Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 809

How to reference Wikipedia activity as scholarly contributions
Hi again, sorry to bother you guys again... So I mentioned that I’m hoping to go to grad school and I want to be able to cite my work on Wikipedia in my applications, but I’m not sure if there’s a way to do this, or how I would. I have some serious work in mind for Chaucer and Beowulf - just waiting to see what would be the best way to make it presentable off Wikipedia.

Is there anyone here who has experience using their activity on Wikipedia to demonstrate scholarly contributions and/or research? I’m just looking for a little advice. Sorry to post here again, but it looks like a lot of people visit the teahouse and hopefully I can get connected to someone this way. Still excited to start the real work! Thanks everyone, Steph at AUM (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again {{u|Steph at AUM]], it's good to see you back at the Teahouse.
 * While there are a few editors who are designated as "Wikipedia Visiting Scholars", it is quite rare for Wikipedia editing to gain recognition as scholarship. A big part of the reason is that the research methodology and standards for writing are quite different. Scholarship generally involves doing WP:original research, something which cannot be directly published on Wikipedia. Instead, your scholarly research results need to be published in the appropriate field's professional journals or other outlets, satisfying their standards for scholarship – only then would it be possible for it to be cited here on WP and, even then, it should not be cited on WP by you. Citing ones own publications in Wikipedia articles is considered a conflict of interest and disallowed as self-promotion.
 * There is an essay on this question that may apply to you: WP:Expert editors.
 * BTW there is no need to apologize for posting questions in the Teahouse, as long as they are related to editing Wikipedia. The people who answer questions here do it because they want to: every single one of us is a volunteer. We are interested in helping as many people as possible to become contributing editors, joining in the project to build a better encyclopedia.  — jmcgnh {{sup| (talk)   (contribs)  }} 04:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, the article on Beowulf has had more than 5,000 edits by scores of editors, so be aware that it is unlikely that you can find "serious work" to perform on the article. And anything you do add or subtract is likely to be further modified by other editors, making it difficult for you to document your contributions. The article is not "perfect." It was nominated for Good Article classification in 2007 and 2017, failing both (currently B-class). People who succeed in raising an article to GA status often post a Userbox to that effect on their User page - in effect bragging rights - but that will not hold water on an application to graduate school. David notMD (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

creating a new category - help!
I want to create an new category for alumni of Mercaz HaRav, but it's not working... I've never created a category page before. I thought you create the category page first, and then add the people? Does the order matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm613 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The category is Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav alumni. Does it make problems having the word "Yeshivat" when the institution name is just "Mercaz HaRav"? Thanks for the help, Cm613 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav alumni is an (empty) article, not a category. The category would be  Category:Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav alumni, which hasn't yet been created. You may want to read WP:Categorization. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, thanks! OK, I created the category. Now, how do I delete the article Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav alumni? Cm613 (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pages can only be deleted by administrators. It could have been requested with db-g7. I have deleted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Setting up a page for the artist Turkuaz
Hi All

One of the bands my company manages (turkuaz) is interested in having a wiki page set up. Could some one help guide me on how to do so.

Thanks!

RJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjl3rd (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, RJ. I'm afraid the answer is "Don't do it". As you will see by looking at some other questions and answers on this page, Wikipedia is not for promoting anything, no matter how worthy. "Setting up pages" is not what happens in Wikipedia: rather, we "write articles". Once the band has been written about, in some depth, by people who have no connection with the band or your company, then somebody may write an article about them: it should not be you, as you have a conflict of interest; and it should contain very little information which comes directly from the band. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject says about themselves, and even less in what their agent or manager says about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them. As well as the links I have inserted above in this paragraph, also please look at NBAND and PAID. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey
So, if you get banned can you still use sandbox. I'm not planning to vandalise or anything like that, but my friend likes making fictional articles on sandbox and at the same time finds vandalism funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BionicMoose77 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A site ban prohibits a user from editing anywhere at all within Wikipedia. In some circumstances editing of the banned user's personal talk page may be allowed; sandbox, no. Topic bans or page bans are limited bans applying to specified areas within the encyclopedia. Please tell your friend that his sandbox is visible to anyone who happens on it, and inappropriate sandbox edits may result in unforeseen consequences. And vandalism is never funny, and tends to lead to a block without undue delay. Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Newish user...I think that I've been deleted for not understanding how to create new article
Hi, I think I see what I did. I was trying to start two new articles, but didn't create them in my userspace. I tried following the wizard this time and must have put them not in my userspace as I intended. As a result the articles have been quick deleted and my user id has been deleted (sort of). These would be my 3rd and 4th articles and I'm still uncertain how to make my way around. That's ok the two articles are deleted. I would like to try again and get them in the right space. But my userid is in a strange state.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashTownHistory (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Welcome to Teahouse. You two deleted article James Shinn  and  Draft:Ryozo Kado was nominated for deletion due to subject of no important and copyright infringement respectively.  Please note that subject need to be pass the notability requirements and the content need to supported by independent, reliable secondary sources. Content added need to be based on the sources provided, however, it need to be written in your own words and not copy from the source and paste into the article. Please read WP:Your First Article and see here for the definition of notability, source types and examples for your reference -  see message on "Request on 15:31:34, 22 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by SazidKabir". Do pop by again should need further assistance. Happy editing. cheers.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think that I understand that when i used the wizard that it didn't put my page into my userspace sandbox. I had intended to work on it for several weeks before submitting for review. But my userid was also deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WashTownHistory. I'm not sure how I get it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashTownHistory (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * your registered username still works, but it may still be considered not "personal" enough.
 * Your userPAGE was deleted because it appeared to consist of writing that was not related to building an encyclopedia. I didn't see it before it was deleted, but if you remember what you wrote, try not to duplicate exactly what you had there before or it is liable be deleted again.
 * Pages that do not yet demonstrate notability are allowed to remain as drafts in either user space or draft space for six months or longer, as long as the contributor appears to be making efforts to improve the drafts towards becoming articles.
 * An actual article that does not meet notability requirements is subject to deletion.
 * Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * You can use the instructions at userspace draft to start your draft, it is not required to use the Article Wizard.
 * I hope this helps. If you have more questions, please come back to the Teahouse!  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I just created a draft article in my sandbox. Will be ever so careful now. Thank you for the kind help.WashTownHistory (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You could perhaps try creating articles on the articles for creation page. This page gives a certain amount of guidance, and also includes a link which automatically moves the article into article-space when you are ready to do so. On a separate but related topic, you should note that your userpage is meant only to contain details about yourself, and then only those details which relate to your Wikipedia involvement - skills, interests, expectations, editing history and so forth. The creation of a userpage, I should say, is not compulsory and many editors in good standing do not create one. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can help further. Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The discrimination among universities in terms of content
I think that some famous universities are immune to the rule of Wikipedia. An editor deleted the rankings of Nanyang Technological University, saying that "it is use of Wikipedia as a university prospectus." However, if I go to the Harvard university page, this page not only contains the ranking but also shows that this page is a semi-protected page. I think all the situations are the same except the name. Both have the same source too. I want to know why the rule of Wikipedia is being applied differently. Please, riddle me this.냥기리 (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * the rankings of universities such as Harvard and other world famous universities are regularly discussed in the mainstream media, by people who have no connection to the institutions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that semi-protection is typically applied to highly visible pages that attract vandalism. A page with fewer visitors would normally attract less vandalism, though protection should still be requested if necessary. In the case of the article Harvard, it was indefinitely semi-protected after years of relatively persistent vandalism. This is entirely unrelated to the fact that frequent discussion in many sources is a higher level of significance than coming at the top of a nearly exhaustive list, albeit one considered authoritative. Also, I have reviewed the revision you are referring to, and while I agree the ranking merits mention, there seems to be considerable amount of brochure like material, which is most of what was removed. I don't believe that the removal was targeted towards the ranking information, but rather the sections with excessively advertorial tone, and a like of sources.&mdash;&#x200A;Alpha3031 (t&middot;c) 16:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

INTERVIEWING A SOURCE
Please confirm the manual of style for writing on wikipedia for an interview with the source which will not be published in a book. Thank you   Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajinka! (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The style is "Don't". Unpublished interviews are original research and so are not permitted as sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello anonymous user and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * An unpublished interview cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. You can do the interview, publish it in a source that is considered reliable, and then someone else, not you, can reference it in an article.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

To : jmcgnh Thank you very much for your welcome and for letting me know. Do you have any other suggestion for a source asking me to edit and upload photos from them -as they have been written about in Wikipedia. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajinka! (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RS ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 17:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you AE. I will look to contact you. I am waiting for some information, so I may be ok.

