Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 813

I need help with consensus dispute
I'm a pretty new WP user, and just got involved in my first controversial article, the Alex Jones page. First, let me clear the fact that I first incorrectly edited this page, which was undone and I was corrected. I figured out how to edit correctly, with gaining consensus first. So here's my problem: I took a look at the page amid the recent controversy and noticed what I thought to be contentious content. This is both in the first sentence, where it states "Alexander Emric Jones (born February 11, 1974)[1][2][3] is an American radio show host and conspiracy theorist.[4][5][6][7][8]", and another sentence that states "Jones runs a website, Infowars.com, devoted to conspiracy theories, fake news,[11][12][13] and selling dietary supplements under his own name." The problems are where it states "...is a conspiracy theorist" and "...is devoted to fake news". I thought, I'd try getting consensus to change it. The points I brought up were that, since many people follow Alex Jones, and the sources aren't neutral, it seems to violate the NPOV and as well as Bios on living persons. I suggested that the article should instead say Jones is "widely regarded as a conspiracy theorist", or that Infowars is "widely regarded as fake news". Another argument I tried making is that "fake news" is a neologism, not an official term. So, it's impossible to dogmatically state that without being biassed. Anyway, I noticed some previous postings agreed with me, but after I posted this, I got nothing but users saying that Jones IS a conspiracy theorist, and saying I don't understand the rules. Someone even came to MY talk and accused ME of "advocating for a political position"!!!! –– This is obviously info that does not NEED to be stated in the description of Jones unless someone is trying to make a point. Refer to Osama bin Laden, Louis Farrakhan or Antifa. See how neutral they are! Some of the citations provided on the page (not sure if they will show up here, but please check them out) are from websites that are generally considered reliable, but the particular articles are obviously opinionated. According to the policies on Biographies of Living Persons, one can remove these contentious edits without seeking consensus. So I tried that too, but someone put them right back up. Finally, someone sent me this LINK, and I'm considering using one of it's options, but I'm unsure which one to use, if any.

Can I please get someone's opinion on whether I'm correct about this whole thing. If these people are in the wrong, what is the best way to go about getting the article properly edited to have a NPOV? But before you answer this post, please check out my posts in the Alex Jones Talk Page, near the bottom, as well as my TP.

Thanks --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The answer is really just to continue discussing the issue at Talk:Alex Jones, or to accept that you are in the minority on this issue and to move on to another area of editing. As to the issue at hand, you write that "the sources aren't neutral", but taking the conspiracy theory description, the sources cited include an article in a scholarly journal and an academic book chapter as well as some highly regarded newspapers, which are towards the top of the pile when it comes to what is considered reliable. If you have credible sources that dispute the characterisation of Jones as a conspiracy theorist, you need to provide them on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am having trouble adding references. Is there a guide to this?
I am having trouble adding references. Is there a guide to this? Can I only cite references that are available on the internet?

thanks Quidrich


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.  You may learn about citing sources by reading WP:CITE.  Sources do not need to be online, as long as they are verifiable. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There's also Help:Referencing for beginners. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What they said, and when you add cites to an article, look at the other cites there and try to make yours similar, - we have different acceptable styles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

How to correctly start a new article/page?
Hello. I would like to start a new article/page about the celebrity J French. I see he hasn't been covered by Wikipedia yet.


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is this the J French you mean? If so, a WP-article may be possible. Start by reading Your first article carefully, and follow the directions there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can also try to ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hip hop, someone there may be interested, you never know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The page I created on Ivo Schaible in English seems to have disappeared in my backend
Dear Tea House,

I was working on a page about Ivo Schaible in English. I recently added the references and citations and now I cannot find the page anywhere on my backend. Where do I see all the pages I am working on that I have published and put up for review?? thanks for your support. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidrich (talk • contribs) 08:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You can find Special:Contributions/Quidrich by clicking on the "Contributions" link near the top right-hand corner of any page. Draft:Ivo Schaible is among them, and your draft is awaiting review. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved the photo of him that was top-left to top-right (and thumb instead of gallery) to reduce all the white space that was at the top of the article. My only other comment is that you have far too many images of his work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I created an article without reading deletion log
I created an article of Julian Osula Nigerian without reading his deletion log what should i do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R213P (talk • contribs)
 * I have deleted it as a recreation of an article deleted after an AFD. It was sufficiently similar to the previous article and did not address the concerns of the AFD.  ~ GB fan 11:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Uploading Picutre
I am working on a wikipedia page for a very popular comedian in India, how do I upload of a picture of him without it being deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonsv123 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're talking about Draft:Kenny Sebastian and assuming he's still living, then you're probably only going to be able to use a photo which is either within the public domain or which has been released under a free license accepted by Wikipedia. Wikipedia does allow certain types of copyright content to be uploaded as non-free content for use in articles per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but non-free photos/images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed.
 * Basically, you should assume that any photo you find online is protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise. So, unless you actually are the photographer who took the photo, Wikipedia's most likely going to need some kind of proof (typically an email) stating that the original copyright holder has given their explicit consent for their work to be uploaded to Wikipedia. This type of permission is not needed for non-free content, but as I posted above that doesn't appear to be an option in this case.
 * Please take a look at c:Commons:Licensing for some more general information as well as c:Commons:OTRS and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for suggestions on contacting copyright holders and requesting permission to upload their work to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Create New Page
Can any one Write a New Page About Ranbir Chakma he is an Actor ...known for the Movie Nasha 2013 and software hardware kya hai yearoon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationne (talk • contribs)
 * If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:
 * 1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
 * 2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
 * 3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
 * 4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
 * 5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
 * 6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
 * 8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
 * Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

