Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 640

Hi, I am a retired architect and want to refine an article pertaining to a living architect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Sri_Prakash

I notice that it is tagged for promotional language and unreliable sources. I am new to wikipedia and am still learning my way around. Can some one here take a closer look and help refine the language to meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view standards? Thanks, Kintomechanic (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start. But trying to improve an article that consists almost entirely of praise of its subject gets nauseating after a while. Maproom (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom (talk) for replying and saying it is nauseating. I agree fully with you that too much praise for Sheila Sri Prakash is something that many of us in this profession are unable to accept. I am also a woman and I graduated in 1974 from Mumbai JJ School before Sheila Sri Prakash but I only worked for a small office in Ahmedabad. I admit that certain things she has achieved is creditable and is good for the younger generation, especially for girls. But coverage about her in Indian media and even international outlets full of praise is just too much. May be she has very good connections or influence in media houses. I know some people will accuse me of professional jealousy but now that I have retired I am objective. Her work is also nothing compared to other architects from India. Why are there no images of completed projects like late Charles Correa or Doshi sir or Hafeez sir or Brinda Somaya? Who are all famous Mumbai or Ahmedabad based architects even common man knows. She has no project in Mumbai or Delhi to my knowledge. Only pictures are some old hut and her office building. I would be very very happy to see this article deleted and would request some other experienced editors to consider that this article to be removed. Entire profession will be grateful if you can help with this. How to make that happen? Kintomechanic (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that some other experienced editors have made improvements to the article. I've now mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Kintomechanic (talk) Your accusations and defamation is even more pathetic than the audience walking out of A. R. Rahman's concert at the Wembley and asking for a refund BECAUSE the Oscar winning A. R. Rahman sang 12 tamil songs!^[1] You may claim to be a retired architect but clearly you do not understand that wikipedia is based on notability, as evidenced through primary and secondary references. I expect that you may have an issue with "media houses" such as The Hindu because it is Chennai based BUT Architect Prakash has been extensively covered in the Times of India and The Indian Express, as well. Please look through the references in the article. You will also see that she has been awarded by the Indian Institute of Architects, not to mention, a long list of international publications. Your request for deletion of such an article is inappropriate to say the least and to be more direct, it is a disgrace to Indian architects AND to women architects from around the world. Jai Ho! 210.18.162.167 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a page where I can see the most often visited pages on the English Wikipedia by users with IPs originating in the Philippines? I want to post translations for pages which have the most demand for them by Filipinos for the Tagalog Wikipedia. I've posted translations of the leads of a view pages, such as w:tl:Kabalintunaang Fermi (Fermi paradox), but I'm not sure that pages like this, while interesting to me and probably some Filipinos, are the best use of resources. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I add {{Citation needed}} to an entire paragraph?

X6wie72UelocEdjk (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello X6wie72UelocEdjk, and welcome to the Teahouse. Put the tag at the end of the paragraph, and put a note on the talk page explaining what actually needs citing. That is the best way, in my view. Or else place a tag after every sentence. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to consider changing to a user name that is easier for other editors to recognize and copy. You can do that by following the instructions at WP:CHU. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi X6wie72UelocEdjk An alternative is to use {{Refimprove section}} (placed above the text but below the section header). See the template documentation for parameters to include. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. I wanna learn more about editing wikipedia. Have a nice day!. BrokenAnkler123 (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi BrokenAnkler123. You might find taking tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial one way to sharpen your Wikipedia skills. The page Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is also just loaded with information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I was creating a page on author Rohini Chowdhury, when the page was deleted for 'unambiguous copyright infringement.' This was despite my questioning the deletion, and stating that I had permission from the author herself to use content from her websites, and that I would put in the necessary citations. But before I could make the additions, and without ANY response to my query and statement, the page was summarily deleted by one RHaworth. I had still not submitted my page for review, it was still very much a draft, and there was absolutely nothing there that was without permission or infringed copyright in any way. Most of it was copy I had received from the writer, or information i had received directly from her in conversation. Please tell me what I should do next. And for the record, I think this deletion was both highhanded and unjustified, especially since there was no attempt to even reply to my statement re: permission from the writer!VBansal (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@VBansal: Hello. I'm sorry that this happened to you, but Wikipedia must take copyright violations seriously for legal reasons. It is not enough for you to say you have the author's permission(as anyone can claim that, for starters); the author must donate the materials to Wikipedia as described here. You can't do it because you don't own them. Leaving that aside, it is much better for an article to be written in your own words anyway. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

VBansal - there is a section on your talk page explaining the use of copyright material and the requirements for doing so. If you simply rephrase the material in your own words, instead of the straight copy/paste, you should have a better chance of getting off the starting line. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand the first point about the author's permission. However, I did not copy-paste, but wrote the article in my own words. There were perhaps two sentences that were not different enough - but before I had a chance to edit those, the article was removed. That was a bit drastic, was it not? I was given an hour at most between the warning and the deletion - surely some kind of time period should be allowed to make the changes?

