From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

WP teahouse logo.png

Reference finding[edit]

Hello. What is the easiest/best way to finding references? I use Google; it is easy to find references but it is hard to find reliable references. Where do the "pros" find references? Right now, I am trying to find a reference for this article's only cite needed tag. I am pretty bad at finding references. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello DangerousJXD, I prefer finding references that is much reliable based on its information, the fact that I choose much more sophisticated ones, well, I research on them first, then list them down if they're certainly good at the information they're giving, based on per sources you give. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't want the above editor to be offended but can I have another editor answer please? —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I also use google. You get a lot of unreliable stuff, but also some great material. Once I have a bit of information (even from a lousy source), it gives me more information on what to search. I then narrow my search and find specific sources for specific information. For example, if I read on a blog (bad source) the country X invaded country Y in year Z, then I might put both country names, "invade" and the date in the search bar. Chances are something reliable pops up, either saying it is an urban legend, or that it actually happened, and giving more details, leading to a more specific search... It takes time but it is a lot of fun. It is also easier if you have access to some journal subscriptions through work or school. Hope that helps. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey again DangerousJXD. Google is great but not the standard Google search, which is a search of the entire web. Google Books is a habitual first stop (to get there easily, do a regular Google search and then go to the menu at the top, under "more" and choose "books"). Though you'll find unreliable sources there as well (even books selling Wikipedia compilations), because of the nature of books, it concentrates reliable sources and is many times over better than a web search. Google Scholar can also be very useful (you have to search for that one, it's not in the regular interface, just type "scholar" into Google to reach it, or bookmark it of course). Google news used to be great but it's been greatly diminished in reach for almost three years; it still can be very useful, especially for more recent content (it's a link at the top of the page when you do a regular Google search). I put together a page for other news resources at Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources. Of course there are pay services – is incredible but it's expensive. Also, you can apply for certain subscriptions to great services like JSTOR through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Also, be aware of the excellent service provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange (easy shortcut: WP:RX). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Correctness of having "(show)" where a [show] tag is used[edit]

I noticed earlier today that some pages use the Hidden template, and then add "(show)" at the end of the header, despite there being a [show] button on the right side of the page already. For example, a picture at the top of trypophobia is hidden, and the header redundantly includes (show). Is this bad practice, or there for the convenience of the reader? Typherix (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Typherix, I guess it's just some form of error, or some users are new to it and they don't understand it, you can fix them if you wish. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I just took the time to notice that Wongba hid the picture to avoid the reaction of editors if they have anxiety. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A Follower.[edit]

Hi there I am new to Wiki... Just a query, I have a follower, another editor that followers my every edit in order to undo it. Is it normal for one editor to follow and undo every edit you do? Wikipedia says be bold with the editing, yet I find my edits undone before I have time to put my citations on them. Also, I noticed there is a lot of mis-information that he is trying to protect and I am a purist. Please advise. *Castle&Gardens* (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: OP tries to sneak POV-commentary into articles by lying in their edit summaries, and has been reported at WP:ANI as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Castle&Gardens, Welcome to the Teahouse! It's not rare of being followed and your recent edits being undone in Wikipedia. Some users, who are more experienced than you, is correcting you, showing you the ways of how to be a good Wikipedian, Ian.thomson has been on Wikipedia at least for 6 months, at least older than me, I am only a week old! But I strive to learn, and on how to be good, is to learn, you should too, start from the beginning, and you'll see if you can interact with Ian much more friendly in the future. Being trollish kinda way doesn't really help you in your situation. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
They've been blocked for a week for disruptive editing and misleading edit summaries. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with the navboxes?[edit]

