Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 482

Help on my page
Hi, I'm writing an article on a synagogue, and I have a couple of questions. First, how many sources should I have? I have 5 right now, but I was told that wasn't enough. Second, I made a typo on the title when I started the page, and I can't figure out how to fix it. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Congregation_Emanu-El_Bn%27e_JeshurunJennaxel (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . There is no fixed number of references that is required: quality matters more than quantity. A hundred weak references (that don't or only barely mention the subject, or that are dubious sources, or are not independent) may have less weight than a single independent reliable secondary source which discusses the subject at some depth.
 * As for the name, you change that by moving the page; but my advice to people working on drafts is normally not to worry much about the title of the draft, because when it is reviewed and accepted, the reviewer will move it to an appropriate title in main article space. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jennaxel, I would judge your references to be sufficient but more, solid reliable sources is always better than fewer. I think it should pass as a Start class article. Maybe Joseph2302, the reviewer can weigh in here. You can always ask a question of the reviewer directly.
 * And Colin is correct, when the article is moved out of Draft space, it can easily be retitled. The synagogue is correctly identified in the article text, right? Liz  Read! Talk! 23:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ColinFine is right, quality matters more than quantity. I have looked at rejection notice on Draft:Congregation Emanu-El Bn'e Jeshurun: you weren't told that "5 wasn't enough", you were told that the references you had weren't good enough. Maproom (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . One thing that you can do is try to format your references better. Consider the book The American Synagogue: A Historical Dictionary and Sourcebook, co-authored by notable rabbi and Jewish educator Kerry Olitzky. Wikilinking notable authors helps reviewers verify that their book is reliable. You did not wikilink the publisher, Greenwood Publishing Group, a solid academic house, another indication of reliability. You can link to the Google Books page for the book, and if it is searchable online, link to the page where in-depth coverage of your topic begins. You can list and link ISBN numbers. You can cite specific page numbers. All of these techniques help demonstrate that a given source is solid and reliable, and devotes significant coverage to the topic.


 * Please also use the 'named reference" technique, so that a single reference can be cited once, and then invoked as many times as you want. This reduces clutter in your reference list. See WP:REFNAME for the coding details. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think 4 is a significant enough number anyway, plus there were question marks on the talkpage about whether some of them were actually reliable sources or just self-published sources. As a result, I didn't think the sources showed it passed WP:GNG.
 * If an experienced editor disagrees, feel free to move it to article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding here Joseph. Sometimes the AFC denial templates are pretty formulaic and impersonal. But I know there is always a backlog of drafts to review. I think received some helpful advice from you and other editors here.  Liz  Read! Talk! 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphan articles
Hello, I have this problem often pertaining to some of my works being marked as Orphan Article in spite of adding external and internal wiki leaks. Would be happy if someone can offer me an advice on that issue and how to avoid it next time.

Bajechele (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted the orphan tag because the article is still an orphan. The box at the top of the article explains what an orphan is, and gives a link to WP:Orphan.  It isn't a function of how many links there are from the article, but it is an orphan because no other articles have links to the article in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Steel-cut oats
Hello, I was trying to put an explanatory note in steel cut oats. Namely, the definition of a groat. I have made three separate attempts to add it, but the other party treats the matter with biting sarcasm, and he considers it closed, and one should consult the groat article page. Before the internet was a glimmer in somebody's eye, somebody would take the time to explain the used of a specialized term before using it throughout a passage. I believe that a hyperlink if overused is a form of intellectual laziness (like looking up a word in a dictionary, to find out it is defined by other words you do not understand). In other words ,your avoiding taking responsibility to explain what you brought up. I already, sent to the arbitration committee, who in turn sent me to the administration notice board.

What do I do next, if the other party does not respond in the noticeboard?