John Davey
Hi Teahouse, I have a question about this article that I tagged a   template and that is if an internal wiki link in a See Also section can be used as a source just like a link under an External Link section can. Thanks. – Yanjipy (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia article can not be used as a source, but if the linked article were to have reliable sources relating to the subject of the first article, that source might be able to be used as a reference for relevant text. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you . – Yanjipy (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for the invite. My name is Andrew from the Netherlands. Long time Wikipedia user. New to editing. I prefer to consult and edit the English Wikipedia. - Radiomanster (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - welcome to the Teahouse. If you have any questions to ask regarding editing, do not hesitate to do so here. I moved your comment here from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, as it is more fitting here. - Stormy clouds (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I upload an image without doing copyright?
I've uploaded a horse image for my userpage before, but it was removed/deleted for copyright. But for my article, Samsung Galaxy Note 9, there isn't a picture of the phone or logo yet. But how do I upload without doing copyright? HorsesARENice'' Ride me to my talk page 23:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - you can freely upload images which you own the copyright to under the Creative Commons Licence. However, you do not own to copyright to logos or images published by Samsung, so they cannot be released through the normal manner. However, if you can find a suitable logo on the Samsung website, and use the Upload Wizard appropriately, you may be able to add the logo specifically for use on that article, as it is fair use. I would suggest you read this to further understand non-free image use before attempting to add content. It is also tangentially worth noting that Samsung Galaxy Note 9 is published in mainspace, and as such is no longer your article. However, I am sure that this was just a slip of the (metaphorical) tongue. Nonetheless, thanks for creating such an adept article with rapidity and quality, and best of luck sourcing an appropriate image, non-free or otherwise. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on who made the picture. If you don't know, you can't. Easy way is to make sure the screen is blank, and snap the picture with your camera. Then it's yours. Upload, checking the box that says you are taking the standard license. There are also more complicated ways to handle copyright. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Confuse
Is it necessary to become celebrity to find you on wikipedia?
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Who are you looking for? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If I understand your question correcly, for something or someone to have a WP-article you have to show that they fulfill WP:General notability guideline. Not exactly the same as being a celebrity, but not miles off either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If your question was can you write an article about yourself, the answer for many reasons is "No." Wikipedia is not social media (Facebook). It is an encyclopedia. Often, if a person is famous - for Wikipedia meaning notable - other people will write an article. David notMD (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I make an image appear at the browser's width?
I want to place an image, and have it resized to the browser's width.

Not to a fixed number of pixels. Not to a thumbnail. Not to the native size (approximately 2200 pixels across).

To the width of the column used to display the text of the article being read.

If the specific version of the software matters: ... well, it's a MediaWiki, and the page is http://wiki.mystcraft.xcompwiz.com/v0.13:Writing

Actually, I can't figure out the specific version. Keybounce (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * According to Manual_of_Style/Images, for English Wikipedia, only a very limited set of controls are available for controlling the size of an image. You might try experimenting with wide image, perhaps with a width parameter of 100%.


 * This all assumes your wiki has much the same setup as en-wiki and has that template available. If you are not restricted to using standard wiki markup, you may be able to use CSS to get the effect you want, but that would mean leaving the domain of the Teahouse.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding articles
I would like to add information about Couchwood, La. I Webster Parish. How do I upload an article with puctures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 72.200.14.135 (talk • contribs) 2018-08-09T20:11:23 (UTC).