VBansal (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

However, can I start again and put the article up once more? Or am I banned forever from writing this?VBansal (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, what is really bothering me is - how can a page be deleted before I have even submitted it for review?? I was working on it, it was a draft, and far from ready. This is five days' worth of research and writing and time wasted. This is really upsetting, and not expected at all. VBansal (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it can be upsetting. However, if a page is tagged for speedy deletion and an administrator determines that the tag is valid, it can be deleted without delay or discussion. That's not the case with other forms of deletion, just speedy deletions. As I indicated, copyright violations must be taken seriously. If you feel that the deletion was improper, you can ask the deleting administrator about it(who could explain their reasoning), or request a Deletion Review by an uninvolved party. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. I appreciate the emphasis on copyright violations and respect that - even though I was still working on the draft and in the process of cleaning up the article. I don't want to enter into a long discussion or controversy over this - so I will get back to putting the article back up. VBansal (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem for Wikipedia is that even draft articles and user sandboxes are viewable by anyone, so if you need to copy copyright material before putting it into your own words, you need to use a word processor or text editor first, then the copyright material is not visible on the web until you have had a chance to edit it. I see that the article is back in main space, but needs more independent sources. Dbfirs 12:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-Article Post

Own Words on how to learn information technology J.L. Dayawon (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Business Advantage and Disadvantage J.L. Dayawon (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect the text now at User:J.L. Dayawon, to become a valid Wikipedia article? There are a number of problems.

1. I doubt if the subject is notable. If you are notable, this text does not show it. See notability, the general notability guideline, our guideline on the notability of biographies, and Wikipedia's Golden Rule.
2. Wikipedia articles can never be used as sources for other articles. All footnotes to Wikipedia articles should be removed (which is currently all of them).
3. There is far too much detail here, even were this a valid article. The table of individual games played is over the top, for example.
4. This is apparently an autobiography which is strongly discouraged.
5. This does not belong at your main user page. If it is a good-faith attempt at drafting an article, it should go in a subpage such as User:J.L. Dayawon/drafts/J.L. Dayawon. If it is a WP:FAKEARTICLE it should be deleted (and by bringing it to notice here, that is more likely).

I am not clear on exactly what you wanted to ask, but that page has serious problems. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to create an article on the writer Rohini Chowdhury. The warning on the article says that this may not be accepted for notability reasons. I am trying to gather more external links, and so far I have links from the translation journal Modern Poetry in Translation, and newspapers such a the Tribune India, and Telegraph India. I also a link to a blogpost on the Penguin blog. Will these be acceptable? I will be grateful for any guidance here. VBansal (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

VBansal: a blog is not acceptable source, as it is not reliable: anyone can write whatever they like to it. As for the others, it depends what they say. To help establish notability, a source must include in-depth discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Some sources have been added to the page on Rohini Chowdhury. These include a review from the Religious Studies Review, as well a citation from a book Tellings and Text, by scholars Francesca Orsini and Katherine Schofield, that discusses one of her translations vis-a-vis other similar translations. Would these help towards establishing notability?

Also, the journal Modern Poetry in Translation carries three pages on one of the author's translations. The newspapers Tribune and Telegraph India carry reviews of her books. Would these be acceptable?

I apologise for these repeated questions, but I am just trying to get it right. VBansal (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

One more question: would giving ISBNs of published works help to establish notability? VBansal (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No. You establish notability by giving links to reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. A list of ISBNs does not qualify. By the way – when you're trying to encourage other editors to look at an article, it helps if you provide a link to it like this: Rohini Chowdhury.Maproom (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now had a look at as many as I can of the sources you cite. 1, 5 and 12 have no discussion of the subject. 3, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14 (which is a duplicate of 7 6) are not independent of the subject. 11 is a blog, and so not reliable. 17 is base on an interview with her, and so not independent. 15 is about her work, not about her – so maybe some marginal contribution to establishing notability. 16 is the only one I've see which really helps. I suggest you look for more sources like 16 (The Tribune), and, preferably, remove the ones which add nothing to the article. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your reply has really helped. Also, from now on, I will make sure to give a link to the article - that was remiss of me, not to do so. I will continue to look for more credible sources to establish notability. VBansal (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

However, VBansal, when and if you do have reason to give a citation to a book, please include the ISBN as part of the bibliographic data. If you are using {{cite book}} you can use |isbn= for this purpose. This will not affect notability, but will make it easier for readers to find the book. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am editing the prolotherapy Wikipedia page and there is a wikidocs topic that is the same. I am listed as an associate editor for that but have n not modified it.