MrX2077 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . This appears to be a content dispute about oats that developed because you do not think that a wikilink to Groat (grain) is sufficient to define "groats". And it appears that you are taking this trivial dispute to ArbCom, an administrator's board, formal dispute resolution, and now here to the Teahouse? Really? Wikilinks are our main navigation tool and the primary way that we define terms for readers. If you object so strongly to such a central aspect of Wikipedia, then it is difficult to see how you can be happy as an editor here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, to put it a little differently: On a paper encyclopedia the style you advocate makes sense: it saves sending the reader to thumb through the pages of a different volume for a definition. Similarly it makes sense for a writing which unlike an encyclopedia article is intended to be complete in itself. But for a web encyclopedia like Wikipedia the definition is only a click away. And this this style of relying on hyperlinks is used throughout Wikipedia. Indeed the use of hyperlinks is the central innovation of the web. —teb728 t c 11:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with you MrX2077 as to the the underlying issue, and have left my comments at the talk page. That's where this question always belonged. I share the incredulity I perceive above about the quick and overblown elevation of this single article issue, two-person content disagreement into something much larger. For future reference, when you have a content dispute, go to the talk page first; post your concern; ping the user who disagreed with you to that post. Wait a while for a response (on Wikipedia conversations are much slower motion than many may be used to). If there is none after a suitable time, possibly return the edit once, and provide a detailed edit summary reflecting the talk page attempt for discussion and lack of response after time was waited. If reverted again, maybe seek a third opinion to attempt to gain some consensus. See more at Dispute resolution. What you did was attempt to make an appointment at the FBI to discuss your neighbor's puppy peeing on your carpet. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a request to the Arbitration Committee. If you had made one, it would have been in the process of being declined, because the Arbitration Committee does not resolve content disputes, only conduct disputes, and this is a content dispute.  However, to take the most charitable interpretation of your actions (since you admonished me for a lack of Christian charity toward an inexperienced editor after I admonished you for wasting the time of the mediation committee), your original problem was impatience in not waiting for the other party to reply to your talk page post, and then demanding mediation three times.  You didn't wait for 24 hours for the other party to reply to your talk page post, and in Wikipedia, there is no deadline, and you should wait for at least 48 hours for another editor to reply before deciding that they aren't replying.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic is Steel-cut oats. In any case, both formal mediation by the Mediation Committee and informal mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) require extensive discussion on a talk page before moving to another forum.  That means discussion by both editors, not merely posting a long comment by one editor.  You didn't wait for a reply before deciding to try to get third-party assistance.  Sometimes it is important to be patient.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do see that there has been discussion, although not within the past 24 hours, by IP addresses. Were they you, editing logged out, or the other editor, editing logged out, or someone else?  If they were you, please remember to log in before editing.  In any case, there wasn't enough recent discussion, whether by registered or logged-out editors, to warrant a next step in dispute resolution.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you make a reasonable effort to discuss on a talk page, and another editor will not discuss, but reverts your edits, the most important rule is to avoid edit-warring. There are several ways to address failure to discuss.  In this particular case, since I don't see any conduct issues, the one that I would advise considering (but not yet) is a Request for Comments.  If the real issue is whether to include particular content, and that appears to be the issue here, an RFC rather than an administrative board should be the last step.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

How can I create my own article?
Ok, so im new in the Wikipedia and I wanted to know if there's anyway we as editors could make an article of our own? Is there a special button? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othello A. Sugreghetto (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Yes, you can and you may create a new article. But this is something I always advise new editors against trying until they have been editing for a while and have learnt how things work in Wikipedia. (I would argue strongly against providing a "create a new article" button, for that reason). Creating an article that will be accepted is quite hard, involves skills and activities that most new editors do not expect, and often leads to frustration.
 * Have a read of your first article, to begin to get an idea of what is involved. Then as I say, I recommend working on existing articles for weeks or months. You could also look at some draft articles which have been reviewed but not accepted, to see what reviewers are looking for and why they have not accepted the drafts. (You can find links to plenty of these at Category:Pending AfC submissions: some have never been reviewed, but quite a lot are being resubmitted, and you can see the comments on a previous rejection). --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting a second copy of an article
How do I delete a second copy of an article I submitted? I'm not sure which copy I should delete as one of them is under review. If you could guide me in deleting the one that is not currently under review, I will be grateful. Also, how do I delete a second user name. It appears that I have two and I would like to delete the one I created a long time ago. Thank you very much. Shyamw1Shyamw1 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Shyamw1, I only found User:Shyamw1/sandbox. Where is the second copy? Was it written by you under another account name? Because you need to stick with one user account. You need to provide us with links to each version and state which version you intend to submit and which one you would like deleted.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The other draft is presumably Draft:G. Parthasarathy, generated by user Wshyam? See section .  --David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Shyamw1, regarding having two accounts, you should immediately stop using the one you are abandoning and blanking the user and the user talk page would be helpful. If you want a draft of an article that you wrote deleted, and you are the only editor who contributed to it, just place at the top of the page. You have to decide which version you want to submit to Articles for Creation.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The two versions of the biography are almost the same, so it makes little difference which one you keep and which one you delete. It is important to abandon one of the accounts and would be a good idea, as User:Liz said, to blank the user page and talk page, because otherwise you may be charged with sockpuppetry, the improper use of multiple accounts, which usually results in a block or a ban.  I would advise you to review the version of the biography that you keep very carefully for peacock language such as "As a visionary educationist" and remove all peacock language (not just that statement).  Using the word "visionary" should always be sourced, never in the voice of Wikipeida.  "Educationist" sounds strange to Americans (I don't know about Indians or Britons) and I would suggest replacing it as per the English varieties guideline with "educator" (but without "visionary").  It doesn't matter which version you request be deleted.  Whichever version you keep, add more independent reliable sources.  You currently only have one.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Flirting with edit warring over bogus sources
Hi guys. I'm engaged in a content dispute atm. No problem; the existing editors are in 2 camps, no one is budging and so I've started a RFC. That should take care of itself in time.