Page titles
I would like to create a BLP page about Glenn Perry, however there is already a page with that same name who is a different person. May I distinguish the Glenn Perry whom I wish to write about by using the prefix "Dr." or his profession such as, "Psychotherapist" or "Psychological astrologer"? He is mentioned and referenced on the page "Psychological astrology," but there is no link to a page of his own. Thank you, RA778T — Preceding unsigned comment added by RA778 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey RA778. We would generally disambiguate the two by adding a parenthetical description, such as Glenn Perry (psychotherapist). Since you seem to be new to Wikipedia, I'd recommend you review our tutorial on writing your first article, and consider submitting a draft to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer, who can offer feedback prior to publishing.  G M G  talk  18:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

BARI BACCO
Please inform me of why my page faces deletion. Is it because I mentioned my book The Power Behind the Pouch is available on Amazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baracco (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:G11 and WP:NPOV. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 18:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I create a new article that I have written?
If I first put it in a sandbox, and it's ready to go, them what buttons do I push to move it from the Sandbox to the encyclopedia? Is there a page or article that I can use to find this out? Thanks. Salstergropman (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no buttons that you can push in order to move the article from sandbox to mainspace. If this is your first article, I recommend you to submit to AfC by creating a draft with title "Draft:(ARTICLE NAME)" (How to do: type this in the search bar, you will see a message at the top which looks like 'You may create the page "Draft:(ARTICLE NAME)"', click into the red link and paste your article in it) and wait for review. Then an AfC reviewer will notify you whether your draft is approved or not (within 2 months, there are too many AfC submissions currently). If you have any other questions or difficulties, feel free to ask here. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 16:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I may take your recommendation, but my question is not about the AFC process, but simple the nuts-and-bolts of what an editor does to move an article from the sandbox to the encyclopedia. And I also wonder if there is a "how to" page that explains that process? The last "how to" page I was on recommended I come here to the teahouse to get questions answered. So, here I am. I understand there may be no buttons to push (and I suspect that there may be no tea in this tea room, either.) Thanks very much for any consideration. Salstergropman (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * Once your account reaches "autoconfirmed" status, you'll have the ability to MOVE a page. The dialog for moving a page allows you specify the new title, including a different namespace. This is how experienced editors move their work from sandbox or userspace draft to articlespace.
 * New articles are not immediately available to be searched by external search engines. New page patrollers have to mark the page, after checking that it's okay.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The best way is to move the whole article from the sandbox to the mainspace. You may use your own sandbox here instead of WP:SANDBOX or Draft:Sandbox because the latter ones will be cleaned automatically. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 17:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * AfC is an alternative for directly publishing an article. If you don't want your article to be tagged with a bunch of tags or even be nominated for deletion (and the worst is being speedy deleted), then submit it to AfC. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 17:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!Salstergropman (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
I am not able to get my view my page on Google,it doesn't appear in the search engine, what could be the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach Kapduel Buol (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - this is normal, and nothing to worry about. Given how search engines like Google work, new Wikipedia articles take time to rise to the top of Google's algorithm; this is not indicative of issues with the article, or with Wikipedia - it is simply how Google works. It will ascend towards the top of the results in a matter of time. Patience is a virtue, et al. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC).
 * You may want to add to your reply the fact that a new article is NOINDEXed until it has either been reviewed through new page patrol or 90 days have elapsed. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - absolutely true. However, as has alluded to, this page was never destined to be indexed. Thanks for the catch nonetheless. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears the "article" you've made is on your user page at User:Mach Kapduel Buol. User pages should normally never be indexed by search engines. Furthermore, it is a very bad idea to try to write an autobiography on Wikipedia, and if you published that page as an article now, it would likely be deleted, for being both unsourced and self-promotional.  G M G  talk  19:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Template problem
Would someone please look at Template:Florida and tell me why the counties at the bottom don’t show. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey deisenbe. It looks like Template:US state navigation box only supports eight groups. An admin or someone with template editor needs to add this to the core template:


 * G M G talk  21:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to do so :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello.
Hi. I'm GioWiki89. I've always wondered why you can only edit some articles and not all of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.151.73 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because some articles are protected (semi or 30/500) and your user right is not permitted to edit them. WP:PP ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops I forgot full protection ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 00:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Change a Redirect into an article
I'm trying to turn a Redirect into an article, or delete it so I replace it with a new one. The article I want to (turn it into/replace it with) has nothing to do with the targeted page at all. So I would like to know what I'm supposed to do in that case. Wikipedia:Redirect doesn't seem to explain that.