 * Hello, IP user. While new editors to Wikipedia are always welcome, writing a new article is much harder than it looks, and I urge you to get some experience improving existing articles first. In any case, please read your first article to see how to go about writing an article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Couchwood, LA may be too small in population to warrant an article. David notMD (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * According to GEOLAND, populated and legally-recognized places are considered notable regardless of their population. Having no population at all (having apparently not shown up in the 2010 U.S. Census or in earlier counts) would keep it from qualifying, though.
 * But we're putting the burden on 72.200.14.135 to come up with information that satisfies the requirements.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Or not. It exists.  See . John from Idegon (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes me wonder about how that criterion is worded. It states that the "legally recognized" language excludes census tracts, and the criterion still seems to require that the populated place have, at least at some point in time, been documented to have been populated by more than zero people. Are you saying that this entry in the GNIS database is sufficient, all by itself?  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The place is labeled on the USGS topgraphical map, and that map appears to show some dwellings. The GNIS page indicates that it is a populated, named unincorporated community, and we have articles on many such in the United States. Deor (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that my efforts to increase my own understanding and to more directly answer 72.200.14.135's question, have taken us into the weeds. The automatic, assumed notability for a populated place specifies that it be both populated and legally-recognized. That may be perfectly clear to a map and geo aficionado, but still raises the question of whether the various map and database entries people have been bringing up are sufficient, all by themselves, to meet that criterion. In at least one of the definitions I saw, seasonally occupied buildings do not necessarily count towards "populated'. To say appears to show some dwellings seems to me an exercise in SYNTHESIS but may to others be a matter of BLUE. I realize that there is sometimes a gap between the way a policy or guideline is worded and what becomes commonly accepted practice.
 * My take on this is that there is general agreement that 72.200.14.135 should be able to create the article. We are disagreeing with that the population may be too low (assuming it's not zero) for there to be an article. We've given several database options for references that 72.200.14.135 could use to help anchor the existence of this place for purposes of the article.
 * It's left as an exercise to contemplate what the stubbiest stub for a populated place would look like.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to integrate the Draft:Charles Huang into the current Charles Huang article page, what should I do?
Hi my dear English Wikipedians,

I mostly used Chinese Wikipedia, and I found the celebrity Draft:Charles Huang has been edited by some volunteers to filled with his biography. I want to put move the draft into its namespace. However, the move is failed due to the current page Charles Huang already existed by the redirect to his company Taiwan Sugar Corporation. Is there anyway to move the draft to the main space page so we can keep the edit history of the draft?

--Liang (WMTW) (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * Funny thing, that. If you had not edited the redirect page (which I've now restored, since the redirect is preferable to an empty page), you should have been able to MOVE the draft over the redirect. WP:MOR.
 * Now, you would need to request an administrator to make the move. That can be done at WP:Requested moves. Alternatively, you could send your draft through the articles for creation process and the reviewer who accepts the article will take care of things.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Creating a "Playstation 2 licensed controllers (or accessories)" page ?
Hello, I recently discovered that there were controllers for the Playstation 2 that were not manufactured by Sony but had the "Playstation license". I was not able to find a complete list of them and no Wikipedia article or category about it (under "Playstation"). I never made big edits or created a Wikipedia article, i am a newbie but i'd like to create some sort of list for that topic.

My question is: What is the most appropriate thing to do ? How can i do it ?

Thank you.

--MatterScreech (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - hi. The information you are looking for appears to be here, where a variety of official controllers, aside from the trusty Dualshock 2, are listed. If any further such accessories exist and have been reported on by reliable sources, I would suggest adding them there. I would recommend that you refrain from creating a new article, as it would be an unnecessary content fork, and likely struggle to meet the general notability guidelines. As such, if you think the article linked above needs improving (the tags indicate that it does), feel free to do so boldly. Don't hesitate to ask anything else. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. MatterScreech (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My Draft has still not been published
Hello,

It has been more than three weeks since I composed an article on Anton Stevens. Still, the draft has not been hitherto authorised and published. I am missing any feedback, what is wrong, please? It is my first article and I don't know whether shall I continue to not waste time.

Draft:Anton Stevens

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonix (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teashouse.
 * I'm sorry to tell you that while you have been waiting for us, we have been waiting for you.
 * Your draft has not been submitted for review. If someone had looked at it anyway, they would have assumed you were still working on it, since it has empty sections and no references, in the usual sense, only the one book mentioned in the bibliography section. I also strongly suggest that you request some copyediting help, since the draft has a number of errors and awkwardnesses. Your helpers might come from WP:WikiProject Visual arts or WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, where you could ask for help on the talk page. When the article is closer to being ready, your helpers will tell you how to submit it.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ligma (meme)
can someone move this draft Draft:Ligma (meme) into mainspace. although it was widely debated, this draft has been in good shape. Superabnoxious (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - the article has been submitted through the Articles for Creation process, and will be reviewed in due course. However, I would disagree with your statement that this draft has been in good shape. I hold serious concerns regarding the citations used in the article, many of which are not reliable - the use of the Metro, for instance, doesn't seem encyclopedic. This fact is currently hidden as the citations are not fully in-line. Moreover, notability, and particularly recentism, seem to be issues - the draft as written currently seems more fitting for KnowYourMeme (from where a lot of the draft appears to have originated, with some lines directly copied) than Wikipedia, and may be better merged into the existing article about Ninja. Nonetheless, the answer to your question is to be patient, and await a review. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC).