How closely are these two associated? Same syntax, same rules, same editors?

Copy and paste thus feasible?

More detail in general since a medical based site?

Thanks for filling me in. Dr Reeves (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dr Reeves. WikiDoc is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia, except insofar as WikiDoc makes use of wiki software, that has been developed by the Wikimedia Foundation – the parent, nonprofit organization owning Wikipedia. (See here for a complete list of Wikimedia projects.) You can use Wikipedia content there, but must comply with the free copyright license borne by Wikipedia content. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I want to write an article listing the historic uses of the term "tall ship." There is a page existing already called "Tall Ship" and a few brief remarks on the history of the term. I have spent a significant part of my life sailing on these ships and know a great deal about them and their history. There is much misunderstanding over the origin and use of the term "tall ship", oddly more so within the industry than in the general public, but confusion exists nonetheless. Many people believe mistakenly that this is a modern term, created by media-savvy journalists, and has no history before the 20th century. In fact, there are articles online that explicitly state this fallacy. I, however, have found literary references to the term "tall ship" going back centuries, and written by some of the brightest lights in literature whose names are known globally. And the references I have found are irrefutable proof that the term was in common use for centuries.

My hope is to write an article simply listing the quotations and where they came from, and link the article to the "Tall Ships" page. I am comfortable editing the "Tall Ships" page, but as regards the list of references on the new page, I am unsure of 1) how to start the new page (red link vs. blue link??) 2) the best page title to use, and 3) the best page format. To help with diagnosing my needs, I should note what I wish to do. I have a great number of historical quotations of the use "tall ship" and I want to create a table of possibly 4 columns: Year, Author, Citation, and Quotation. I wish the quotation to include a long enough selection of text to ensure that the quotation retains its literary context and is understandble to the reader. So in the end, the page would simply be like a Wiki list of television episodes: a set of 4 columns (author, year, citation, and quotation) and many rows, one for each entry. Do you have any advice?Ilovemuskoka (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ilovemuskoka: I was dubious about your plan, as it involves creating an article about a phrase rather than a subject. But I read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and learned, from this section, that what you propose may be acceptable. I recommend that you read the page yourself, for guidance. Maproom (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there anyone else who has comments on the specifics I asked?Ilovemuskoka (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I wonder if someone can direct me to rules about categories. Specifically, I noticed that Susan Wittig Albert, James Altucher, Jane Austen, Peter Bagge, L. Frank Baum, Edgar Rice Burroughs (I stopped checking after "B".) are all in the "self published" category but it is not specifically indicated on their pages that they are self published. TruthMatters (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Edgar Rice Burroughs, his article (under "Literary career") states: "In 1923, Burroughs set up his own company, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc., and began printing his own books through the 1930s." (I checked the Burroughs article first because I already knew this of him.)

L. Frank Baum's article makes it clear that he himself financed/produced many of his own theatrical works.

Peter Bagge's article mentions under "Career, Comics, Early career" that: "When Punk ceased publication in 1980, Bagge and Holstrom co-published Comical Funnies."

Regarding Jane Austen; the article on her first published book Sense and Sensibility says under "Publication history": "Austen paid to have the book published and paid the publisher a commission on sales."

The James Altucher article (which in my opinion is quite poorly written) is not, I agree, explicit, but the nature, the era and the main sales platform (Amazon) of his books are suggestive of self-publication via electronic publishing and print-on-demand – more evidence needed.

Susan Wittig Albert's article includes in the "External links" section one to "Persevero Press: The Home of Susan Wittig Albert's Author-Published Books." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.206.219.214 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that it was once common for respected authors to pay for the publication of their works. See Vanity press#History. Oddly, much of the content of that section was inserted in this edit which I believe was my very first edit to Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; I believe it was actually the norm for new poetry up until the latter part of the 20th century, because the immediate market for such work, however good, was so small and uncertain. One might also consider such cases as William Morris and his Kelmscott Press.

