Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 554

Uploading an old photograph
I've been trying to upload an old photograph (taken in 1914) of Duncan Napier 1831-1921 which is in our company archives and which I, as a director, have given permission to be used under Open Licence. However, I have been unable to find out how to do this either by its age, as a Confirmed user, etc. I'm very new to Wikipedia so may just be missing something. I just wanted to correct and expand the page. If I am too new to upload it, can I be put in touch with an editor who can check it and place it for me? Many thanks. MonicaWilde (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please use the Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard. It walks you through the process. You don't need to be confirmed to upload a file there. You can then use the photo on any Wikipedia article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi MonicaWilde. Please note that if the photograph was published prior to 1923, it is in the public domain, and no permission is needed (nor could you assert any copyright ownership). If published after 1923, then it depends on if published with or without a copyright notice. See Public domain for more, if relevant. If it was never published, however, then it is copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death, so that would have to be known (in a verifiable manner) to determine whether copyright had expired. I go into this because owners of archives are often not the owner of the copyright of works contained in them, such as by a signed legal agreement transferring the work by its owner (often the person who took the photograph or their heir). Unfortunately, if the status is unknown, then, as painful as it is, under the U.S.'s byzantine copyright laws, it's an orphaned work which can't be used (except under a valid claim of fair use, through an upload here and not at the Commons). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finnusertop That worked perfectly. Thanks. MonicaWilde (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit Noted. It was taken in 1914 so pubic domain. Thanks. MonicaWilde (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Monica, "taken" or published?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the details provided with the upload, I believe this is a good faith copyright violation, or, at least, the information provides no validation that the copyright is owned by the archive, it appears the author is unknown, that the image was never published, and since taken after 1896, it is putatively non-free copyrighted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit There is a large legal document drawn up in 2007 by a Scots law firm that confirms the ownership of the archives and estate of the company. However this isn't published online and is a commercially sensitive document. I understand it is difficult to prove without electronic copies in the pubic domain to link to. Hopefully, the age is self evident from the picture content and can be used. Thanks for looking into it MonicaWilde (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm not sure if it's a good idea to assume that anything is self-evident when it comes to Wikipedia or copyright. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at anytime, so any information you add to the file's description can be changed/removed by anyone, and lots of people make claims of "own work" or "public domain" simply as an honest mistake. So, something more tangible is probably needed to verify the file's licensing. If the information is commercially sensitive, then perhaps your best course of action would be to have someone representing the copyright holder send a declaration of consent email to Wikipedia:Contact OTRS. OTRS will verify the file's licensing and keep a record of it in case it ever becomes an issue. Once the files licensing has been verified, an OTRS volunteer will add Template:OTRS permission to it, so that anyone looking at the file's description can see it's licensing is acceptable for Wikipedia. You can find out a little more about this at c:Commons:OTRS. FWIW, OTRS volunteers are granted special rights by the community to handle these types of things and they receive special guidance on handling sensitive information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo!! question regarding cleanup.
Helper how to remove duplicate links from this article : Lal SenaMaaley (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That notice was placed by a bot. I believe it was noticing that you have linked multiple times to Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation. You should only have two: one in the infobox and on in the article, usually the first occurrence. Unlink by removing the doubled square brackets.
 * Aside from that, there is no need to place links in the "See also" section to pages that are already linked in the body of the article. Those links should be removed entirely from the "See also" section.
 * And welcome, to the Teahouse, . With a little more practice, this will all be easier.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (posting again so ping will work with correctly spelled username)  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (posting yet again so ping will work)  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk)  (contribs)  06:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The notice was placed by the OP in ; all the bot did was to add the date. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please forgive my many mis-steps.


 * , as you requested, I edited Lal Sena and reduced the duplicate Wikilinks. If you're satisfied, the overlinked template can be removed. I see from the history that you sometimes use the visual editor and sometimes don't. I find that these sort of technical edits are best done with the "traditional" editor.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