A side issue is that the cites currently used to support the point are bogus. They just don't support it. It seems an open-and-shut removal case to me, but I keep getting reverted by an editor who has repeated displayed basic English comprehension problems and who refuses to explain why the sources should be used. I'm genuinely being neutral here - we're talking about the CIA Factbook, which doesn't leave a lot of scope for misunderstandings.

Anyway, I think WP:3O is the right way to deal with this sort of thing. Is that correct? Any other suggestions? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You mention two methods of resolving a content dispute, Third Opinion and Request for Comments. Either of those is a reasonable step in content disputes.  You should not try to do both at the same time.  In your case, you started the RFC, and then you filed the Third Opinion request.  The Request for Comments should be allowed to run for 30 days to its conclusion when it will be closed.  A Request for Comments takes priority over a Third Opinion, so the Third Opinion request, while well-intentioned, will be declined, both because the RFC is running, and because, if you are, as you say, neutral, you are already a third party, and Third Opinion is not applicable.  Just let the RFC run for 30 days.  That is what you should do.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * . I saw the issues as different, not least because someone having a quick look at the current article would assume that the statement is well supported, and because the insistence of the other editor that such & similar sources are acceptable is disrupting the Talk page, but fair enough.  Anyway, thanks for your help,  Bromley86 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The article in question, by the way, is Iran, and the talk page is Talk: Iran. Also by the way, many Third Opinion volunteers will not respond to a question when there has been discussion between more than two editors, even if a particular question has only been discussed by two of them, because it is difficult to parse which parts of the discussion involve only the two editors.  With more than two editors already involved, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) would be an option, but DRN volunteers generally will not accept a dispute when there is already an RFC in progress.  If there are other questions that are not covered by the RFC, the best option is to open another RFC.  If there is a specific issue about sourcing that is more specific than that of the RFC, you might try the reliable source noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

you just rejected an article and I am not sure why
I just wrote an article that was rejected and I am not sure why- I based it directly on a similar magazine posting which has far less information or links.

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

Soulcatcher180 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because that article slipped through the cracks doesn't mean that's how they're supposed to look.  WP:42 covers most of the information you need to know to write a proper article.  I've just WP:PRODed that other article.
 * In short, what you need to do is find professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but completely independent of the subject. You need at least two such sources.  Sources that just happen to mention the subject but are about something else do not count.  Sources that are affiliated with the subject also do not count.  When you have the sources, paraphrase them, summarize the paraphrased material, and possibly paraphrase that resulting summary just to be sure you don't plagiarize (something we take very seriously here).  Use the summarized paraphrases as the basis for the article, citing the sources for each bit of information.  Avoid citing any other sources until after the article is approved.  Then you can expand it using other sources that mention the subject (and, with limitations, affiliated sources).  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft: YiChung Wang
I would like someone to take a look at Draft: YiChung Wang. I reviewed this draft and declined it, saying that it appears to be a hoax or joke (rather than an inadequately referenced biography of a non-notable person). The references appear to be to other pool players, not the subject. (It isn’t a very good hoax because it is inconsistently formatted, and because adding a death date of 2013 while claiming a career from 2012 to 2016 is jarring.) Would some other experienced editor please take a look and see if they agree with me? If so, is any further action beyond declining the draft appropriate? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The author resubmitted it without taking any further action. I declined it again, but have now tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . The draft article uses an alleged Los Angeles Times article as a reference, with the title, "Still Behind the Eight-Ball : Color of Money Keeps Longtime Pool Player YiChung Wang Going". This article actually exists, but its real title is, "Still Behind the Eight-Ball : Color of Money Keeps Longtime Pool Player Ronnie Allen Going". The writer of the draft deliberately misrepresented the reliable source, and that is just one of many indications that the draft is a hoax. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. After I spot-checked one of the references, I checked the rest of them.  Cullen328 and I are saying the same thing.  About the only fact that is stated that is almost certainly true is that the subject/author is a teenager.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One can hope,, that this young person will mature and go on to do productive things. When I was very young, I made phony phone calls a few times and later spraypainted anti-war slogans on concrete walls at high schools. Some vandals do reform thrmselves. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

