
When creating content about notable people for English-based Wikipedia, is it okay to reference German-language publications, or should all citations be from English journals? I ask because the person in question has more interviews in German journals. Harper70 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Harper70
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It is perfectly OK to use reliable German language (or any other language) sources in an English Wikipedia article about a notable topic. However, if high quality English sources are also available, they are preferred. Be cautious, though, about using interviews, as they are primary sources, and not independent, no matter their language. The backbone of our articles should be summarizing what Independent, reliable, secondary sources say about the topic. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . If you do cite non-English sources, and if you use citation templates such as cite book or cite web, you can add the "language=German" parameter to indicate this, and use "trans-title=" to provide an english-language version of the tile of the article or page you are citing. If you don't use citation templates, you can include "(in German)" instead to alert the reader. DES (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Article History
Hi teahouse hosts

If I check an article’s history and then click “oldest” I can see who created the page because the very first entry usually says (←Created page with…) But yesterday I spent the day looking at the history of dozens of articles and found that curiously, many of them don’t have this page creation tag. I surmised that maybe it was an age related thing and pages before a certain date wouldn’t have the tag and after that date they would, because something changed within Wikipedia. That was easily checked and I found wasn’t the case though, so can anyone please explain this curiosity? Cheers. CV9933 (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse, CV9933. Can you provide a few examples of these articles that don't have a page creation date? Then we could investigate and see what the problem might be. Just a few of the articles you encountered would be helpful, if you can remember them (perhaps go through your browser history). Thanks! Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 11:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi CV9933. That text is the default edit summary where you do not enter an edit summary upon page creation. You can see this right now by scrolling through Special:NewPages. I'd say about one in ten users provide an edit summary and so there is no "Created page with..." I'm not sure but think this this was implemented some time in 2007 from MediaWiki:Autosumm-new, so entries before that may not have any such default ES text. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)


 * Ah okay that explains a lot. A typical starting point for me is here, I can take a random old example like this or this and they don't have a page creation tag. But in the same time frame this example does. Perhaps the issue is exacerbated by the fact that some articles go straight into mainspace whilst others go through AfC. Thanks! CV9933 (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anytime. The Aunty Jack Sings Wollongong creation is the month after the MedaWiki page was created (Nov. '06 – when it said "This is not yet active") so it's within the time frame.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Linking articles to other articles
I am editing a Wikipedia article, and am including an organization that many people haven't heard of. It has a wikipedia page so I was planning on just linking it so people can click on it if they want to know what the organization does. Can I also explain it in the article or would that be considered too bias?173.77.23.27 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello! In general we want to be linking to major concepts -see WP:BUILDTHEWEB. Be careful about making gratuitous links - see WP:OVERLINK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the subject of one article is significantly relevant in another, and the subject is a bit obscure, then a brief explanation in the 2nd article, along with a link, might be warranted, if it helps the reader. Any such explanation, if present, should be neutral and should avoid giving undue weight to the linked organization. DES (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you copy an entire text from a corporate website and paste it as an article (by adding two sentences) on Wikipedia?
Rdelano7 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rdelano7! No, please don't do that. That would be a Copyright violation, which are not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, even if the text weren't a copyright violation, a company's website is not an independent source on itself, so it wouldn't be appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article. Articles on companies need to be based on reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or magazines that cover the subject of the article in depth. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I edited an article that had this problem. So I fixed it with new details. Today, An experienced editor restored to an older version that repeated an entire text from a corporate website and paste it as an article. Here's the link for the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakthi_TV  | This article has 3 sentences from it's corporate website: http://www.capitalmaharaja.com/index.php/our-companies/mtv-channel.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdelano7 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , you are right! I will shortly take a look at the article and see what I can do to remedy the situation. Thanks for pointing that out. Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , the affected revisions have been deleted from the article history. DES (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I get my article reviewed ready to be published?
I have written my article and referenced it. I know want it to be reviewed and published, how do I do this? Gavinod9 (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are referring to User:Gavinod9/sandbox?  I have put a userspacedraft tag on it, which includes a button for you to submit for review when you are ready.  I notice that the references are bare URLs, so you may want to expand them to make it clear what the references are.  You also have external links in the text, and they shouldn't be there except in an "External links" section (& there only if relevant). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of making some formatting changes per the Manual of Style and have moved the draft to Draft:George Marshall.--ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And it's now in mainspace at George Marshall (environmental campaigner).--ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And moved again to George Marshall (environmentalist). --David Biddulph (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What to do about repeated vandalism from a user?
Hi, recently I've noticed that a user has been repeatedly vandalising the page for IEEE and I was wondering if there was a way to report this user? Missconstreu (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for stopping by. First, are you certain it is vandalism?  Could it be a good faith disagreement over the content?  Because vandalism means only bad-faith deliberate attempts to ruin a Wikipedia article, such as replacing random words with swear words, putting your friends names into articles, stuff like that.  ANY other editing of articles is not vandalism, and as such, should not be called vandalism.  It is considered poor form to label someone else's work as "vandalism" merely because you have reason to disagree with it, especially if the other person has the same perspective.  If it IS genuine vandalism, you can report it at Administrator intervention against vandalism, if it isn't I would recommend using the article talk page to discuss the problems you have with the text you disagree with, and invite other editors to work it out collaboratively.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What Jayron32 may have intended to say, in the context of reporting to WP:AIV, is that there is no point in reporting there unless the user has been given appropriate warnings and has continued to vandalise after those warnings. Usually warnings of escalating severity are given.  In this case, if you are talking about User talk:Atom2494, one warning has been given and there has, as yet, been no further vandalism.  If you see further vandalism following that warning, you can escalate the level of the warning. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the fast replies -- and yes, I was talking about Atom2494, so an extra thank you for looking into the problem! I will sit tight and see if it continues to occur. Best, Missconstreu (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

preferences: highlighted in bold, where to find?
I am coming here by chance to ask you where can I change preferences that my watch list appears highlighted in bold. I could not find it. Thanks. Cruks (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * got to Special:Preferences and it's in the Watchlist section. Nthep (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with references
Would any of you experienced editors be willing to help me with references in a draft I'm working on?: Begunahi Foundation USA. I have citations numbered, but they didn't work out as I hoped. I'd appreciate any input/critique you might offer. I'm close to ready to submit, but want to get some feedback. Thank you! Wenderfully (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Wenderfully, and welcome to the Teahouse. For other editors' reference, the draft is at Draft:Begunahi Foundation USA. What's happened here is that you have tried to number the references manually, by putting numbers inside  tags. You don't need to do that - the Wikipedia software automatically numbers references. Intead, you should put the URLs that you have listed at the end of the article where you currently have the numbers. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more details on how to reference, or ask any more questions you have here. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * THANK You!!!  Wenderfully (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, Wenderfully. It looks like you've got the hang of it now. The next thing you might want to do is put more detail into the references, beyond just the bare URL (such as the article title, publisher, date, etc.). An easy way to do that is to use refToolbar, as described at the aforementioned Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)