Then I'm going to need step by step instructions because I'm very confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRossior333 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey JohnRossior333. When you are redirected to an article, it leave a little link in the upper left showing the article you were redirected from. If you clink that link, you can view and edit the redirect itself (see image). However, since you are very new, you should probably consider reviewing our guidance on writing your first article, and consider submitting a draft to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer, who can offer feedback prior to publishing.  G M G  talk  19:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding so quick GreenMeansGo. I see. So when I go to edit the redirect page, do I just delete the code that's there and act like I'm making a brand new article for submission? JohnRossior333 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey JohnRossior333. Yes, you can do that. But again, for your first article it is a much better idea to submit a draft for review at Articles for Creation. Writing a new article is difficult, and there is a lot to understand in what is and is not acceptable. That makes it likely that anybody's first article may end up being deleted, whereas at Articles for Creation, others can have time to review your draft and offer advice as to how you can improve it.  G M G  talk  19:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the technical means by which you would do so. Whether you should do so is a different question, please read Your first article before diving off into doing this, however.  Make sure you have all of your research and reliable sources lined up before writing a new article and be sure you cite the sources in your writing.  But if you have all of that in order, yes, just go edit the redirect page itself. -- Jayron 32 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll echo the excellent advice of GreenMeansGo -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. I think I understand now. I'll read through guidance on writing your first article and Your first article. I think my reliable sources are solid and I have plenty of things to cite as well. JohnRossior333 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Article about Productech Corporation (the company I work for)
HI, thanks for the warm and welcome approach to newbies

I'm trying to create an article about the company I work for - Productech Corporation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Productech_Corporation) I was trying to make it "third-party" and objective - but look like I failed. When creating it I was checking in with JBL wikipedia article, trying to make mine somewhat similar.

Would you please advise, what are the best strategy for improving my draft article?

Thank you to the moon and back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariyka (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * - unfortunately, it is ill-advised for you to create such an article. You have a conflict of interest in editing regions involving your employer, and are possibly in violation of our paid editing policy. Your draft suffers from a litany of issues, many of which are unfortunate hallmarks of COI edits. As has said in their thorough rationale for rejection of your draft, it is promotional in tone, poorly sourced, and likely falls short of the notability guideline. All of these issues severely hamper the draft, and mean that it is impossible for it to transition to main space in its current state. However, the ultimate advice is to refrain from creating an article about your company, and move onto other pursuits. This may be disappointing, but given your COI and the obstacles ahead, it is likely the best course of action. If you are set on its creation, address the issues raised above, and see what state the draft is in then - draft, rejection, and rewrite is a frequent path at Articles for Creation. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC).


 * - Thank you so much for the explanation and advises. Will do my best to work on it. Have a nice day! Dariyka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariyka (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi - our responses crossed paths.  Sorry your first experience wasn't a better one. The main problem is that the company doesn't have enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. Here's a link to Wikipedia's company notability guidelines. Notability_(organizations_and_companies) I did a search and couldn't find any independent coverage that wasn't promotional.  The current sources you used are all paid placements, considered primary sources, similar to a company's own web site or social media feed.  A secondary issue is that site policy is to prohibit people from editing where they might have a conflict of interest (COI).  This can be summed up here: Conflict_of_interest.  This is intended to limited bias and promotional articles, as you inadvertently demonstrated. Your best bet is to wait until your company has more reliable coverage in independent sources, and then request an article at Articles_for_creation. Cheers. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the JBL article you mentioned as an example is not up to Wikipedia standards, and should either be massively rewritten and referenced, or else deleted. David notMD (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"Articles For Creation"
Hola! I submitted an article and for an unknown reason, it has not been selected for review. It has already been 2 weeks, and it still has not been reviewed. It is Draft:I.C. Woodward. Please help me. Much thanks, Huff slush7264 20:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC) User:Huff slush7264
 * It has been reviewed and rejected five times, by five different reviewers. The declines were for being improperly source, or for not showing notability. The most recent review was on July 27. You then modified the draft and resubmitted it (twice) the same day. As the submission template says, there is a backlog and may take seven weeks or more. Submitting it twice or claiming here that you have been waiting two weeks when it has actually been only five days is not going to help. Meters (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The draft still has the problem (which I have already pointed out to you) that all the references it cites are to web pages that do not even mention the subject of the article. By repeatedly resubmitting the draft without doing anything about that obvious defect, you are wasting your own and other people's time, and making the review backlog of which you complain even worse. Maproom (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, rejected six times. That ship has sailed (and sunk). David notMD (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Six times now that I have formally declined the draft. Same reasons as before (notability and sourcing) with the additional comment that the article may be a copyvio as an overly-close paraphrasing of https://dl.mospace.umsystem.edu/islandora/object/umsl%3A155076?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=6752e47bcdd21c72627c&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=0.
 * The user has now created a new ship article (in article space rather than as a draft) John Hulst (ship) that has many of the same problems. Meters (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Everyone!!
i wrote an article on this singer ive been following since 2015, her career has really been growing and since i know a lot about her and im kind of a big fan, i figured i might as well write her a wiki. i edited a bunch of other wiki's for some artists i also really like ((got in trouble for not citing them lol) and i uploaded a public photo from her website that is also the first photo on google when you search her up. i assumed since it was available on google and her site it would be considered creative commons?