24
I recently went to the article 24 and was surprised it took me to the year 24 rather than the number 24 (24 (number)). Neither of these has anything like the views of 24 (TV series) and 24 (2016 film). Is this consistent with the principle of least surprise? Should there be a dab page or a different target? Advice / Opinions appreciated. EdChem (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a related discussion ont the article's talk page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware that policy dictates year over number and ignores other pages with maybe 100x as many views. EdChem (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of my newly created page
User:Jagvinder Singh Virk. Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Jagvinder Singh Virk (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I have changed your URLs to Wikilinks, to make them more readable . Your user page is for you to share as much information as you wish about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. It may not be used for an article or something that looks like an article. Writing about yourself in Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged: see WP:Autobiography for why. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for Notability (basically, that several people who have no connection with you have chosen to write in some depth about you and have published their writings in reliable sources) then Wikipedia may have an article about you, based almost entirely on what those independent people have published about you - Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a subject says about themselves - but you should not be the one to write it. If you think you meet the criteria, then you can place a request at requested articles, but there is no guarantee that a volunteer will choose to take the request. Basically, Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion (or any other kind of promotion), however you try and do it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Can i write an article about other person instead of writing about myself ?Sn6054884 (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they meet the notability criteria, . However, you should create the article as a draft via Articles for creation, not on your user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to write an article about someone else, see the policy on biographies of living persons. It is even more important that biographies of living persons be attributed to reliable sources than other articles, and the WP:NPOV}neutral point of view policy is strictly enforced.  The purpose of the strict enforcement of these policies is to avoid possible harm to the living persons.  As Cordless Larry says, it is a good idea to submit the draft biographies to Articles for Creation for review, especially because referencing, the attribution of the reliable sources, is not easy for experienced editors, let alone new ones.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Becoming an Admin?
What is the next step after request for adminship ــ --Yes ji (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Without going out of my way to discourage you, I suspect rejection of that request? Anyway, there's WikiHow on the subject which is likely fairly accurate, or you can have a look at Requests_for_adminship.  Bromley86 (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would strongly recommend you get some more experience before thinking about running for adminship (have a look at wp:NOTNOW). You can do almost anything without the admin tools. I've been here a year and I know I would not pass an RFA because I lack experience. Happily, I find I am able to do everything I have to do. Most commentors at Request for Admin expect a lot of experience in various areas and evidence of good judgment. If you want to know more about the process, I would suggest you look at past RFAs. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for telling me, but i actually asked about another wiki where i made request, and asked another admin named Hindustanilanguage/مزمل and he appreciated me, and then he told me : "You need a little more experience, only 3 months more" And then request (again)--Yes ji (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The rules on other wikis are likely different,, and what you are told on other wikis does not apply to Engish-language Wikipedia. I doubt that anyone has become an admin here with only three months of experience (except at the very start of the project in 2001). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of our other language Wikipedias are relatively new, and have shortages of administrators, as we did fifteen years ago, and so need enthusiastic new editors who are fluent in the language. Also, if you are interested in becoming an administrator, and your English is not at the near-native level, you would be better off to administer in your own language, just as we sometimes advise enthusiastic new editors whose English is at an intermediate ESL level to edit primarily in their own native language.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

citations and sources f
If I find an article that has no sources or citations, or an article that need help improving it by introducing citations to additional sources, where should I bring these citations and sources from? shorouq★kadair 👱 11:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super ninja2 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC) ‎
 * Hello again, . Identifying reliable sources gives you guidance on what types of sources are considered reliable. I tend to find a simple Google search, plus Google Scholar and Google Books, pretty good for finding potential sources, but there may well be more appropriate tools for finding sources on particular specialist topics. Of course, not everything that Google returns will be reliable, so you need to assess each source before using it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Publishing
I have created a page and I am wondering how I go about people being able to see it as when i log out and try to check my page its not finding it81.99.66.210 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You made this comment while logged out, so it is impossible for us to see your account's contribution history. Without seeing this or knowing the page name, it is difficult to answer your question. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you created the article in main space (there isn't a "User:" or "Draft:" at the start of the title), and it hasn't been deleted, then anybody searching for it in Wikipedia should find it, and when Google gets round to indexing it, anybody searching for it in Google should find it. If you created it somewhere else than main space, then it may or may not be easy to find.
 * Many new articles created by inexperienced users get deleted quickly for various reasons - often because they appear to be pure promotion, or are about topics which are not notable in Wikipedia's special sense. If that did happen, you should have got a message about it on your talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

images
If I find an image anywhere, how am I supposed to know if it is copyrighted or not? And if I can upload it on wikipedia or not? For example are the pictures that the celebrities and ather famous characters take on Instagram and other social media considered as copyright or not? shorouq★kadair 👱 10:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super ninja2 (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, . The answer is that unless you can find positive evidence that it is free for use, you must assume that it is copyright and may not be used. Most pictures on the net are copyright: exceptions are usually clearly marked (eg some pictures on Flickr - but not all - are marked as license by CC-BY-SA). If an image is very old (before 1923 in the US) it is probably in the public domain, as are many images published by organs of the US Federal government (see for example NASA's statement on the subject. But in the absence of clear information, treat all images as copyright. --ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Adding to the accurate information that wrote above, a photograph is automatically covered by copyright as soon as it is published. Posting on Instagram, Facebook or any other photo sharing social media website is a modern form of publishing. The photographer holds the copyright unless it has been formally assigned in writing to a paying customer, which is rare on social media. Here on Wikipedia, we mostly use photos that are free of copyright or freely licensed, and we require solid evidence of that. Under very limited circumstances, we allow use of irreplaceable non-free images Common examples are low resolution images of book and album covers and movie posters. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  07:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