It's difficult to draw a firm distinction between self-publishing, which has long existed and has enjoyed a renaissance in the internet era, and vanity publishing, which (to me) in the modern era implies people deluded as to their own writing abilities being parted from their money by unscrupulous operators. There is also the field of scientific publishing, where, traditionally, researchers have paid hefty fees to cover the expenses (and publishers' profits) of having their papers published in respectable (usually) journals which then restrict access to the material in order to generate more income. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.11.214.76 (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a context to this question, the original poster is unhappy that User:Gadfium and I think that the lead of Trevor Loudon's article should say his books are self-published.Doug Weller talk 18:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So sorry to give you that impression, Doug. I am not "unhappy," I just wanted to understand the rationale.TruthMatters (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have an article to submit, written in 'Word'. Do not understand how to submit it. Would also like it to be linked to 'Notable Burials' found in the Greyfriars Kirkyard, Wiki page. 82.10.39.141 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes there can be problems in copying text from Word to Wikipedia. The safest way is to use Wiki markup and just copy as plain text. If you create the article in draft space (Draft:Your article name), then you can check to see if it displays correctly, and we can help you with formatting if it doesn't. Please let us know the draft article name if you want us to check it before you submit it for review. Is it a category that you want to put the article in, or do you just want to add the name here? There is some advice at WP:Your first article. Dbfirs 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to view users with certain service awards?

For example, how can I see which users have the Vanguard Editor service award?

X6wie72UelocEdjk (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi X6wie72UelocEdjk. If the users display a template then you can use "What links here" on the template. Wikipedia:Service awards mentions {{Vanguard Editor}} which gives Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vanguard Editor. Users have to add service awards on their own and it's optional. Most users don't do it. If they do then it's not checked whether they satisfy the requirements. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you add the photos when submitting for approval and if so how? Thank you Masterchefs (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Masterchefs, and welcome to the Teahouse. Different editors go about developing articles in different ways, but I would generally advise getting at least the main structure of an article created before worrying about images. Using too many images is not a good idea, although that is a matter of judgement. When working on a draft no non-free images (images uses under a claim of fiar-use) may be present until after the draft is approved and becomes an article.

I presume this is in regards to Draft:Master Chef Edward G Leonard, CMC. There are several problems with that draft.

• First of all, it is at presnt quite promotional in tone. Phrases such as is a top recognized global chef, He trained and traveled learning and sharing at a high level,..., Chef Leonard received his masters in cookery in 1996 being the third youngest to accomplish this. and others have a very promotional flavor.
• Secondly, while there are sources cited, they are not cited inline, so it is not easy to tell which source supports which statement(s). This is not strictly required for most content, but it is the best practice. Please read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to construct inline citations
• Thirdly, this is an autobiography. As you will see on the linked page, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies, and this draft is a prime example of why. It is almost impossible for anyone to remain neutral when writing about his or her own work or life. It is only natural, but Wikipedia articles must remain objective. Opinions and value judgements should only appear in them if directly attributed to a named person or entity, and supported directly by an inline citation to a reliable source.
• Fourthly, Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics and people. That is a term which Wikipedia uses a bit oddly, here it means "having been written about by multiple published independent sources". Please read our guideline on the notability of people
• Finally, back to images. You uploaded some (or all?) of the images now in the draft, and marked them as "own work". But you appear in the images, if I have understood correctly, and they do not look like "selfies". The copyright for an image is normally with the photographer, the person who actually clicks the shutter, unless it is transferred in writing. If you do not own the copyright, you must not mark the image as "own work". Instead the person who took the picture must release it, if that person is willing to do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Can the link on the page of the of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Members (Foreign) to my name "Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz" be changed to the link "Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz"Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you provide a source showing that "Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz" is the correct spelling of the name of the member of the Academy? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz is the same person as Zbyszek Darzynkiewoicz. His link to the Wikipedia page is Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks. 64.118.223.196 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Moved to correct section. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Polish Academy of Sciences does not seem to list "Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz" or "Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz" at the moment. Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz says that he is a member, however, so we should be able to get this cleared up pretty quickly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops, the source on Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz was the Wikipedia article Polish Academy of Sciences . I have removed that and put a "cite needed" ({{cn}}) tag in both articles. Can we please have an actual source for his membership, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz? Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A proper citation is now in place on both articles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your help. By-the-way, I am impressed how productive you are and knowledgeable in so many topics. This makes me embarrassed when I am asking simple question. This time: how I can attach the image (photo of the subject - me)?