episode 1 murder of a tree
HELLO! TEAHOUSE PLEASE DISPLAY EPISODE 1 MURDER OF A TREE ON MY PAGE I WANT TO COPY THIS.Zeba Rasheed (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello there seem to be two problems here.  Firstly, your Caps Lock appears to be stuck on.  Secondly, and more importantly, you seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is.  It is where people collaborate to write a reliable, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a web host where people can keep their creative writing project.  You will need to find somewhere else to do that.  If you would like to contribute to building the encyclopedia, we welcome you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The third problem is that has apparently not read the replies to his previous questions here, on 8 November, 22 November, 1 December, and 3 December. He has continued to try to use Wikipedia as a webhost, and his page at User:Zeba Rasheed is about to be deleted for the second time. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF WIKIPEDIA: The TRUE facts or the perpetuation of fraud & racism
My name is Mike Stainbank. I must first confess that I am technically challenged and I  suspect that my age has something to do with it - but not for long. I will eventually get to understand WIKIPEDIA protocols and navigation tools. On a more serious note: I began an edit on the page Apartheid Museum. Somebody raised the point that I was too close to the subject. Also, the person asked whether WIKIPEDIA should be carrying the story of the Apartheid Museum OR the matter of the infringement of the registered trademark. It was not me, but the person who initiated the page in the first place, who raised the subject,  under  the erroneous heading NAME CONTROVERSY, when it is in fact INFRINGEMENT OF A REGISTERED TRADEMARK. I have explained that it is true that I am intimately involved and this is precisely why I believe that WIKIPEDIA readers will take offence, if they eventually get to know that they were duped into supporting a racist fraud. I have offered a sworn affidavit with statutory documents in support of my claims. MAINLY THOUGH - my documents will demonstrate that the person who set up the page has INTIMATE knowledge of the fraud. Would you want to reject my FIRSTHAND knowledge for the Gold Reef City Casino version that purports to be independent. Please help. Mike Stainbank (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * It sounds like you need to carefully read the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest.
 * It is often frustrating to people who come to Wikipedia to contribute to learn that your own knowledge is "not good enough" for adding to Wikipedia. Facts in Wikipedia articles must be sourced to references that other people can verify.
 * I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough to be able to give you a good response about trademarks.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a close look at WP:SHOUTING and WP:SOAPBOX as well... Wikipedia is not a place for WP:SPA to save your case whatever it might be, take care, it is an online encyclopedia JarrahTree 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike Stainback. In addition to that the others posted above, please try and understand that Wikipedia is not the place to try and right great wrongs. You've substantially revised the article over the past few days from this version in what looks like an attempt to do this, but this is not how Wikipedia typically works. The integrity of Wikipedia actually depends upon content being written in a neutral way: content which is supported by citations to independent reliable sources so that it can be verified. Some of the changes you have made may be true and may be stuff that you personally know; however, unless you are able to support these claims by citations to such sources, they are going to be treated as original research and removed from the article. Your account is only a few days old so it's completely understandable that you are not familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Perhaps you should take the Wikipedia:Adventure since it will help you get a better idea as to what Wikipedia is all about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. The part that you have not addressed is the fact that the person who created the page in the first place is INTIMATELY involved with Gold Reef City Casino. The point I am trying to make is that nobody other than myself can prove that and ensure the integrity of the information that your public depends on. Would it not be better to track the originator of the page and put my allegations to her/him. Alternatively, wait until I have completed my edit and provided the statutory proof of what I am trying to correct on the article. The originator of the page, probably within my physical reach, I suspect will back off. Mike Stainbank (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reasons nobody has addressed that is because nobody has any way of knowing whether that is true. The article was created back in 2005 and has been edited by many editors over the years. Of course, it is possible that some of these were associated with the casino, but a claim such as this requires supporting evidence. If you are able to provide evidence of this (on Wikipedia this is referred to as diffs), then feel free to ask discuss these concerns on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but please be careful not to violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people and Wikipedia's policy on posting personal information. You really shouldn't just say someone associated with the casino created the article, proceed to change the article in a major way to your preferred version, and then tell others to wait until you can provide proof that what you're saying is true. You'd be better off proposing the changes you want to make on the article's talk page first and seeing a consensus can be established to make such changes per WP:CAUTIOUS. The article is not the place to wage your legal battles. When the matter has been resolved one way or the other, then informaiton about it can possibly be added to the article if it can be supported by citations to independent reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , you have an obvious conflict of interest and should not be editing that article. Instead, express your concerns at Talk: Apartheid Museum. Other editors with conflicts of interest also should not edit it.  Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject South Africa has been notified and discussion is ongoing at the article talk page. The Teahouse is not the right venue for discussing a content dispute. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The introduction of Wikiprojects South Africa is a good idea. Good that  you suggest that the other editors with conflict of interest should not edit. Please let Wikiprojects South Africa know, that I am available for interrogation and official documentation Mike Stainbank (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Help
Hi, what does rmv reference to clearly identified wikipedia mirror mean?In one of the edits I did, somebody deleted something and wrote this, so can you say what it means? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Adityavagarwal It means you are trying to use a website, which is just a copy of Wikipedia, as a reference. Wikipedia is not a reliable source to start with, and a mirror can be even less so.  You can write anything, true or not, in a Wikipedia article, and it will appear in the mirror, so you can't use the mirror to justify the original statement in Wikipedia. - Arjayay (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "rmv" stands for "Remove". If there are Wikipedia abbreviations which you don't understand, try Glossary.  In, the reason was that the "reference" which you added (https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Capnolocha&item_type=topic) is obviously a mirror of Wikipedia's Capnolocha, and we can't use Wikipedia or its mirrors as a reference, see WP:CIRCULAR. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Adityavagarwal. Many sites are mirrors of Wikipedia, meaning that they simply rehost content from the encyclopedia. These can't be used as references because it essientially means we are citing ourselves, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because it is user generated content. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help Arjayay and as always David Biddulph.Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I was thanking Arjayay and David Biddulph you might have replied too so yeah thank you very much Timothy Joseph Wood  as always for helping me. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hah. I guess this is a bit of over kill huh? I must have hit edit as soon as you all posted, because there wasn't a response when I started, and when I finished there was three. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah no wonder that people here are so eager to help, it is quite apparent. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Citation
Hi, I would like to know how many citations are required. Should every sentence contain a reference? For example, if a paraphrase five sentences from a source do I need to reference every sentence or just the last sentence of my paraphrase paragraph?

16:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maison de Philippy (talk • contribs)


 * Hey Maison de Philippy. There is no hard fast rule or set number regarding how many references is "enough". To create an article on a new topic, there needs to be enough references to demonstrate that the topic has received sustained non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.


 * If you are trying to add content to an existing article, certain things must always be cited, such as statistics and direct quotes. Other than that, any content that has been or is likely to be challenged must also be supported by a source.


 * As far as "every sentence" goes, its a little bit of a matter of style. Most editors seems to be fine providing a single citation for a paragraph, if it's evident that the entire paragraph is referring to the same source. The general rule there is that it should be clear to the reader where the information is coming from, so that the content is verifiable. As long as that's true, then is should be good to go. If someone else reads it and is confused, then you should discuss with them how to change the formatting to make it less confusing. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

How to stop Donation requests on Wikipedia pages
I already donated twice this year. That's all I can afford. Instead of a thank-you-note you should have sent me an instruction how to stop your aggravating popups for more donation.Tamas Frecska (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting Wikipedia. Once you click on the "X" at the upper right corner of the advertisement it should disappear and stay disappeared until the next campaign (a few months later), at least that has the case for me.Dig Deeper (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if you don't want any more banners to display at all, you can go to this page, type, and click .  This will turn off those banners at the top on all Wikimedia-run websites unless you choose to remove that text from that page.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 01:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But as this was the first edit by that user name, the computer will not know that you have donated, or requested no more pop-ups, using another user name. - Arjayay (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the answers, but...

1. Clicking on the X (close button) works only on current session and not always... 2. I have not yet figured out how and where to enter the code you sent, it certainly cannot be entered on the page you indicated... 3. Being a new user I found all your answers pretty cryptic but... Thanks anyway98.244.193.184 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The suggestions might work better if you log in with just one user name, otherwise Wikipedia has no way of knowing that you are the same person. The method will not work if you are not logged on.    D b f i r s   17:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

difference in facts between languages and leaving notes
Hi, I was wondering: 1) What to do if the information given on a topic in one language was quite different from that given in another - is there something like a flag button, or a box where you can leave a note with misgivings? 2) How do you leave a little question mark (looks like a footnote number, right?) where there should probably be a reference for some information given in an article? Thanks! Gwainh (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Gwainh. I believe what you are referring to is . This template includes a parameter called "reason" where you can leave an explanation for why you are including it. For example, if you type:

Madrid is the capital of France.


 * Then what you get is this:


 * And when someone holds their mouse over the "citation needed" the reason you typed in there will pop up for them. Hope this helps. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you!