submission declined
I have just had my first submission declined. The reason given was: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I feel that there are quite a lot of adequate sources referenced. How can I take this forward please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_Brown_%28Syndicalist%29 Tom Ferrour (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that blogs are not usually considered reliable sources for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I agree with on this matter. Most of your references are to Libcom.org, which is a website where people can post articles that they have written, and there is no evidence of professional editorial control or fact checking. Is Brown discussed in books about the early history of the Communist Party of Great Britain, or the history of anarcho-syndicalism in the UK? Articles about him in respected historical journals would also be useful. Websites hosting user-submitted content or anything that resembles a blog are not acceptable sources. Also, you mention that he was involved in two dockworker's strikes. What was his role? What year? What cities? Is his involvement discussed in books about British dockworker organizing? Otherwise, the information is so vague as to be pretty much useless. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Tom. I think you might find some useful and relevant information on the issue here at Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look for sources, . This is certainly reliable. This one initially looked promising, but needs to be treated with care as it looks to be self-published. There's a footnote in this that describes him as "one of the most significant anarcho-syndicalists of the era". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

hello
I will be visiting Tokyo for the first time from Jerusalem and would like to know if there is some out there interested in collaborating on translating article regarding Israeli art into Japanese?

Be happy to meet you in person in two weeks... Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions and learn about editing Wikipedia, and I doubt many regulars here have experience translating into Japanese. You might have more luck finding people via Translation and Translators available. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Drkup(IMJ), please consider posting your request at WT:WikiProject Japan as well.
 * Also, one of our sister projects is a travel guide, so you might be interested in Tokyo. Happy travels! WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Low IT skills and need help.
I would like to create a Wikipedia entry as a sort of memorial to my late aunt, Maree Marsden (1926 - 2013), who was an Australian model, actress (stage and screen), journalist and PR pioneer. She and/or her work are well represented in the National Library of Australia, the National Museum of Australia and the National Film and Sound Archive, but I like Wikipedia and I would like to record a sort of life story in one place - I just don't know how to do it - I use my computer as a tool rather than a way of life and I find that my IT skills are low. Is anyone able to guide me through the process of creating a Wikipedia page please? I won't have any problem with the words or providing reliable back-up, but I am completely lost as to how to go about them process and I can't even work out how to start! Thanks Stephen Marsden StephenMarsden (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . First of all, you should be aware that Wikipedia does not host memorial pages unless the person is otherwise notable. Instead, we have articles about notable topics, so I encourage you to read our notability guideline for actors. I did a quick Google search for "Maree Marsden" which is a fairly distinctive name, and found very little other than a family-submitted obituary in The Age and a couple of mentions in cast lists. I did just a quick search so there may be things that I did not see at first glance. We are looking for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Of course, not all good sources are available online, but most notable 20th century show business personalities will have ample coverage in reliable sources readily available online. Please read Your first article and follow the excellent advice you will find there. By the way, you do not need to be an IT professional to write a halfway decent Wikipedia article, but you need to immerse yourself in our most important policies and guidelines, at least for a while. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have found what I think is a reliable source about her: http://collectionsearch.nma.gov.au/collections/Maree%20Marsden%20(Parry)%20collection. But we'll need more than that. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There's also the possible issue of a conflict of interest; I know it's mentioned in the Your first article link that Cullen provided, but it's worth drawing attention to. One way of looking at it might be that, if she is notable, someone unconnected will create her article.  Then again, I don't think WP:COI prevents you from creating the article, but it is something that you should be mindful of.
 * A fun fact from Maproom's source is that her maiden name was Parry, and a search for "Maree Parry" actress gives you this potential goldmine. I would advise you to make a digital copy of any items that you refer to from that as, although verifiability does not require an online source (i.e. the fact that I could, in theory, travel to Oz and access that National Library book is sufficient), as an editor with a COI you may well find you're challenged.  Being able to email another editor or the reviewer the sources might be helpful - or it might not, if they're suspicious that you've doctored them.  Still, worth a try.
 * Another observation is that, as the collection Maproom found is called the Stephen Marsden collection, there's a very good chance that you yourself provided the information contained on the National Museum page. If that's the case, it makes it iffy, IMO.  This is not a reflection on you.  Bromley86 (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Table of contents
Recently, the default appearance for the table of contents when I visit a page is "collapsed". Is this a change in the mediawiki software (i.e., is everybody seeing this), or is it just me, and is there some way to reset it in my preferences that I just can't find? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving beyond draft to published
I've edited a few Wiki articles, and now have created my first entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Stever

Sorry to say I don't find Wikipedia especially user friendly (sorry!) and I'm perplexed on the next step regarding having the draft approved and published.