Hi, For some years now I've had a link under my 'tools' which shows traffic statistics for pages. (I'd originally added a piece of code to my page somewhere, but I don't remember the details.) Anyway, the link has now disappeared. Any ideas? Cheers. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hogyn Lleol. I don't know why your script's gone dead but go to the history of any page and you will see a link at the top of the page next to "External tools:" for "Page view statistics". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hogyn Lleol: In User:Hogyn Lleol/vector.js you import a script at User:Smith609/toolbox.js but it has been blanked. It included a "Traffic stats" link. You could use User:PrimeHunter/Pageviews.js instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorted. Thanks, guys. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I am affiliated with VentureOutsource.com and have been editing industry-related content on Wikipedia to include our fact-based industry content as viable resources for related pages on Wikipedia, always being thoughtful about positive contributions and not biased. I am now aware of the guidelines for Wikipedia and will stop editing content on the Website. Thank you for notifying me I should no longer post/edit.Zebrajumpsthemoon (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

when do we need to edit Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrgr2156 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC) '

Whenever something is wrong or missing. Which is always.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I am looking for help archiving my talk page as Fnlayson did on his (talk) page. Quebec99 (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Check the help pages, such as Help:Archiving a talk page as a start. --Finlayson (talk)

Done. Thanks! Quebec99 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

On January 21, an IP editor made numerous unhelpful edits to one article, then to another. Numerous other edits have happened since then, so a simple revert would not work. I have attempted to correct some of them, but there are many more, and beyond my ability to correct. I made an entry on the talk page. Am I going about this the correct way? Should I notify anyone? Are there any tools to help automate this process? I will watch this spot for a reply. Thanks. Comfr (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Comfr. From a technical standpoint, it's challenging to undo multiple unconstructive edits when there have been multiple constructive edits in the interim. You can manually remove the offending changes or you can revert to the last version before the first of the problem edits, then add the good edits back in. Either way, it's tedious and often confusing. If the constructive edits interspersed along the way aren't essential, you could revert and then restore them in stages; you don't need to finish the job in one go. If you let other editors know what you're up to by posting on the talk page, as you did with the first of the two articles you're working on, you might even get help with that task. Please note: vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and it's best to avoid using the word unless there's evidence of unconstructive intent. Lots of people mess up articles without really meaning to. (These two articles are pretty far outside my comfort zone, so I'm probably not competent to judge if it's vandalism or not.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, the edits were done by a person who knew the subject matter well enough to make subtle changes that would damage the article. For example, changing "public" to "private." When I read the article I suspected the word was wrong and I corrected it. Then to verify my work, I looked back in history to see what other edits had been made to that section. I finally found one massive edit containing many subtle and damaging changes. For example, inserting or removing the word "not." I also saw the same editor had contributed similar nonsense to a second article. Fortunately, another editor reverted those edits right away. This is the first time I have ever come upon un-reverted damage to Wikipedia. Wikipedia continues to be reliable, despite numerous attempts to disrupt or damage it. Thanks Rivertorch for your response to my questions. Comfr (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointer to vandalism. I have since learned that I have been dealing with WP:SNEAKY. Comfr (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this edit (in its entirety) was rejected? I reached out to the editor, but have been ignored. Thx Justbean (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justbean: as tbe edit summary suggests the issue seems to be whether this content is a copyright violation or not. Is it written entirely in your own words or copy-pasted from elsewhere? Strike that, just seen the lengthy discussion at your talk page which seems to answer the question. Nthep (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: thank you for your reply. This edit is not copy-pasted. I paraphrased or rewrote every sentence in my own words in order to avoid copyvio. I literally went through it sentence by sentence. This was a second edit I wrote in order to avoid copyvio issues that appeared in the first edit. In fact, the 1st editor (who's kindly posted about this below) came to my defense on the Talk page and expressed, to the 2nd editor, that my new edit was fine and that he/she thought it should be "restored to the page." Regardless...I'm at a loss as for why the ENTIRE edit was rejected. Thanks Justbean (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Justbean, and welcome to the teahouse. What article did you attempt to insert this into, and exactly which edit wasw it? was it your edit of 12:46, 15 July 2017 to Cowboy? That edit was reverted because you have to write this in your own words, in encyclopedic language. this is copied from a magazine. I haven't verified the copying myself, but I fully trust White Arabian Filly to have done so. You may not insert text copied from an outside source, unless it is properly marked and attributed as a quote, and is relatively short (normally no more than 1-3 sentences). Such copying violates copyright. Any edit that inserts such copied text will be reverted regardless of any other merits of the edit. This is one of the most strictly enforced policies here on Wikipedia. Thre is no give to it at all.

If I have mis-indentified this edit, and it came form somewhere else, please indicate where.