Gwainh (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Stiki
For few weeks I am not able to use Stiki properly. I have mentioned this at the Stiki talk page and user talk pages of users, but got no reply. Is there anybody who is able to use Stiki? Marvellous Spider-Man  16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's working fine for me. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But why, I have downloaded the latest version. My reverts don't get saved in my contribution. I click good faith revert and Stiki shuts down. Always. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's weird. I don't know why it wouldn't be working. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Try taking this problem to Village Pump/Technical. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's working OK for me at present, but one or two others have reported problems and just occasionally it crashes for me. I've blamed my poor internet connection or my very old computer, but your problem is obviously different.  Are you able to try another browser and a different Java installation to eliminate a local cause?    D b f i r s   19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for talk page of a disambiguation
Hi there. I've looked high and low for an answer, but no luck. My question is whether Wikiprojects should be added to the talk page of a disambiguation page? Please look at all the Wikiprojects at Talk:Trump. I added an article about a ghost town named trump a while back, but it would look really wonky if I added "Wikiproject Ghost Towns" to this dab page (with a rating). Is there some guideline for dab talk pages? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is almost never a good idea to add a WikiProject banner to a disambiguation page, even WikiProject Disambiguation!
 * For your Ghost Towns project banner, that belongs on the talk page of the town, not on the talk page of the dab.
 * And welcome to the Teahouse, . I hope this helps a bit.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I might remove those banners from the disambiguation page then. Thanks!  Magnolia677 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo credit
I uploaded a photo (credit and source: myself) and it was marked as File Source not Properly Indicated. Jessica Dee Humphreys Child Soldier Book Signing.jpg I think I have resolved it - can anyone confirm? Thanks kindly. JDHumphreys (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)JDHumphreys (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You have indicated that File:Jessica Dee Humphreys Child Soldier Book Signing.jpg is your own work, but your username suggests that you are the subject of the photo rather than the photographer. Could you clarify? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha - good point. My mother took the picture with my phone.  I didn't think that was worth mentioning, but certainly can.  Should I add to the source: "Photographed by Helga Humphreys"?  JDHumphreys JDHumphreys (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think we might need your mother to release the image rights, . Can anyone else confirm this? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The photograph is such very poor quality I have removed it from the two articles it was added to. Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant to the question at hand, however, Theroadislong. Can certainly get a higher quality - I intentionally blurred it so that they faces in the crowd (who did not sign a release) couldn't be seen.   In regards to the source - can anyone address this?  The picture is mine, of me, photographed with my camera phone, by a family member: what is the best way to indicate appropriate ownership? JDHumphreysJDHumphreys (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To resolve this, I cited the person holding the camera as the photographer.JDHumphreys (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that does resolve it, . As far as I understand it, the person who took the photo owns the copyright, and so we need confirmation from them that they are happy to release it under a Creative Commons licence. I might be wrong though. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I should have been more clear. I sought permission from my mother, and she consented.  So, I put her name as the photographer. Is there another step you'd advise?JDHumphreys (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can just take your word for that. What we need is written confirmation from your mother. She can use Commons:Email templates for this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks for providing the how-to.JDHumphreys (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't understand why you need to blur people's faces. There's no requirement that people give their permission if you take a photo in public, is there? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

COI to add photo of self?
I realize that the subject of a page cannot write or edit that page, but does this apply to adding a photograph? I don't see this addressed in the COI guidelines. JDHumphreys
 * Except that it's not a very good photo and adds nothing to the article except to further promote you. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

How to post a BIO
Please help me with posting a biography. I understand it is preferable that I not post my own biography as it may not be subjective. However, the people I know who have volunteered to post it have no knowledge of markup or how to place references or any of the technical matters needed. I have put the body of the BIO in my sandbox which I have submitted. There is not a great deal of clarity as to the steps for posting a bio. If you could outline a step-by-step approach, I'll figure out the rest. Thanks so much, George MallinckrodtGeoMallickrodt (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Creating an autobiography is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and is strongly discouraged because it is so difficult to write it from a neutral point of view. My Google finds only text that you have written yourself, which wouldn't make you WP:Notable, but perhaps you can find independent accounts of your life and actions in WP:Reliable sources.  Wikipedia is particularly fussy about WP:Biographies of living persons, especially when they are written by the subject, so you will have an uphill battle, but if you insist on trying, start with finding lots of newspaper articles about yourself and choose the best.  Your sandbox draft will eventually be reviewed, but, meanwhile, see WP:Referencing for beginners, and work to improve it.  You should also be aware that other editors can, and will, change what you have written about yourself, and you will not be able to prevent that from happening.  You may wish to take this fact into account before proceeding.    D b f i r s   20:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On that final point, I recommend reading WP:LUC and An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, . Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC
 * We already have a related article: Death of Darren Rainey, which mentions you,  Cullen328   Let's discuss it  22:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A request for adminship is in progress
Pretty well brand new to Wiki, but not sure why I received message "A request for adminship is in progress."