Thanks, WordmasternewyorkWordmasternewyork (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Wordmasternewyork. I cleaned up the draft a bit but then discovered that it appears to be a substantial copyright violation of the imdb bio for him (this) (I have also nominated all the pictures you uploaded to the Commons for deletion as apparent copyright violations.) I do not have time right now to clean it up, but that would involve deleting all content that it is a copyright violation, and possibly the entire article if it turns out that would leave almost nothing. Please understand that you cannot cut and paste copyrighted content here. I simply do not have time to say anything further, nor do the cleanup, though others here may pick up where I left off. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Following up on what wrote, anything you add to Wikipedia, other than brief properly cited quotations, must be your own original writing, and cannot be copied from any copyrighted source. Another observation is that the lead section of an article, which appears above the table of contents, ought to summarize the complete contents of the article, in this case, a person's life and accomplishments. The lead section of this draft article discusses only this person's influences. That is like summarizing Abraham Lincoln's life by saying that he overcame a tough childhood and was inspired by Whig idealism of the 1830s. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been scrubbed of copyvios.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Diffuse field acoustic testing (space facility)
I reviewed Draft:Diffuse field acoustic testing (space facility) and declined it, stating that it had insufficient references. I also said that, without wikilinks to other related articles, it was hard to assess whether its coverage was duplicated. I then received a standard request for feedback from an IP address, presumably its editor accidentally logged out. (Please log in before editing.) As I said, the draft lacks references, and it is difficult both to assess notability and to determine whether a stand-alone article is needed. Do any other experienced editors have any comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request approved on Talk page; what happens next?
I submitted edit requests for the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Council_on_Global_Affairs and they were all approved recently. Am I allowed to now make the edits on the Edit Source page, or does a Wikipedia editor have to do that? If it's the latter, how soon can this be done? Thank you. Lauren at the Council (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I see that your requests at Talk:Chicago Council on Global Affairs were all marked as answered by a new editor, . They must not have read Edit requests, because editors are supposed to respond to the request rather than simply marking it as answered. I will reset your requests. You might have to wait some time longer for a proper response, I'm afraid. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way,, you are just as much a Wikipedia editor as anyone else, even if you are new here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that perhaps meant to refer to Wikipedia editors who do not have a conflict of interest with the topic - hence the requested edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That is correct; I'm trying to follow the procedure for COI edits. Thank you for resetting the edit requests. Once the edits are approved, how do I proceed from there? Lauren at the Council (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor who approves the edit will usually make it too, . Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

WP policy on commercial product comparison pages
Where can I find such policies? (Is this the right place to ask?) There are a number of software product comparison tables in WP with a mix of commercial and non-commercial products. I'm wondering whether it would be permissible to also include pages for tables to compare medical technology products marketed to the general public. AFAICS, there is no such wiki repository on the web; at best, such tables are rare and not updated. Given the national (and International) health focus, this would seem a most helpful addition, Thoughts and guidance welcome, humanengr (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not familiar with these tables on Wikipedia, so could you give me some examples of articles that feature them? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * hi e.g., Comparison of open-source operating systems, Comparison of file comparison tools, and many others shown from a WP search for . humanengr (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . That's helpful, but I'm not really an expert in this area. I wonder whether any other regulars here have a view on this? On the one hand, I would say that the existence of those articles suggests that such comparisons are acceptable, but then on the other I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and would not want you to start an article only for it to be rejected or deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What kind of sources do you have for this information, humanengr? It'll matter to the editors who usually work in this area.  If you want, you can leave a message about your idea at WT:MED.  I think you can expect them to very strongly prefer academic sources for everything.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks and ; I'll follow up there. humanengr (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * follow-on qqs, if I may: I do see that many software items in those tables are linked to their own WP pages. Is there WP policy re necessity for such linked pages or is that discretionary? Also, here the table would (presumably) cover only commercial products, not freeware or shareware as for software. I thought I had seen mention (on Reddit, maybe) that WP wasn't a shopping comparison site, and so that was also a concern. But as this would not include pricing info, I take it that's not an obstacle ?? Double-checking before proceeding. ;-) humanengr (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . Items that already have articles hopefully meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, but it's quite possible that there are notable products without articles yet, so I wouldn't have thought an article needs to exist in all cases. See Stand-alone lists and Notability, which may apply here. The best thing to do would be to create a draft article via Articles for creation, where you will get feedback from experienced reviewers before it goes "live". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And thanks again, . So far, I've gotten positive feedback from WT:MED (thanks, for that pointer); and so will start drafting an article. humanengr (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

How to understand some wikicode?
Hello Teahousers.

I've been editing a couple of articles (trying to get them out of stub status) and I realize that I can ask for the "quality" and "importance" ratings of an article to be either assessed for the first time reassessed by any number of relevant WikiProjects.

For the article on Mandarava, I'd like to ask for an assessment from WikiProject India. When I go to the (relevant page, there are these instructions:

"If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to add it to Category:India articles needing reassessment. This is done by putting |reassess=y to WikiProject India on the respective article's talk page."

Yet, in truth, I'm not at all sure what string of characters that should actually look like when I type it out on the talk page. Also, do I create a new section for this request or does it go at the top of the talk page?