IN future please do not post long sections of article text to the Teahouse. Just indicate the article and timestamp, or better, link to a diff. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DES thanks for your reply. As mentioned to Nthep above, this was a second edit, on which Justlettersandnumbers has been kind enough to vouch for me. My first edit (8:39, July 15, 2017) did contain copyvio, though it was due to a misunderstanding of the way other information had been presented/cited on the page. However, Justlettersandnumbers gave me some great help/guidance, and I went through the edit made sentence-by-sentence edits, so as not to have any copyvio. It was not "copied from a magazine." I submitted this edit (12:46, July 15, 2017). This is the edit White Arabian Filly rejected...in its entirety. Justbean (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nthep, there's fairly extended discussion of this at User talk:Justbean. I believe the editor's second attempt was very close to being perfectly OK; you with your X-ray vision will be able to see that the first try had its problems. I invited Justbean here because he/she must be fed up with hearing my voice. The editor who reverted the second attempt (who has had enough pings from me today) has not edited since yesterday; it might perhaps be an idea to sit back a bit and wait for her/him to do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: diff of Justbean's second version. I asked for this to be unhidden from the history this morning. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, thank you, and thanks again for the invite! Very helpful. And am far from tired of your voice ;) Justbean (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Justbean. You made a massive edit to an article that presented several problems. The first and by far the most important was that much of the content violated copyright, and Wikipedia is extremely strict about copyright violations. If the content you posted here at the Teahouse violates copyright, please remove it immediately from here and from anywhere else on Wikipedia where you may have posted it. Copyright violations will be removed on sight when detected and this is firm policy and is not negotiable. This has all been discussed on your talk page.

Cullen³²⁸, thank you for the kind welcome. Am wondering if you can you please tell me, specifically, what violated copyright? Also, I didn't realize there was any problem with the scope of my edit. This is the first I'm hearing of that. Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Justbean, it seems that you copied content from Smithsonian magazine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸...the thing is...what specifically did I copyvio? In this edit, no one has provided me with any specifics. Furthermore, my first editor wrote, in my defense, that my new edit was fine and that he/she thought it should be "restored to the page." So, if you can provide me with specifics...not just what White Arabian Filly logged as a basis for rejecting the edit, I would sincerely appreciate it. And if I have done any copyvio, can you show me how it differs from any other edit on the page, just so I understand for future edits? Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Another problem that I see is that you are trying to add significant new content that unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys. Black cowboys would end up appearing far more important than Mexican cowboys, for example. I think that a better solution is to create a new article on Black cowboys linked from the main Cowboy article, and to add a brief summary of the new content to that article.

Cullen³²⁸ I don't see how it unbalances the coverage. The entire article was unbalanced to begin, given its default that cowboys are white. It's unclear why "cowboys" can't include all cowboys, or why black, Mexican, etc. should have their own pages. I thought the page is about American cowboys. If that's true, then, as of now...white cowboys are appearing far more important than all others...which is inaccurate, given that others accounted for 40-60 percent (per census) of all cowboys. It seems that including cowboys of color others shouldn't necessitate the need for them to be separate. That's akin to saying white cowboys are the "default"...and others are subcategories. So, while I see no harm in cowboys of color having a separate page...I also don't see why they have to be relegated on this page (as Cowgirls have their own sizable section), or re-directed to other pages. As for Mexican cowboys...I simply didn't do that edit. But, I also don't see why I need to do the edit on Mexican cowboys, et al. in order for the edit on Black cowboys to be accepted? Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The article had a section describing the regional ethnic variations among cowboys and I see no default assumption in the article before you began editing that cowboys were white. I am not arguing that anything be "relegated" and agree that you are working to add useful content. But all additions need to take into account the full article and often it is better to create more detailed sub articles rather than to allow the original article to evolve in a sprawling, disorganized fashion. As for cowgirls, I would support a separate article for them as well. In my opinion, Black cowboys and cowgirls are discrete topics covered in detail in many books that, in my view, deserve separate articles. This is a matter of editorial judgment to be decided by consensus, and I am expressing my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ that's my point. You don't have to say cowboys are white...the default is that they just are. It's a given. Look at all the artwork on the page, or the section that talks about the Cowboy image. This is why it has to be explained that there were non-white cowboys. It's the same if/when reading a story. If a character is not white, it has to be pointed out...otherwise people assume/default that the character is white. But...back to the article, there are, in fact, other references in the Cowboy article where cowboys are mentioned as, or alluded to being, white:

American cowboys were drawn from multiple sources. By the late 1860s, following the American Civil War and the expansion of the cattle industry, former soldiers from both the Union and Confederacy came west, seeking work, as did large numbers of restless white men in general.

In the 19th century, most tribes in the area were dispossessed of their land and cattle and pushed south or west by white settlers and the United States government.