Will provide username if required.

Is that normal?

Ravvel (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whenever someone has been nominated to become an administrator at WP:RFA, all users with notified on their watchlists. You don't have to worry about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the TeaHouse.  You may be new, but you are still welcome to comment, ask questions, and vote in the "RfA" (Request for adminship) process.  Wikipedia administrators (sometimes described as the "people with mops") have special authority to do things like block and unblock user accounts, protect and unprotect pages, etc.  They are elected by the other editors (including you and me) via the RfA process.  Of course, you probably have not had much interaction with admins so may not have an opinion, and as  said you can safely ignore it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse Question Submission page
Just out of interest.. the Teahouse title and question submission text box areas - I'm using Firefox 50.1.0 with current versions of LXDE(Linux).. seem abnormally large! They completely obscure the left-hand menu, and partially obscure the page text below them. Right-hand margin seems fine. Page formatting issue that requires tweaking? ( seems to happen elsewhere as well ). Anyone else out there spotted similar? RedDwarfPlanet (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the screenshots...
I usually use this site to make infoboxes for Alternate History.com, largely for fun. Tell me - is it possible to upload screenshots and images from other sites in order for people like me to make infoboxes?Migratorn (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be pleasant, but mostly no. Most web pages, and most pictures, are copyright. There are exceptions such as Public domain and Fair use but those are pretty rare. That's why most pictures in Wikipedia are made by our editors, such as you and me. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Converting to admin with JS
There's some way someone can convert to a admin with JavaScript? GXXF T • C 18:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your question is. Admin rights are nothing to do with javascript. Nthep (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What makes content within a Wikipedia article notable?
WP:NOTE gives the guideline for what makes an entire article notable, but it doesn't explain what makes the content within the the article notable.

What does determine what makes the content within an article notable? My understanding is that coverage by many WP:RS would make content notable, but I can't find anything that says that officially.

In other words, suppose I add a fact to an article, supported by many WP:RSs. Another editor says, "That's not important," and deletes it. What are the Wikipedia rules that we could use to establish objectively whether it's important, rather than just saying, "Well I think it is important," or getting into an edit war? --Nbauman (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing this is about Betsy DeVos. Please ignore my comment if I'm wrong. The issue isn't whether the actions of the subject's relatives are notable – you appear to have shown that they are. It's whether warrant a place in an article about her. Maproom (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , Yes. (My user history is public, of course.) That was the most recent article, but this happens all the time. --Nbauman (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This specific situation is under discussion at Talk:Betsy_DeVos, so it's best to leave the specifics there. But since you are asking for more general guidelines, it seems to fall into two parts: what is appropriate for inclusion in the article, and what goes into the lede.  This is such a broad topic that I doubt you will find really black-and-white rules, but WP:BLPSTYLE is pretty good about tone and balance.  In particular, beware the temptation to use an article about one person as a "coatrack" to make comments about other people or arganizations they may be affiliated with.  The article must be about the subject, and comments like "she can only do this because her family is so rich" sound like synthesis and best left out altogether.  In the lede, only the key information about the subject from the rest of the article should be summarized; I imagine this would rarely include things like how much the father-in-law is estimated to be worth.  That may be true, but it belongs in an article about the father-in-law.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since we're talking about the Betsy DeVos article, I'm not asking about the lede, but the "Early life and education" section. My question would be:


 * If the fact that her father contributed to the Family Research Council is reported in many WP:RS articles about Betsy DeVos, should that fact be included in the Wikipedia entry about Betsy DeVos, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines?


 * In other words, I'm trying to get away from arguments and justifications based on editors' personal opinions, and instead find more objective rules to follow, like the rules of WP:NOTE. It seems reasonable that if Wikipedia has rules like WP:NOTE for the notability of entire articles, there should be similar rules for the notability of parts of articles. But I can't find any such rules. --Nbauman (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines solely relate to what topics are suitable for entire articles and, as you realise, say nothing about the contents of an article. These guidelines are just that and they are not "rules". For article content there is even less by way of rules or specific guidance. These matters are left to editorial judgement and, where there is disagreement, things are sorted out on the talk page and a consensus of editors taking an interest prevails. Editors' opinions do indeed count and, if you are looking for rules, in general you will not find them. However, for information about living people WP:Biographies of living persons does provide a set of firm rules. More generally regarding balance within articles the policy is WP:Neutral point of view. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I applaud you for trying to find something concrete to base the conversation on, but I think said it all - it's up to each editor to explain why they think it is, or is not, appropriate to include a piece of information and how much weight to give it.  Then hammer out a concensus.  It's hard, but it forces everybody to make their reasoning explicit, and in the end we trust that it makes for better articles. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, , Thanks for your thoughtful comments.