is this incorrect?

what are the requirements for a photo to be considered creative commons? i wanna upload a photo of her to the wiki page because without it the page feels kinda empty/incomplete.

Thanks, Liora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelyliora123 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . There are two ways an image can be used on Wikipedia. The much preferred one is when a free image is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons; the other is when a non-free image is uploaded to English Wikipedia directly. Non free images are allowed only when all the criteria at WP:NFCC are met: in particular, the requirement that there be no reasonable possibility of finding a free image means that this is almost never relevant for a living person.
 * A free image, suitable for Wikimedia Commons, must be demonstrably free for anybody to reuse in any way for any purpose. It is up to the uploader to demonstrate either that the image is in the public domain by reason of its age (dates vary by country, but anything published before 1923 will pass0; or that the copyright holder has explicitly placed it in the public domain (as the US government does for many images produced in the course of government work); or that the copyright holder has explicitly licensed the image under a suitable licence such s WP:CC-BY-SA. If you find an image on the web, you need to look at its copyright status. It may have an explicit licence which is compatible with Wikipedia. But any other statement, or no copyright statement at all means that it cannot be uploaded to Commons.
 * So unless the picture you want to use is explicitly stated to be released under CC-BY-SA or something compatible, the only way to use it would be to contact the copyright owner (who is probably the photographer or the agency, not the subject) and ask them to release it - they can follow the procedure at WP:DCM if they are willing. --ColinFine (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I want a musician artist page
I want a musician artist page. can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asshishroyin (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not entirely clear, but I'm assuming that you are a musician and want a page about yourself.  First, such an idea would reflect a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not social media for people to write about and promote themselves. In other words, it is not a place for people to "have pages" about themselves, it is a place that has articles about people. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources have to say about an article subject, that indicates how it meets notability guidelines, in the case of musicians, WP:BAND. If as a musician you did not meet one of the listed criteria there, you would not merit an article here at this time.  Not every person in a field merits an article here.
 * It is also highly discouraged, though not forbidden, for any person to write about themselves here per the autobiography policy. This is mostly because people naturally write favorably about themselves.  It is possible for someone to successfully write about themselves, but it is rare and difficult.  The vast majority of people cannot do so.  If a person interested in writing about themselves is truly notable, someone else will eventually take note of them and write about them. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Xtools: Pages Created. Count is incorrect for my pages
I include an infobox on my user page that shows a count of all new articles. I ran across the Xtool: Pages Created recently and submitted my user name. I noticed the Xtools page count was lower than my own page count. There are four pages that I created that are not included in the Xtools count. I reviewed the edit history of these articles. The missing pages were moved from Draft to Article by another editor when I was new to writing articles on Wikipedia. How can I get those articles attributed to me so I can have an accurate total article count? Sharon Stocker, Helen Waterhouse, Hannah Morris (anthropologist) and Marina Elliott. thnx MauraWen (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi MauraWen. It happened because you reused User:MauraWen/sandbox. If you had created separate pages like User:MauraWen/Sharon Stocker or Draft:Sharon Stocker then it wouldn't have mattered who moved them. You are allowed to reuse your sandbox but it can have this effect. I don't know whether it could be changed with revision deletion, history splitting or other shenanigans but I don't think we do that for this purpose. The page history is attribution for who did what. Xtools is not "official" attribution and isn't linked by default in the MediaWiki software. It's just one of the links the English Wikipedia adds at the bottom of user contributions with Sp-contributions-footer. You are free to list the articles as your creations on your userpage. (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter Thanks for explaining how that occurred. Good to know that the Xtools count is not official, I am not going to worry about having the count changed. MauraWen (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Red flagging
One of the editors has red tagged a page citing issues of it appearing like paid content tags. Please help on how to resolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.9.88 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Please name the article and sign your posts (latter, by typing four of ~ at the end). David notMD (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New Record in Swimming
Just letting you know guys that a 10 year old named Clark Kent beats Michael Phelps in swimming record, I think we need to have article of this kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.186.251 (talk)