Adding pictures
Hello, it's me again. So sorry again. Anyway, I was just wondering about adding pictures to articles. I expanded the page on Gail Honeyman a little and made a new category in it (named books) and well I wanted to add a picture of her onto the page as she doesn't have one and I find it a little offensive :D I looked on commons and there were no images of her on there. Do I have to take images off of commons only or can I use the internet? (I'm not sure what the policy is here but I'd be happy to learn

Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Aesthetic Sunset. The way the rules work out, for living people, a picture has to be free to use it on Wikipedia. I look around some and didn't see any existing free photos available on the internet, on sites like Flickr. Probably your best bet is to find a good email address for her or someone who works with her, and ask her to license a photo for free use by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Folks are often happy to give at least one photo away for free use, since it's in their best interest to help us improve their Wikipedia article.  G M G  talk  21:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks GreenMeansGo it means a lot for your reply. Cheers for looking too, I think I'll be writing that email :)

Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries Aesthetic Sunset. If you run into any problems feel free to reach out to me, either on-wiki or by by email. If Ms. Honeyman has issues licensing or uploading the image, I'd be happy to help.  G M G  talk  21:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * GreenMeansGo Again, thank you :D

Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Article / draft singled out, maybe due to COI declarations?
Hello -

I'm looking for advice into a sticky situation. Let me be right up front: I am a paid editor. I have always tried to be above board in my COI declarations, putting them up everywhere I can think of. You can see my COI declaration history on my User page. Even though I'm being paid by clients, I have always tried to abide by NPOV requirements in all of the articles I've worked on, and have received supportive messages from other non-paid Wikipedia editors.

I recently rewrote the Kelly D. Brownell article because the original editor wasn't as conscientious about adhering to NPOV (or even declaring a COI, for that matter). I also recently submitted a draft article on behalf of another client, and did get some feedback from an editor but it was somewhat non-constructive. I'm working on trying to fix what I think are the issues with the draft, but since the feedback was non-specific, it's a bit slow going.

My concern now is that anything I submit might be being singled out because of my COI declarations. Again, yes - I am a paid editor. I have and will continue to be very transparent about this. That being said, I have also tried very hard to maintain NPOV and adhere strictly to not only Wikipedia's rules for paid editing, but to the MOS. The original version of the Brownell article had two flags on it - a COI flag and a neutrality flag. At the time, both were warranted (see comment above about the original editor). After the rewrite, the flags were removed by another editor who thought the article passed muster. Now, the article has been edited by the same editor who objected to my draft, and the flags are back.

Would anyone like to suggest how I might help resolve these issues? Or if I'm way off-base about my COI triggering my submissions to singled out? I want to work with the editing community, not against it. I hesitate to enter a dispute of any kind because I'm fully aware that paid editors are frowned upon. I'm trying to be the exception to the rule, and be a paid editor that actually leaves Wikipedia a better place than she found it.

So...any suggestions? Any input is warmly welcomed and very appreciated.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Mdrozdowski. I'm not sure there really is much good advice to give here. Paid editing is an issue on which the community is deeply divided, and one with fairly exceptionally strong feelings on all sides. Most paid editing does not leave the project better off, and more so, requires a significant amount of volunteer time just to put things back the way they were. There are no shortage of community members who would like to ban the practice outright, probably an equal amount who wish we could, but who feel that it will only drive the problem under ground, and comparatively few who feel that it can be corralled in some way into being a net-positive way to improve the encyclopedia.
 * I try to give people a fair shake regardless of what their background is, and that includes what is often fairly obvious conflicts of interest. But even then I don't seldom find myself on the side of being curt, because so much of it is such poor quality and because the intern at the office tasked with writing their Wikipedia article is among the most motivated of editors to be persistent if nothing else.
 * Simply put, your edits are probably being given a considerably higher degree of scrutiny, and there's probably nothing you can realistically do about it that would be within policy and acceptable by the institutional culture here.
 * Maybe the best thing you can do is to be honest with your clients, that you are not really writing a piece for them; you are growing something on their behalf, and then setting it free into the ocean, where its ultimate fate is always going to be beyond your control. If you want to continue to do paid editing, then dealing with the institutional culture here is, unfortunately for you, part of the service you are providing. The flip side of that is that this institutional culture has built something so valuable that people are willing to pay to be a part of it, and without it you would have no clients and nothing of any value to contribute to. At some level, you have to take the part of that which makes your life harder, along with the part of that which gives you a personal benefit.  G M G  talk  21:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, GreenMeansGo -


 * Thanks so much for your insight; I appreciate it. My position on paid editing is that Wikipedia is a living ecosystem - easy to damage, hard to repair. I totally understand and even welcome the elevated level of scrutiny my contributions get because, hey, I'm a paid editor and it goes with the territory. I'm not angry about it at all.