 * What happens, in many controversial stories, is that a few WP editors who agree with each other gravitate to those WP pages, and bully other editors into deleting material that is unfavorable to their side, or keeping material that is favorable to their side. Very often one or two editors will continue to revert edits that they disagree with, and simply continue with WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, violating WP:NPOV and making arguments based on their own personal opinions, rather than WP policies and guidelines. It comes down to an edit war, and whomever can round up the most allies wins.


 * (I deliberately didn't ask about Betsy DeVos specifically, because I wanted to talk about the broad problem. Another example is using "Right to Life" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life#Abortion which violates the AP style manual, rather than the NPOV term "Anti-Abortion". I change it in an article, and two editors gang up on me and revert it. They just ignore style manuals and NPOV.)


 * The official solutions in WP:Dispute resolution, such as soliciting third opinions from RfCs or noticeboards, don't work, in my experience. Some of these noticeboard discussions can go on for months, with more tendentious arguments, until they wear people out, and all during that time, the bullies have their way.


 * I don't understand why WP:NOTE specifically excludes the content within articles, and I don't understand why we don't have a similar guideline for the content.


 * I might have to take this to Wikipedia talk:Notability, but before I do, I'd like to see whether or why anyone would object to such a guideline. --Nbauman (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a thought without having looked into all of the details above,, but isn't this covered by WP:WEIGHT? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that seems to be what I was looking for. WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I've read it before, but I somehow got hung up on WP:NOTE. I'll try that and see what kind of response I get. Thanks to all. --Nbauman (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Help !
Can helper kindly review the article Srikakulam Peasant Uprising and suggest required improvement?Maaley (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Maaley. It's a really good start. I would say that it could probably benefit from a greater variety of sources, and it looks like there is no shortage. This is one of the benefits of writing about historical topics: there's usually plenty that's been written about them. This also reduces the likelihood that the article is unknowingly biased in one direction or the other by the writings of a single author. This is one of the disadvantages of writing about historical topics: there are sometimes one or two sources that disagree with the others on important facts, and you have to do a broad comparison to figure out which is the majority view.


 * A few minor things: This happened in the last article I saw of yours. In the cite news template you can't use websites as the name for a newspaper. That's why you're getting the big red error in your references. So the newspaper would be The Hindustan Times, instead of http://www.hindustantimes.com/. Also, you should format your external link as a citation template, instead of using a bare url. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, (and this is complete personal preference) but when I'm writing on historical topics, I like to do a bit of an After action report section. Compare the article on Pittsburgh railway riots that I wrote most of. After the bare facts have been established regarding what happened, it takes a bit of time to go over things and examine what factors were in play, what effect it had, what its legacy was, etc. I think it helps ground the article, not just in what I'm reading but also why I'm reading it that is why it's important. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Timothyjosephwood Thanks for the feedback. I will do as suggested. Kindly help me understand this template issue as I cant understand what to do. For example, in the following case :cite news template should I put "The Hindustan Times" in "cite news" and the url in "cite news template" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaley (talk • contribs) 13:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maaley, you would put with two apostrophes around the name to italicize it, since it's the name of a publication. You don't need to duplicate the website, since the template already includes a direct link to the article. If you want to cite an online source as an online source you would use Template:Cite web, which includes different parameters.  Timothy Joseph Wood  13:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood How to fill up this :. What to write in last=,first=,Location= ? And how to do this now when the referece is already given because I cant get the link in edit box it is showing just reflist. Maaley (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Maaley, if a story has a named author, you would include their name in first= and last=. Location is for publications that strongly affiliate with a city, ...and I would completely ignore it. I don't think I've personally ever used it once. With these parameters, if you leave them blank, the software will just ignore them. With others, like title=, if you leave it blank you will get a reference error. Obviously, every story should have a title, but many stories are written by unnamed staff writers, and that's why these lesser used parameters are not required. Timothy Joseph Wood 14:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also is a landing pad of sorts, and tells the software: Take everything in the article that is enclosed in brackets and put them all here. But the list doesn't populate in the text editor, it only populates when you actually view the article.  Timothy Joseph Wood  14:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood yes you are right. but when viewing the article how can I edit those now? I also can't edit it by visual editor.Maaley (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Maaley: Oh...umm...I've used visual editor very little, but it looks like you click on the actual reference number (the thing that looks like this → [3] ) and then enter the parameters in the pop-up. Alternatively, you can click "edit source" and enter them manually. They will appear in the text of the body where the source (the thing that looks like this → [3] ) appears in the article, and not in the bottom under references. An easy way to find them is to do a CTRL+F search, and look for a word that is unique to the reference, like, for example, "hindustan" seems to occur only in this reference and no where else in the article. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Sorry, I tried my best but I am not able to do it at all. I will keep your instructions in mind and will surely do accordingly while making a new article. Thank you for such precious observations and instructions.Maaley (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Maaley, I apologize that I'm not better with visual editor. I fixed the reference. Maybe looking at the difference will help illustrate what needed to be changed. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood no no please don't be apologetic, its just because I am new here. I will surely get it one by one. Thanks ! now I understand. But where did you edit it ? In the text viewer? But in the text viewer also it is showing reflist. Then how did you populate it?Maaley (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Section break
Maaley Since I just enabled both the visual and text editor in my preferences (link should be in the top right of your screen), I have two options to edit with: "edit" and "edit source". "Edit source" is the regular editor and "edit" is the visual editor. I hit "edit source" and then Control+F to open the "find" option. I searched for "hindustan" to find where in the article the reference was, and then I manually typed "The Hindustan Times" into the reference where it said "newspaper =".