Thank you for your help. Best, AD64 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * p.s. and now it looks like just adding the example in my question has posted two templates here, yet neither of them seem to be any kind of assessment request? AD64 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've redone the instance here, which was just . In order for it to display a reassessment, the wikicode must look like this:.


 * For Talk:Mandarava, you should change  to  . That's all you need to do. --  The Voidwalker  Discuss 18:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for cleaning up my question as well as offering great support. I just added the code to Talk:Mandarava and it appears that all is well. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, AD64. As a general rule, any editor should feel free to set class to Stub, Start, C, B, or List class for any article.  Anything "higher" than those ratings requires extra (virtual) paperwork or official processes.  You can find the general description of what each rating class means at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.  A few WikiProjects have slightly different rules, which will be documented in their pages.  On a borderline case, it's okay to make your best guess.  "Approximately right" is much, much better than "completely wrong".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This additional information is very helpful, . Thank you. I'll keep reading about all this and watching ratings on other articles to support the learning. As a new editor, I'm not yet confident in determining a rating for an article; especially one that I've been editing. Having another experienced editor offer a rating was very helpful feedback and gives me concrete information about what is present in the article as well as what is still missing. I'm sure I'll feel bolder to rate articles that I'm not currently editing going forward. Again, many thanks. AD64 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

are there two uncoordinated new page review mechanisms?
I've used the Page Curation tool a little to review 'new' articles. Which I find using Special:NewPagesFeed. However there is also (also?) a template that puts articles into the Unreviewed category. I can go to Category:Unreviewed new articles and find, atm, 28 new articles ureviewed for May 2016. While at Special:NewPagesFeed I find way more. And I can find articles that are "reviewed" per the curation toolbar and 'Unreviewed' at the same time because that New unreviewed article template is still there. Are there two parallel uncoordinated new article processes? I am so confused. Gab4gab (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have suspected a bug recently because I've started finding new pages by new users marked as "reviewed" on the curation toolbar and nothing in the page history showing that anyone reviewed. I've suspected problems since the "extended confirmed user" permission was added. Sure seams like something odd is happening KylieTastic (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocks
If you are blocked are you basically done with editing wikipedia? Can you start over with a new username? 2602:301:772D:62D0:AC3D:4398:AE27:4CAC (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"Can you start over with a new username?"

You mean using another account?

Creating another account is not a way to be unblock.Yes ji (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What about CLEAN START? Also if you are blocked for one year, and then appeal, but are rejected, what is your recourse? 2602:301:772D:62D0:AC3D:4398:AE27:4CAC (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. When an editor is blocked, the block template that is placed on their talk page includes instructions on how to appeal the block. That would be a good place to start. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First, it appears that you are asking us for advice on block evasion. If you are in fact blocked, then posting here from an IP address is block evasion.  If you are blocked, and you create another account and edit from it, that is sockpuppetry, and is very likely to result in all of your accounts being blocked and banned.  Do not create multiple accounts due to blocks.  Now, maybe you are just asking a hypothetical question.  If so, just read the blocking policy.  If you were blocked for a period of time, just wait for the block to expire.  If you were blocked for one year, that is a very long block, but just wait for the block to expire.  If you have a specific question, please be specific, because it sounds as though you are asking about block evasion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Clean start is much harmful, read WP:SOCK, if you start Creating new accounts to be unblock, you maybe blocked from editing wikipedia by another reason named (Sock puppetry) and it will become more difficult for you to be unblock again ــ--Yes ji (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that you don't understand the complex policies either, and would also be better off to edit articles and learn by doing than trying to answer questions that you don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is incredibly confusing! I am not trying to evade a block, but the blocking policy is very confusing.  I am trying to ask about a Clean Start, I also am trying to figure out what happens when a block (after a year) is appealed and then denied if that just means the person can no longer edit wikipedia.  Thank you for answering my questions though - I do appreciate it.  2602:301:772D:62D0:AC3D:4398:AE27:4CAC (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes ji, WP:Clean start is a specific process whereby a user can stop using their account and start with a new one. It's not necessarily harmful.  It's not a way around a block though.  Rojomoke (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Either you are asking a multi-part hypothetical question, or you are asking because you are blocked under your previous account. If you are just introducing yourself to Wikipedia by reading the blocking policy, then maybe it has confused you more than necessary, and you should learn by editing articles or reading other policies rather than asking about that one policy.  However, if you are blocked, you should read the block notice and respect the block, and may request unblock in accordance with the blocking policy.  If you, the person behind the screen, are blocked for a year, you may respect the block for a year, or request unblock (which should be explained in the block notice).  If you are blocked for a year, you aren't helping yourself by asking these questions because they are block evasion.  If you just read a complex policy and it confused you, edit Wikipedia rather than confusing yourself further.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert here is the problem. The block I am referring to is a checkuser block.  After the block was appealed (one year later), the appeal was declined because "checkuser was functioning correctly".  So basically the person who was blocked appealed the block after one whole year, and the appeal was denied.  SO this will be my last post on wikipedia as it is not my intention to break rules or defy blocks.  I just feel like i am at a dead end and can never edit again.  Just by asking questions it appears is a violation of a block.  IM very sorry for breaking any rules and I guess I will leave UNLESS someone can tell me what to do once a block appeal is denied.  Again, I am truly sorry for causing any problems,  23.242.76.20 (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are referring to an editor who appears to be yourself in the third person, but I will answer assuming that you are that person, but will also reply in the third person. If the block was a checkuser block and checkuser is functioning correctly, then the editor in question was engaging in sockpuppetry, and sockpuppetry is considered a very serious violation of Wikipedia norms.  (Checkusers are a class of highly trusted functionaries who can look behind the scenes to check the IP addresses of registered users to determine whether two or more registered users are coming from the same IP address and so are sockpuppets.)  You asked whether the editor in question can construct a new user account.  That is precisely the problem, that they did create a new user account to evade a block, and that is sockpuppetry.  You ask whether the editor in question is done with editing Wikipedia.  The answer is:  Yes, with a few exceptions.  Wikipedia is not tolerant of sockpuppetry.  Clean Start is not one of those exceptions.  An exception, after six months of not editing Wikipedia, might be to request a Standard Offer, but asking this question here via an IP address has started the calendar back.  Standard Offer may be requested in six months.  Some Wikipedia editors are not inclined to grant a Standard Offer to anyone who has engaged in sockpuppetry.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