 * My big concern is, what do I do now? One of the editors in this situation actually says quite clearly on his/her talk page that he/she "detests paid editors editing". Again, I can understand why. I believe the majority of my paid editing brethren don't take the time to understand or abide by Wikipedia's culture and MOS / NPOV / other requirements. But, my submissions are also being edited, even though I believe they actually meet the criteria for good edits.


 * Because of the institutional dislike of paid editors, I hesitate to enter the dispute resolution process. I'm fearful it'll just make things worse. We don't do a huge number of Wikipedia articles, but when we do undertake them, I try to be as careful and as law-abiding (for lack of a better term) as possible. I'm just at a loss as to how to handle this situation. It's the first time I've encountered a problem. :(


 * In any case, thank you for your reply; I appreciate it. I'm still not sure what the next step is to take, other than dispute resolution. I've reached out to both the editors in question but haven't received a response. Hopefully, they do respond at some point.


 * EDIT: I also wanted to say that I love the way you phrased the message for clients. I'm absolutely stealing that. Thank you!


 * EDIT EDIT: fixed the erroneous statement attributed to Theroadislong.


 * Mdrozdowski (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't misquote me I said "I detest paid editing' I do not detest you! Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well Mdrozdowski... trying to collaborate as much as possible with editors with whom you disagree, and the steps in the dispute resolution process are probably the only options open to you, because they're generally the only options open to anyone. Personal biases, while ostensibly governed by WP:NPOV, are ultimately adjudicated by the institutional culture, and there isn't much in that culture that is going to be favorable to a bias against paid editing. That's why it's important that you have your edits vetted by a volunteer, who can go to bat for the changes if another volunteer takes issue with them. Even if you're in the right, if a dispute escalates to the highest levels, like WP:ANI, you're probably going to find limited success unless you have an endorsement from a third party that is willing to defend that endorsement, and put their good name on the line for it.  G M G  talk  21:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, again! Thank you both for responding; I do appreciate it. Theroadislong, I'm not taking it personally, I promise. I know paid editing has historically been a bad deal for Wikipedia, which is why I'm trying very hard to not be one of those editors. I actually would be editing just for personal enjoyment, but I think that would probably open up a whole new can of worms, so I haven't done so.


 * While I disagree with some of the comments on the Brownell article, I understand why they were made. Is there a way though, that we can maybe resolve the flags? Again, I've tried really, really hard to be transparent about who I am and what I do. If there are edits I can make so that the article is more in line with NPOV, I'm happy to do that too.


 * As always, any input or comments are welcome. Thanks you again.


 * Mdrozdowski (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Mdrozdowski. I suppose if Theroadislong and Jbhunley are unwilling or unable to participate in further discussion on the article talk page, then presumably they will not be a party to something like a WP:DRN. You may look at opening an WP:RfC to seek further outside input. In the future however, it might help avoid these types of issues if you were to use Template:Request edit and suggest the edit on the talk page. That way you already have a third party involved in someone takes issue with the changes, and they can explain why they felt, as a disinterested editor, why they felt the changes were an improvement.  G M G  talk  12:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, GreenMeansGo, for the sage advice. I do understand why they made their edits and have advised the client that the changes weren't unreasonable ones. My biggest concern now is getting the flags removed. A different editor originally removed the flags after reviewing the article, and noted that the COI was properly declared (he also didn't have an issue with NPOV, as shown in the History notes). What's the best step now to get this reviewed for consideration of removing the flags again? Any suggestions definitely welcomed!


 * Mdrozdowski (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, probably just the steps in WP:DR. Specifically, WP:3O and WP:RFC.  G M G  talk  13:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As per User:GreenMeansGo's suggestion if you were to use the Template:Request edit and suggest your proposed edits on the talk page, I would be amenable to the removing of the COI tag. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Theroadislong, thanks very much. I'm happy to use Template:Request edit. I'm also definitely open to tightening up the article further, so please do feel free to send any more comments and feedback my way. I'm always happy to listen and learn.