This is a little hard to explain, but it has to do with the way that interacts with. For example. If I don't use and I type this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been." The Devil went down to Georgia. (1979) Charlie Daniels. Epic Records. They continued to engage in a contest which Johnny won.

What I get is this:

But if I use and, when I type this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been."  The continued to engage in a contest which Johnny won.  

What I get is this:

So hopefully as you can see, the combination of and takes the actual text of the reference and transports it to the end of the article when it is viewed regularly. However, when you edit the source of the article, the actual text for the reference is still in the body text. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Maaley (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Yes I understood it clearly now. Thanks for such a nice explanation :D ! Maaley (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

user page
Can you give me an idea for my user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsighn (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to the TeaHouse.  User pages are entirely optional, but they can give you a way to express yourself, and to smooth interaction with other editors by letting them know a little about yourself and your Wikipedia interests and experience.  If you want to read the comprehensive article, see User pages.  For creative ideas and resources, see User page design center.  Or you can do like I did, and shamelessly steal anything that looks good from other people's pages. Enjoy! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you do if the day of a death date is not available but month and year are?
So if the cite is this:


 * death_date=death date and age|2016|01|30|2002|03

The number 30 is an example and acts as the blank space I have because the day is unknown. What do you put instead of "30"? Plus, brackets are removed because I obviously need to show you the code.

Depthburg (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse again,.


 * I'm under the impression that the best you can do under these circumstances is use the death year and age template.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also manually add the article to Category:Date of death missing or Category:Date of death unknown. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Or you can use the Death-date and age template (note the subtle difference that it has a dash in death-date), which accepts dates in text form. So in your example, " January 2016 " produces "January 2016". Of course, if you know the birth or death day then include them as well. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Alrighty. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depthburg (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a comment that in some cases you can determine the actual date using math. If on June 6, a Wednesday, a newspaper publishes an article that says, "Famous person X died on Monday" you can easily determine that they died on June 4. It's not always possible to do this, but it's really nice when it is. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, it's just that the body was found on January 31 and she was last seen on January 28 or something, so you can't really approximate, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depthburg (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Would a YouTube documentary be considered reliable?
I had found an offical looking documentary about a certain topic which stated different things from the Wikipedia version of the topic. I cconsidered it reliable and heavily cited it in the article at the necessary places. But, to double check, are documentaries reliable?