By the middle of the 19th century white ranchers were running large herds of cattle on the extensive open range of central and southern Florida.Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In general, it is far better to expand an article by making a series of smaller, easily digestible additions, describing each in an edit summary. If another editor perceives a problem with one chunk of content, they can revert and discuss while leaving most of the new content intact. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸, again, I wasn't aware that I had to account for scope. Will take into consideration. However, I also didn't see my edit as being any bigger than the edit on Cowgirls. But, if I have to do something differently, I'll keep trying. Thanks for your willingness to communicate with me and to try to help me out :) Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Justbean, was the cowgirl content added in a single edit, or was it added gradually in a series of edits? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ I honestly don't know when/how the cowgirl edit was added. But, if an edit is accurate, why should its size matter? In addition, no one has mentioned that the size of my edit is issue. All I've heard is copyvio, although I have yet to receive any specifics. If the size/scope of my edit was an issue (btw, is that an actual reason an edit can be rejected?), then White Arabian Filly should have done one of two things: 1) either accept SOME of the edit and tell me to resubmit the rest in portions or 2) give me an opportunity to shorten the edit. However, I was afforded neither of those things. My ENTIRE edit was just rejected. Without ANY explanation/message to me. And the idea that the entire edit would be rejected, regardless of accuracy, for being "too big"... well, that just doesn't make sense. Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Justbean an edit should not be rejected for being "too big" and I don't think yours was. But when there is perceived to be a problem with an edit (correctly or incorrectly) and the edit is large, it is common for it to be reverted as a whole, giving the original editor the chance to reinsert the parts with no problems, or to start a discussion on the article talk page. Perhaps this isn't the best possible practice, but it is common here, regardless of the subject matter.

When an edit is believed to be a copyright infringement (again, correctly or not) it is normal for it to be reverted in toto and at once. It is not normal to wait for the original editor to revise or correct the edit (in fact it is pretty much unheard of). Nor is it usual to provide any more explanation than "copyright infringement of <name of source>", although it is usual to indicate the source being infringed. Nor is it usual for the reverting editor to try to pick though the edit and remove only the infringements. Once an editor determines than an edit is in significant part infringing, it is usually removed root and branch, leaving to the original editor the task of reinserting the information in a way free of infringements. It is also usual to indicate the infringement in a log entry (when a page is deleted totally) or in an edit summery (when an edit is reverted), and only sometimes are these supplemented by a personal message to the initial editor. The edit summery was an explanation. Now it may be that White Arabian Filly made an error in this case. And i apologize for implying that your statement was of no value. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, any further discussion of the article content should take place at the best place, which is Talk:Cowboy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

New user here, and I don' t have any idea how to add comments to the Teahouse or any other page. I understand facebook and twitter, but wikipedia is a puzzle to me. So the only way I can post is to go into edit. All of the comments already posted do have a "join this discussion" prompt, but I don't see a "post a comment" or "post a question" box. What am I missing? Salander44 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You're already doing the correct thing, there's no "comment" button on Wikipedia. Jdcomix (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Salander44 there is a large blue box/button at the top of this page that says "ask a question". But all that does is create a new section and put you in edit mode. Other talk pages generally require you to enter edit mode on your own to post a comment or start a new thread (section). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I can't defend myself except to say it was in an unexpected location. I see it now. Apologies! Salander44 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No need to worry or apologize, Salander44. You've learned where the comment box is on this page, and how to add comments to any discussion page on Wikipedia. And asking questions is what this page is for, and answering them is what I and others come here for. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I get images that i can use on Wikipedia (Uneaseyoutube (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way is to take photos or create drawings yourself, Uneaseyoutube. Then you can upload them, releasing them under a free license. There are many images already available on Wikimedia Commons, and any of them should be free to use. Most images on the web are not freely available, and generally cannot be used on Wikipedia. Some have been released under a free license, such as the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. Those can be used, with proper attribution, if the license was actually issued by the proper copyright holder. You could search for such images. In a few rare cases, an image can be used under fair use, provided that it meets all of the criteria. Some older images will be in the public domain, mostly images published in 1923 and earlier. And that is about it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the dumb question, but I seem to be stuck in a loop.

As a new member of Wikipedia, I created my account and wrote an initial draft in my User Sandbox.

In order to get that draft peer-reviewed, I copied the article contents and pasted them in a draft article at my user account root, saved, and then in the "Talk" tab, I added the { { subst : PR } } tag at the top and signed it using the four tildes.

However, when I subsequently saved this, { { subst : PR } } was substituted by a sentence in bold red: "This template should be substituted on the article talk page."

I thought I was on the article talk page. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks in advance for your help! Suitecomm (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your {{subst:PR}} did not work because you were not on an article talk page, but in a talk page in your user space. This template will not work there.

If you wish to create a new article, the best course of action for a new user is to use the new article wizard which can be found here. There are a set of checks to get you to the appropriate place. Once you have sufficient article to submit for inclusion, there is a button at the top labelled 'Submit this article' (or something similar). This submits the article for review and will draw either acceptance or suggestions for improvement.