 * Mdrozdowski (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged: I am taking a quasi-break and I am not really interested in diving into a PAID/COI article right now. It is still on my watch list though. if there is a WP:BLP concern (not just 'I want my edits checked') you think needs prompt attention ping me from the article's talk page and I will take a look but WP:BLPN would probably be quicker in that case.  Jbh  Talk  13:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t have anything to say here; I just want to thank you for disclosing your paid editing. It is a step that a lot of paid editors unfortunately do not take, and I'm glad that you are setting a good example with regard to Wikipedia policy. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 22:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

new technique for editing
each member of wikipedia can get an article for a week or month by which we can know their work and edit articles and know stamina of our members


 * edit count, article created and among other record would be found by using Xtools by typing the user name. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Request a translation of a page from the French Wikipedia
Dr. Georges Viau was a notable french art collector and significant donor to several French museums. He does have a page on Wikipedia.fr. He was also close friends with Paul J. Sachs and Herman Armour Webster. It is very difficult to find information about him in English. I could probably translate the page, but I would rather that someone with a greater proficiency in French than I possess do so. When that is done I would be happy to add the Webster, Sachs material which comes from the Harvard Fogg Museum Archives How does someone request such a translation?.Nicodemus (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello |I have started Draft:Georges Viau Vexations (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * looks like and I ended up doing the same thing in different places . I've made a stub article at George Viau (not Georges, at least according to the sources I saw), which let me tag it for expansion from the French article (see Translation). You could also extend the stub based on Vexations' helpful work. I haven't looked through all the info at WikiProject France but they may offer ways to request this sort of thing, should other topics like this crop up. &rsaquo;  Mortee  talk 18:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sikhareswar Jena
Esteemed sir, I have submitted a write-up on Sikhareswar Jena under Talk which is not yet uploaded.How much time it takes to upload the same.Will be highly obliged,if the same is considered for uploading. Warm regards, A K Jena Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . If what you're referring to is User:Jena Amiya Kumar/sandbox/SIKHARESWAR JENA, then unfortunately that is nowhere close to being ready to being upgraded to article status anytime soon. My suggestion to you would be to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) to first determine whether the person who would like to write about is Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article. After doing that, if you still feel that a Wikipedia article about this person can be written, then please read Wikipedia:Your first article for some general advice on how to write a proper article. For what it's worth, writing a proper Wikipedia article is much harder than it seems, and many people misunderstand what an article is intended to be and what the purpose of Wikipedia is intended to be. New editors such as yourself seem to feel that the only way to help build Wikipedia is to create new articles. Content creation is of course very important, but there are many other ways to contribute to Wikipedia as well. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia fpr some ideas onother ways yo can help out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * I have gone through guideposts of esteemed wikipedia.Draft article on Sikhareswar Jena,a notable personality in Fire Engineering,a first Presidential awardee,a pioneer in rural Fire Stations in Odisha in eighties etc,is edited for kind consideration for upgrading to a proper article on wikipedia.
 * Warm regards,
 * Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your draft really has no chance of being approved as an article in its current form. The formatting and layout errors, etc. are things which can be fixed, but it's still not clear (at least to me) whether the subject of your article staisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline for a stand-alone article to be written. You might try asking for help at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics because the editors belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject India might be able to provide some more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr.Marchjuly,
 * Sikhareswar Jena ,decorated Fire Engineer of Odisha, was the first Odia officer to receive the award of President of India for Meritorious service in 1980,available on websites of State and Central Governments..He is the pioneer in setting up Fire Stations  in villages/blocks in eighties .Earlier,they were confined to District Headquarters in Odisha/urban areas only.He was heading the Odisha Fire Service for nearly a decade. He is very notable in his field having far-reaching consequences for general public.He has set up first co-educational High School in Baladiabandha,Dist. Dhenkanal.He meets notability and verifiability criteria.It is requested to consider the revised write-up.Hoping for a favourable response.
 * Warm regards,
 * Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted at WT:INDIA to see if there's someone belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject India who might be more familiar with the subject matter and be better able to help you out. To be honest, your sandbox is a bit of a mess, and the sources you've provided don't really make a strong case for Wikipedia notability. Maybe other editors will feel differently, but I'm just seeing enough to justify a stand-alone article.
 * Just for reference, there are probably lots of people in the world who have done some really great things thorughout their lives and have helped lots of people, but who don't have Wikipedia articles written about them because they're not considered to be Wikipedia notable enough for such an article to be written. Wikipedia's definition of "notability" might be different from way you define the word, but it's Wikipedia's definition which matters when it comes to creating articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any press-clippings etc on Sikhareswar Jena, or know of any articles/books that may have discussed him or his work?
 * As Marchjuly said, while in the real-world it's usually qualifications, credentials, awards won at a job etc that go into a resume and determine ones notability, on wikipedia the standards are different. Here it is (roughly speaking) how much independent sources have written about the subject that matters and by that standard many persons who have had illustrious and impactful careers, don't yet qualify for a wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Your name, especially as signed in your initial post— "Warm regards, A K Jena"— suggests that you are related to Sikhareswar Jena. If so, you should not attempt to author an article on this person. From Conflict of interest:
 * Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.


 * COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.


 * Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.

Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources problem
Hi I am writing an article about a ceramicist (Julie Apap) from a small island state, she was a very low key person but she influenced a whole generation of ceramicists with her teaching and her open studio. The sources that I found are mostly from a newspaper and some articles on wayback machine. Wiki send me a message that the sources are unreliable. Any ideas why a newspaper would be an unreliable source ? The article in the paper was not an opinion piece

help would be appreciated

Letta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lettashtohr (talk • contribs)


 * Convenience link: Draft:Julie Apap. Maproom (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.  In examining your draft, it appears to me that two of the sources offered are the artist's own website and just document her exhibitions, one is her obituary, and another is a website of some kind that she seemed affiliated with.  I may just be missing it, but I'm not seeing any evidence of newspapers being used as a source.  If you have them, please offer them.  Please note that in order to merit an article here, the artist would need to have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicates how she meets the notability guidelines for artists listed at WP:NARTIST. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

hi Yes the obituary is an article from a newspaper.So won't that work as a reliable source ? Thanks
 * The obituary is okay as a source, but you will need more than that. Multiple independent sources are needed to establish the notability of the subject. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, not. Although the website calls it an obituary, the content is actually a repeat of some interview content with Ms. Apap, and with acquaintances. It is not clear from the content whether the studio was hers versus just a place she taught classes. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleting/adding pictures
Hello,

I have recently noticed that the picture for the Jonah crab's Wikipedia page (Cancer borealis) is actually one of the species it's most often confused with, the Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus). As someone who barely edited Wikipedia years ago (and did it poorly), my simple question is how I would go about changing the picture? A new one with a verifiable source will be necessary, I'm sure. I'm interested in adding pages as well as enhancing existing ones for Brachyura (i.e. crabs), so this is step one of many.

Thank you,

MJD
 * If you think that commons:File:Jonah_crab_(11823580556).jpg is misidentified then you need to change the description of that file (and rename it) on . You can discuss this change on Help desk. Ruslik_ Zero 20:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

working of wikipedia
members of wikipedia are to edit an article for which they spend time so they must get some sort of profit in return


 * Welcome to Teahouse. All editors who perform any edits on Wikipedia are volunteers and not payments have been made to them as this is one of the main reasons where Wikipedia has been created to share knowledge to the word without charge the readers.  Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While what stated is  true (it is for me and probably over 95% of editors), a minority of users  paid to edit. Such users  disclose their financial conflict of interest (FCOI) and follow certain guidelines, such as only submitting edit requests in the talk pages of articles for which they have a conflict of interest (COI) instead of editing directly. Failing to do so, including failing to disclose conflicts of interest, can result in being being blocked and banned from editing. Such paid editors are rare and paid editing is disliked (to say the least) by large parts of the Wikipedia community, though. Consequently, being paid to edit may not be not worth the costs.When it comes to the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia, we are as was said above: unpaid volunteers who contribute to the project for reasons that have nothing to do with financial gain. Our "profit" is the satisfaction we gain from having our edits published, the joy of seeing our efforts reach countless readers and inform them about the world, the experience we develop in writing and editing and collaborating, and much more. Every editor has their own motivations for editing Wikipedia, but rarely does it have to do with financial gain. For the few who are motivated by money, they tend to be banned here; those that remain are already restricted in their editing  of that motivation.So,, what is  motivation for editing here? What "profit" do you gain? Your answers to those questions will likely help you understand why others edit here, too. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Musician article
Hello there!