Here's the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7SBLI8tU7o Depthburg (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking (before I even open the video): If the documentary is reliable, its presence on Youtube is probably a copyright violation and so should not be linked. (It is also possible for it to be unreliable and a copyright violation).  If the youtube video is not a copyright violation, it's probably not reliable.
 * After opening the link: That looks more like sensationalist "edutainment" than level-headed scholarly or journalistic analysis. It looks like it might also be a copyright violation.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, lucky I asked this question. Thanks! However, this documentary provides audio snippets of the killer talking and also footage of interviews with witnesses which all acts as a good source but the video may be copyright violation, so I'm not sure what to do now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depthburg (talk • contribs) 11:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can use a documentary as a source without linking to a copy of it on YouTube,, as sources don't have to be available online. The more important issue is whether the source is reliable. You could ask for views on this at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depthburg (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Audio of the killer talking and interviews with witnesses would be primary sources, which are generally discouraged because they're open to original research, which we don't use. The documentary would be a secondary source if it is interpreting, framing, or contextualizing the primary sources, but the documentary's reliability needs to be established.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depthburg (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I typed an article into my sandbox (Vogel Era/sandbox). How do I now put it into Wikipedia? Vogel Era (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I typed an article into my sandbox (Vogel Era/sandbox). How do I now put it into Wikipedia? Vogel Era (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you click the "move" tab at the top of your draft and move it to "(article)" space with the title "Koranui Incline". I expect most people here would say you should submit it  to WP:WikiProject Articles for creation and you might get some good help there. However, I never do this because it often just leads to delay and difficulty. Anyway, by the look of your draft, you are not needing much in the way of advice! Thincat (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the TeaHouse. You have done well, especially for a first article - congratulations. I made a couple of changes to "Wikify" the article, and there are a couple more things you should do before making it "live".  Firstly, there is a discrepency towards the end: "The Westport Coal Company expressed hope in March 1887 that further extensive alterations to the incline would allow operations to resume, but by May 1877 the incline had been dismantled."  Should that second date be 1887?  Secondly, the citations to newspapers should be fixed - they are all missing the title, which is required (most have title=page, which does not make sense).  You will find it easier to use cite news rather than cite journal (the latter is better suited for academic journals), the name of the paper goes in "work=", not "last=" (that is for the author's last name) etc.  Once those are cleared up, I think it's good to go and you can reward yourself with a cup of your favourite.  Of course, if you have any questions you can always as here... --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The draft in question is User:Vogel Era/sandbox. When you ask us a question about a draft, it helps to identify the draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will add one minor comment to the various minor comments. (They are all minor comments because we all agree that it looks good, especially for a draft from a new editor.)  It could benefit from more links to other related articles.  It has two, but it could benefit from a few more, such as South Island.  (A New Zealander probably doesn't need a link to South Island.  It is well-known to them.  An American does, and I would guess that a Briton or an Indian does.  I don't know about an Australian.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Robert. I have studied how to make links and have added some you suggested. Vogel Era (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * While on the topic of improvements, I found a photo that would enhance the article, but need some expert advice about the Copyright. The photo is here.  According to Copyright situations by country, images become public domain in New Zealand 50 years after the author (photographer) dies.  The photo must have been taken before the incline closed in 1887. So if the photographer was 20 at the time and lived to be 98 or less then the image is PD.  But that's a lot of assumptions.  I have contacted "West Coast New Zealand History" as suggested at the bottom of that page, but in the meantime can anybody offer another suggestion?--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gronk Oz. Thank you for repositioning the reference numbers and identifying the date error (now corrected). In the 1880s in New Zealand, articles in newspapers generally did not have titles - they were all run together. I couldn't get the word page or letter p in front of the page number using that template, so I used the compulsory title field to solve both problems. I will study the mark-up system more to see if I can find a format that can hold the news article references better. I left out the newspaper volume and issue numbers for each newspaper artticle because the format system wouldn't let me put the full citation in! Some other editors' descriptions have shown other ways of citing things that don't fit the template (NZ Parliamentary records of the 1880s definitely don't). I have been aware of the photo you found but the NZ Archives (a government department) said I could not use it on Wikipedia. However, it is on the internet so I guess I can provide a link to it at least. Vogel Era (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's alive! The article Koranui Incline is up now. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have to keep the redirection thingie in my sand box forever? I can't see how to use my sandbox with it there. Vogel Era (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . You are welcome to blank everything off your sandbox and start over, replacing the content with . I edited the article a bit, mostly WP:MOS stuff. I also assigned it to an appropriate WikiProject and rated it. I gave it a B quality rating, which is the highest I've ever rated an editor's first article. Great job! John from Idegon (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. That formatting and consistency stuff is in one sense straightforward but it would take years to actually memorise it all for use when editing. Vogel Era (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)