page info
Hey sir I just want to know that why my page has bebeen delated  ...and how I can get it back  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshay.swami7 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As is clearly stated here It was deleted as "U5: Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" - although you could ask the deleting editor User:JamesBWatson, given the reason for deletion, it is highly unlikely that it will be reinstated. - Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Star the Dog is an orphan page can someone help me fix that?
Star the Dog page 108.167.4.178 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Added a couple of links to this article; removed Orphan notice. Also added See also section. Enjoy! <span class="plainlinks" style="background: rgba(0,0,0,.05);">— JoeHebda • (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Star the Dog
Following is copy-paste from my talk page. Joe

I appreciate you fixing the Star the Dog page very much. One concern I have is Star is globally know as Star the Dog or by her facebook page and many articles Star - The New York Pit Bull. Is it possible to give the page the name Star - The New York Pit Bull? I appreciate any help.

Thank you, Charlie 108.167.4.178 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wondering if this can be done? Or should there be a discussion on the article's talk page first? <span class="plainlinks" style="background: rgba(0,0,0,.05);">— JoeHebda • (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This looks like a task for a simple redirect. ... A-and done. Star the New York Pit Bull redirects to Star (dog). Variations, like Star - The New York Pit Bull, produce no hits but give suggestions for what you might want, and the top one is the right one:
 * Star the Dog already redirects to Star (dog).
 * --Thnidu (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Star the Dog already redirects to Star (dog).
 * --Thnidu (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Publishing an article
I can't figure out how to publish the article I wrote. I can't get past the draft stage. Can some one help. Title is mustafa Karoli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazelwood1 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. As an obvious hoax, Draft:Mustafa Karoli has been tagged for speedy deletion. David Biddulph (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

unreferenced section: how much time before deleting the section?
I noticed sections being deleted within a week or so from adding the tag and now wonder if there are any guidelines for that? DeVerm (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's much better to add references than to delete tagged statements unless, of course, the tagged statement is false. Discussion on the talk page would be preferable before early deletion in borderline cases.  There seem to be different opinions on policy here.  Perhaps someone can point to clear policies somewhere?    D b f i r s   07:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is the relevant policy here (and specifically WP:UNSOURCED), but it does not give a definitive answer regarding the amount of time before material should be deleted. However, it does make clear that once material has been removed, it shouldn't be reintroduced without a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I work at an institution and some of its Wiki entry is out of date
what is the best way to edit the pages? These are not opinions but errors of fact, but because I am an employee of the institution any changes made in normal editing have not been successful. I have tried submitting the first change by the talk page - is this the correct protocol? The page is University of West London UWL Ros (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Yes, that is exactly the correct protocol, but there are two extra points that will help you to get your changes accepted. First, if you add edit request to your request (with the double curly brackets) it will put it in a list of waiting edits, so it is more likely to be noticed. Secondly, as it stands, any volunteer editor that looks at your request will have to go and look for published sources for the information in order to add it to the article. You can make that easier for them by providing citations in your edit request. (You don't have to format them properly, but again, if you do, you make it easier for them - see referencing for beginners for how to do so). In general, sources independent of the subject are preferred, but for uncontroversial factual information, non-independent sources are acceptable.
 * One more, important point: if you are are an employee of the university, you are regarded as a paid editor, and you are required to disclose this, according to WP:PAID. --ColinFine (talk)