I'm writing a wiki page for Musician that has many links from other artists, but he doesn't have his own page. I want to know the best way to create the verifiable Discography and fix the connections to those links that reference the artist I'm publishing the page for. For the Discography do I need to create a separate page for each work in the discography? If so, how do I do that while the main page is under review? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks so much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorensongs (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . The first thing you should do is take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:MUSICBIO to see if the person you want to write an article about is Wikipedia notable enough to do so. This is important because one of the main reasons an article get deleted from Wikipedia is because the subject is not considered Wikipedia notable enough on its own to justify a stand-alone article. It's important to understand that "Wikipedia notable" has a specific meaning in this context which might be different to how you or others define "notability" in an every day context. Assessing whether a subject is Wikipedia notable is sort of a self-assessment based upon whether you feel the subject has received the significant converage in reliable sources necessary to establish Wikipedia notability. Someone whose name is mentioned alot in other Wikipedia articles might indicate possible Wikipedia notability, but being mentioned alot is not sufficient in and of itself because Wikipedia notability is not established by association with other Wikipedia notable subjects. Since you've not given any specific information about who you'd like to write about, that's about all I can suggest. You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians for more specific advice. Regarding discographies, you need to be able to meet WP:SAL. A separate Wikipedia article for each entry should only be created if the entries themselves meet WP:NALBUM or WP:NSONG. As to whether each individual entry has to have its own stand-alone article, please take a look at WP:LSC. It's possible that a discography section might be OK to add to the musicians article, but there might not be enough of back catalog to support a stand-alone article. You can try asking for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. You can start a draft article by going to WP:DRAFTS and following the instructions there. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Your first article for some general advice on writing articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music for advice on writing music-related articles, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for relevant policy related to writing about living persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also please see Conflict of interest. Definition:
 * Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.
 * If you have any personal or professional connection to this person, request advice here before starting an article. Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, the article in question is Gary Schutt, which was created on 9 August 2018 by . I definitely concur with 's advice above, especially if you have any relation to Gary Schutt—familial, financial, or otherwise. If you simply know him, or have met him in passing before once or twice, that is probably not sufficient grounds for considering it a COI; what is important is whether a past or present  or  of any kind existed, exists, or is likely to exist in the near future.If you think you  have a COI here, it's important to disclose it, which can be done by adding  to your user page. If no COI exists here, then you have nothing to worry about. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Requirements for Using Twinkie
Hello, my mentor is unavailable right now so I'm here to ask about the requirements (or the recommended requirements) for getting to use Twinkie in terms of experience. Thanks. Yanjipy (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again, fancy seeing you here at the Teahouse!
 * Twinkle is set in your Preferences and if the option is available to you (it should be), you can turn it on.
 * When using Twinkle, you need to be aware of the various actions it takes on your behalf. One way to do this is to take a look at your contributions list after you've done a Twinkle action. A lot of the time, it's a single edit, but some actions post more than one. When you're first using Twinkle, I recommend looking at the diffs.
 * Start out slowly and for those actions that have the option for a page name or for you to enter additional text, make use of those options – they make the messages more specific and can help personalize what otherwise comes off as a somewhat robotic action.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Amendment – There are entries on your talk page that tell me I should emphasize something about Twinkle. When it offers a list of options, sometimes with summaries, it is not okay to pick an option that seems "close" to what is needed. The summaries of the various speedy categories are very short and do not include all of the nuances. The summary is a only short reminder and you are expected to know the actual criteria for that kind of CSD action, not just think that Twinkle "must know what it's doing". Believe me, I've made that mistake and Twinkle will happily PROD things that can't be PRODed and post level 4 warnings on a page where there have not been any warnings before. So, at the risk of repeating myself, start out slowly.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I'll definitely be very cautious with Twinkle. And by the way, I guess the tool is called Twinkle and not Twinkie (as I thought it was)... My bad for that. – Yanjipy (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation,, "Twinkie" might be an excellent name for fat-fingered mistakes when using Twinkle and the poor rationales sometimes used to defend those mistakes. But yes, Twinkle is definitely not a piece of cake. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

speedy deletion
My article has been marked for speedy deletion. What am I doing wrong. How do I publish without any issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Boahini (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * - Your article has been deleted, and can only be viewed by administrators. Two pages of your creation have been (nominated to be) deleted, by and  respectively. I imagine that they had good reason to do so, but would state that its deletion likely results from a violation of Wikipedia policy. In particular, they cited the fact that the content was promotional in tone, and non-encyclopedic, both of which mean that it should not be published on Wikipedia. Please read this page about your first article and take its advice on board to ensure that your article is accepted in the future - in particularly, adhere to the general notability guidelines and neutral point of view to facilitate publishing. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , you sure about that? Neither of the users you named are admins and cannot delete articles. John from Idegon (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, appears 54 and VV did Speedy deletion nominations (one for User page, one for Sandbox content) and an Admin did the deeds. End result same - what DB wrote not appropriate for Wikipedia. Suggest he looks at other articles to get idea what Wikipedia is about. David notMD (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you have a common misconception about what a "user page" is, the messages that were left on your talk page very clearly explained why it was tagged for speedy deletion. User pages are not articles, they are a place to share a little bit about yourself with other WP editors. For more information on "user pages" you can read: User pages. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages and at the Teahouse with four tildes: ~ Best wishes. Coryphantha   Talk  00:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You were developing an article about a choir on your userpage. As others have pointed out, that is the wrong place to do that. But a more significant problem is how you were writing it. All of our content must be written from the Neutral point of view. This is a mandatory core content policy.


 * As an administrator, I can read your deleted content and it included such highly promotional phrases as: "unique sound", "excellently arranged accompanied by potent and inspirational lyrics", "continues to enjoy massive airplay", "great revolution of praise and worship",  "free and unrestrained atmosphere of worship", "has birthed wonderful testimonies in the life of many",  "good praise and worship culture", and "this project was wonderful, beautiful and yet stressful at the same time". Please read and study Your first article, and write in a rigorously neutral tone in the future. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  01:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)