 * We already have an article titled Clark Kent. If you're referring to a different Clark Kent, you can request it be created at Requested articles, or create it yourself and add it to the list of Clark Kent articles.&mdash;&#x200A;Alpha3031 (t&middot;c) 08:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I Googled it and there are many news stories about 10-year old Clark Kent breaking a 23-year old record by Michael Phelps. Most stories don't say which record or are vague about it but it's the long course record for 100m butterfly for under-10 year old boys at a specific competition the Far Western Long Course Championships in California. Kent's time was 1:09:38. The girl's under-10 record for the same competition is 1:07:42. The American under-10 boys record is 1:05.98 by Andrew Rogers. So Kent was 5% above the national record for his age. 5% is a lot in elite sport and doesn't sound notable to me, and the record holder has no article. Kent Clark got a lot of news reports, probably because of the Michael Phelps angle and his name being Superman's alias, but per WP:BLP1E I don't think he should get an article. The World record without age restrictions is 49.82 by Michael Phelps. Kent was 39% slower. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I should maybe add that the girl's record at the competition is also the national record, and there are events where the girl's national record is better than the boy's. He is a good swimmer and shouldn't be dismissed as slower than a girl. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How is that dismissive? The point you made was surely that other individuals have swum the distance faster. --bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "beaten by a girl" is a common way to make fun of boys/men in many cultures. And for adults, men's swimming records are much faster than women's, e.g. 49.82 versus 55.48 for the World record in this event. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I am aware of that. So? Sexists gonna be sexist, we have no reason to speak their lame language here when none of them has even tried to make that point - it is disrespectful towards much more than half the population (including all the men who are offended by the verbiage). Since this is not an adult record, and as you point out girls' records are often faster at this distance, it is a contradiction in terms to imply that it's a disgrace to be slower than the girl(s?) who swam faster, solely based on the gender of the male swimmer. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't dismissive and my formulation was poor. I just meant that my own comparison to the girl's record shouldn't be interpreted as me being dismissive. Nobody had commented on it but I imagined my first post could be read like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to imply that you yourself are sexist, I just don't think it's a good idea to use their language, pre-emptively, on the off-chance that some sexist might interpret it in a certain way. Your first post was entirely factual and uncontroversial, IMO, with no extra explanation needed. But this discussion has probably run its course :-) --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

IMO. notability for one event not sufficient. Wikipedia is not about news David notMD (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Muscle pages, especially eccentric contraction
I would like to update and expand some of the muscle references in wikipedia. I am a retired muscle researcher who made highly cited contributions to understanding the behaviour of muscle stretched while active. Examples include the top two articles on https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=rx0CAFQAAAAJ&pagesize=100&view_op=list_works. In my opinion at least some aspects of the work are significant to the general public, especially DOMS, hamstring tears and the mechanism of training to prevent them. I also believe that I am capable of adopting a neutral point of view, but would like to ask whether the editors would judge that I have too much personal involvement to undertake this.

In 1990 I proposed that, under appropriate conditions where isometric tension decreased as length increased, lengthening of active muscle occurred primarily in a small number of sarcomeres. This leads to sarcomere non-uniformity, and hence to the micro damage referred to in the existing articles. The repeated bout effect is accounted for by an increase in the number of sarcomeres in series, so that the action no longer involves long sarcomere lengths. Hamstring tears are also prevented by eccentric training; predicted by me and shown by others, particularly in Norway.