Having looked at your article in your user space, my opinion is that your proposed article reads much closer to an advertisement than an article and would be unlikely to be accepted. This does not necessarily mean that an article on that subject would, of itself, be unacceptable. It just needs to be factual, notable and written from a neutral point of view. It also needs to be backed up by reliable sources.

One other important point: if you have a close or paid connection with Qwest TV, you must disclose this, on your account user page and at the head of the article. A review of WP:COI and WP:DISCLOSE will show you the way, if this is the case. Good luck. 86.149.141.8 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid and clear reply and for pointing me in the right direction. I was subsequently able to locate where I would create and submit the article thanks to the Article Wizard.

However, as you correctly point out, at this point the subject of my article is still in the development stages. I've decided to leave the article as a draft for the foreseeable future, until the subject gains in breadth and visibility and is the subject of articles written in independent, well-known, and reliable publications.

In any case, my first foray into the world of editing Wikipedia—a source of information I have long revered—was edifying. Thanks again for the welcome and the well-wishes. Best of luck to you, too. Suitecomm (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

One other point, Suitecomm: in general, copy-pasting within Wikipedia is not a good idea, for various reasons (see WP:CUTPASTE for some of the problems it leaves behind). In this case, since you were copying only your own work, no harm is done; but in future, it's better to move a page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, Suitecomm. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, my name is Joe Pastrana and i'm a new editor, i'd like to know about his opinions about the text is well-written and structured.

Here, I leave the text:

La Bolefuego or Candileja is a legendary character belonging to the folklores Colombian and Venezuelan, this is an apparition similar to a lamp which appears in the dark nights of the plains. It is said that this turn and sound with violence in addition to turn on and off constantly.

The legend

It is claimed which is the spirit of a woman they burned her alive in his own house with his two sons. She attacks travellers, which should not pray in his presence, because unlike of other evil beings, she is attracted to prayers that make her annoy.

I appreciate all of your opinions. Joe Pastrana (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Thank you.Joe Pastrana (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Joe Pastrana - If you are asking whether the text in well-written in English, the answer is no. I have tagged La Bolefuego as needing copy-edit. I see that the citation that you provided is the original legend in Spanish. Can someone please improve the English? (I could improve the English, but it wouldn't help to improve the English if it wasn't consistent with the Spanish.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Joe Pastrana. It appears to me that you have translated La Bolefuego from the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Bolefuego. Is that correct? If so, then you need to credit the original Spanish article in an edit summary and to leave a note on the article's talk page, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe Pastrana, Robert McClenon and Cordless Larry – I have done some copy editing and added the attribution from the Spanish article. I believe it's properly written now, but am happy to hear further suggestions. –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the copy-edit tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning, Robert McClenon, Cordless Larry and FlyingAce I'm deeply grateful for the help provided, I sincerely apologize for translations errors. I didn't know how to start but i hope to be better at this. Thank you so much and happy day.

Hi Joe Pastrana, it looks like you have a good start to your Wikipedia career. For your next steps, please add more references to the aricle. Five references would be a good goal. If you need help you can ask here. --Pine^✉ 04:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I can edit for you, Joe Paterno Pastrana, if you would like. I'll do it below if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flynnlives (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Flynn lives here, Flynnlives trying one more time. I would edit it accordingly:

La Bolefuego, or Candileja, is a legendary character belonging to Colombian and Venezuelan folklores. [? source? ]. According to these legends, it is an apparition similar to a genie, which appears on the South American plains. It is said that [??? idk man, that's all you]. §(2). The legend claims the spirit of a woman was burned alive in her own house, with his two sons. She attacks travellers, who (or whom, I'd have to look up the rule) should not prey (or pray?) in their presence, because, unlike other evil beings, the Candileja are attracted to prayers that annoy them. 

I imagine if you rewrote this to the best of your ability, it would be sufficiently well-written. If anyone wants to fix this to make it better, feel free.

Best regards, Flynnlives (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC).

Must a subject have been cited in different kinds of sources to be considered notable, or is just one type sufficient if there are several? Uhtregorn (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uhtregorn that depends on what you mean by "different kinds". If a subject has only been discussed in one newspaper over a short period, it is probably not notable, particularly if the newspaper has only a local distribution area. An article can be based entirely on one type of source, as long as it's not only one paper, book, journal or website. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess I meant different types of media (news articles, journals, books, etc), but I think this answers the question. Thanks! Uhtregorn (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... This is interesting to me, and I intend to come back to it at some point, whenever I find the time. More pressing matters to attend to currently. Flynnlives (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) ^[1]