I have been looking at the existing pages, and find that they are largely written from a sports perspective rather than a physiology perspective. The page "Muscle contraction" has an eccentric contraction subheading, with examples, and a mention of strength training, but no mechanism of lengthening, of damage, nor of repeated bout effect. There is also a brief mention of sarcomere length instability under the subheading "Sliding filament theory", but no exploration of its consequences. The page "Delayed onset muscle soreness" has phrases "The mechanism of delayed onset muscle soreness is not completely understood" and "The reason for the protective effect is not yet understood." that reflect pre 1990 thinking. We do have very good hypotheses to explain these, and extensive support for them. The page "Leg curl" or Hamstring curl only deals with strength training, not prevention of muscle tears. The page "Pulled hamstring" does not recognise the importance of optimum length, even though its reference 13 deals with this. Yes, I am an author on that reference. It also misses the work from Norway showing that leg curls prevent pulled hamstrings. It recognises that tears occur during eccentric contractions, but does not link to Eccentric contraction or Eccentric Training. The page "Muscle" has a two sentence mention of eccentric exercise, with no explanation but a link to "Eccentric contraction", the subheading in "Muscle contraction". The page "Eccentric training" deals mainly with strength training, not prevention of muscle tears, but has quite a lot of background on eccentric contractions. It mentions the repeated bout effect, but only in terms of strength, not sarcomere count. It does not clearly distinguish the microscopic damage of DOMS from the gross injury of a pulled hamstring, using "injury" for both.

My preference would be to create a new page on the Sarcomere nonuniformity hypothesis, and link it extensively to all the above pages, using minor edits like "For an hypothesis to explain this see ..." Hopefully this would minimise upsetting other contributors to these pages. However I would see merit in the argument that there are already too many overlapping pages, and it would be better to merge than create another. What would you advise?

I realise that this question is more about content than process, and would welcome a better forum for asking. Drdrdlm (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Complex situation. You have a non-financial conflict-of-interest in the topic. Part of the problem is attaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) when you have an opinion on the topic and will want to cite your own journal article in support. This does not preclude you editing existing articles or creating a new one, but it is the sort of thing that will need to be stated at Talk for those articles. You should be aware that for health and medicine topics, Wikipedia has a special standard for references, strongly preferring reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses over primary research such as a report on a clinical trial. See WP:MEDRS. My suggestion is to start with editing existing articles, and at each, create a new section in Talk, stating that you have conducted research and have published in this field (no need to give your true name or identify those articles). This is in the interests of transparency. If at all possible, try to limit your citations to references other than those you have authored. Of course, if other editors cite your work, fine! As a PhD researcher, I know this may be difficult. To date, I have made thousands of health/medical edits, but none citing my own work. David notMD (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Bird Photography in World
I want to write about "Bird Photography". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didarul Basher (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome, I hope you will. Do you have specific questions?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per User pages, your User page is supposed to be for a brief description of you and what you intend to edit at Wikipedia. It is not a place to create an article. You do have your own Sandbox to do that. Alas, what you have written (on your User page) in no way resembles a Wikipedia article. My recommendation is to delete all of it. David notMD (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User page deleted. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Need help to improve On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects
Hello,

I created the page On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects from the french article. This book was translated in english recently, it's a very important book in the philosophy of technology (in top 5). Sadely, I realize now I need help from a native enlgish speaker. It's kind of hard to check philosophies in english for me. We need also more source. I put a really good source in the "see also" but they should be more.

It's a very interesting subject, yet complex. I think it's really a great addition to wikipedia as this book is a lot under rated outside Europe.

Gagarine (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * Your article was not an acceptable book article because it did nothing to establish the notability of the book through references or even making unsupported claims. I have redirected it back to Gilbert Simondon for now. You are welcome to draft a more completely fleshed out article, and to ask for help, but not to put a completely inadequate article in mainspace. It would also be acceptable to enlarge the Gilbert Simondon article with more information about his general approach covered in multiple publications. Once that section has become significant, it might be possible to spin it out a separate article about this book.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . It is sad when you receive such disappointing news after so much work. If any part of the meaning of the advice from jmcgnh is hard to understand because of the use of idiomatic English, tell us what part needs to be more clear. If you find more independent sources which discuss thoroughly the work of Simondon, then I will try to use my native English to help you write a summary of what they say, so the work of Gilbert Simondon may be understood more completely. I am no expert in philosophy but perhaps I can help. - Egmonster (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello thanks for your help!

I will change my strategy about this article. I will improve the french article first where peoples know it's one of the most famous book in the field. Then I will ask for help to translate it. thanks you :). Gagarine (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , excellent! - Egmonster (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Reference from Facebook
Can I take reference from Facebook and use it for citation in the articles? Bayernfan2003 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * Facebook entries are user generated content and therefore can almost never be used on Wikipedia. The one exception is that it can be used as a primary source to show that the account's owner said something on Facebook, but only if there is good reason to believe the account's owner is properly identified. This is subject to all of the restrictions associated with using primary sources.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Assistance needed when publishing a new page
Hello, I have tried to publish a new page on Wikipedia, but am finding difficulty. Could you please assist me in this? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommaso Calabro Art Gallery (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * your draft doesn't have any references Indicating the topic and the draft js written like a promotion/advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.186.251 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there, the recommended way to start a new article is to submit a draft at Articles for Creation, and it looks like you've already figured this out. Remember that the subject of the article has to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines to be published. I see that has already asked you to change your username on your talk page, so be sure to choose a new username before you continue your draft. Please take a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines as well. —  Newslinger   talk   19:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

dance article
Hello - I wanted to add something about a particular, unusual kind of folk dance - and reference another wiki page. As a newish user, can I edit a semi protected page?Leyla Katz (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - semi-protected articles can only be edited by confirmed users. Most users are autoconfirmed - this occurs once two criteria are met; the user created the account four or more days ago, and has made ten or more edits. Once you are autoconfirmed, you can edit semi-protected articles. If not, you must wait the prerequisite amount of time and build up edit counts. Looking at your contributions, you should be good to go. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An oddity
I today created Caprera (disambiguation), a routine, everyday DAB page. I looked in Italian Wiki for a DAB page to InterWiki link to it, but didn't find one.

However, User:PLbot has added a perfectly good InterWiki link to my new DAB page. The oddity is that User:PLbot has been WP:BLOCKed since 18 March 2013. Narky Blert (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did they add the InterWiki link? Are you on about this edit on WikiData? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Narky Blert. I'm not sure why PLbot added that link, because the ceb.wiki page was an article, and the Wikidata item was for a dab page specifically. I have removed it. For context, Wikidata is a stand alone project, and the inter-wiki links are added at Wikidata, and displayed on other projects like the English Wikipedia. So blocking a user or a bot on the English Wikipedia, doesn't affect their ability to edit Wikidata, or any other sister project like Wikiquote or Wikimedia Commons.  G M G  talk  22:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also ping User:Pasleim, who is the bot operator and a sysop on Wikidata.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ceb:Caprera is a disambiguation page and belongs in . I have restored it there. PLbot was only blocked at the English Wikipedia for having "bot" in the name without having a bot flag here. But it has no edits here so there is no need to apply for a bot flag. It's a bot at Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oooh. Thanks PrimeHunter. You are correct. My mistake.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I half-suspected: a bad link to Wikipedia from Wikidata. (Wikidata is a site which I do not trust in any way whatsoever. I have seen too many bad links from Wikidata into Wikipedia. They often/usually create problems for WP:DPL. They are often also damdifficult to fix - I today came across a Wikidata-generated problem in English Wikipedia which took me something like 30 minutes to identify and to fix. What a waste of time and effort!) Narky Blert (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Colour
How do you on airline destinations put colour on future destinations. Fly High in the Sky (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Welcome to Teahouse. I am not sure if you are looking to change the text colour or the colour of the cell of the table or maybe both.  Please see here how to adjust text colour Coloring and highlighting text|Coloring and highlighting text, and  cell colour hereColor; scope of parameters. Thank you.
 * However, Please note you and  are on dispute of of the content of Air Sénégal International, please bring the disagreement to the article talk page and seek a consensus agreement. Do note more than three revert on the same article within the 24 hours time frame would be considered as edit warring (at the moment both you have yet to violate the guidelines) . All content added/ changed should be supported  by independent reliable secondary source, and if both of you can not reach an agreement, then bring it to Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of WP:3RR. Thank you.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Making a new heading
How to make new headings in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markethan24 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * =level 1 heading=, ==level 2 heading==, ===level 3 heading=== etc. ~  Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 03:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, MOS:HEAD discusses how headings should be used. Level 1 headings are never used in articles. Chris857 (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Bye Bye
Bye Bye Wikipedia! Jetstreamer keeps changing and following every edit i do and I'm fed up so Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly High in the Sky (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * And good bye! It looks like you needed to stick around a while longer to learn how Wikipedia works. It's too bad that you found it intolerable and felt you had to leave.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)