All the navboxes that I've come across today didn't have a show/hide option and were displayed in their fully expanded state. Is this a compatibility issue for Google Chrome users (the browser I'm using) or something else? This problem seems to affect anything using the {{Hidden begin}} and {{Hidden end}} templates. CabbagePotato (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that sometimes, when I clear browser history and cache, all of the navboxes seems to be fully expanded. At least thats what I think, I don't really consider this as a fact, but purging the cache is the culprit, in my opinion... ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: That's an interesting observation, but the thing that's really bugging me is the lack of a show/hide button on the navboxes. I've never seen the button actually disappear before.
I also noticed that the Template pages for the navboxes display the show/hide option, while the transcluded versions (in the articles) do not. CabbagePotato (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: I had to actually close the current browser window and open up a new one for the navboxes to display properly, so I think you should be right about the problem being caused by purging the cache. Thanks for your help! CabbagePotato (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Cool! I'm glad I could help those with a guess. Well that's rare. Face-smile.svg ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: Sorry to bother you again, but I've just noticed that it appears that the navbox issue still occurs whether or not the browser history is cleared, and it doesn't occur all the time: Sometimes the show/hide button displays and sometimes it doesn't. For all I know, this is just a personal issue not related to clearing the cache. But thanks for your help anyways. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CabbagePotato: Have you tried updating your browser? If it isn't updated, that's likely to be the source, in my opinion.. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 02:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: My Chrome browser is currently up-to-date according to its "About" page. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Trademark "TM" on Comapny Logos[edit]

I know we cannot use "TM" in Wiki articles, but some corporate logo include "TM" designation on the logo. Is this OK for the company logo area? Thanks Robpater (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Robpater to the Teahouse! You cannot use Trademarks in texts, and articles. If the logo has a TM mark on them, and that is okay, but not the text. SEE Wikipedia: Manual of Style: Trademarks ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Need upload assurances not covered by what I've read so far.[edit]

I have World War II photos that are not of my own making but are part of a parent's estate, parent now deceased, and earlier today without knowing too much about it attempted to edit the Gallery on the USS Hanover by adding the photos I have of the battleship, and with disastrous results for which I profusely apologize to Wikipedia for (((sorry!))) and then I come to this Teahouse after visiting Wikimedia about uploading photos and not finding information on the use of photos that are neither on the web elsewhere OR of my own work, with the parties whose work these were being deceased. Help, please? DSLevesqueDSLevesque (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


I work for a company and want to upload a current logo to replace the one on our article. How do I do that?PabloRicardo (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello PabloRicardo! Welcome to the Teahouse, to upload a photo, simply go to Wikimedia Commons. Look to your left, you'll see the "Upload File" under the Participate section, click that, read the pictures carefully, after you have read the guidelines, click next, click the Upload media, navigate through your folders and choose your picture, wait for the upload to finish, now, if it's done, click "My Own Work", If you want to choose different CC licenses, click "choose other licenses at the bottom right of the page, then choose a CC license thats appropriate for you, now, fill in the data, you must not skip this part, after you have filled it, click ok and you will be presented with the page of links. Click the first link and copy it.
To use, just go to your article, click on "Edit Source above, pick a place of where you want your picture, paste the code you have copied before, and click "Show preview", if your not satisfied with the place, you can delete it and change the directions, if you're satisfied, then you're done.

If you do not understand and want a more comprehensive tutorial, click this. Regards. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Article draft[edit]

Hi all. I recently uploaded a draft of a Wikipedia article on my Talk page regarding a company called TwinFocus Capital Partners. I am not affiliated with this company at all. I was hoping that some of you might take a look at it and offer any comments/recommendations to ensure that it will pass Wikipedia's requirements. Thanks! Richmond1800 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Richmond1800! Welcome to the Teahouse! I can guarantee, that will pass, but seperate some sections into specific names, if you want to add more, and apparently, if you send that for review, your not the one who will edit it fully though, we'll try to help you! Regards! CryOceD (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!! CryOCed

Reviews on new pages.[edit]

Has anyone reviewed new pages? I found some disturbing things, some are violating guidelines. For example: The four pages I encountered while patrolling.

CryOceD (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi CryOceD, the first two are already deleted, the third I have flagged for speedy deletion. I've been noticing more un-reviewed pages recently... that the trouble with a unorganised volenteer system - sometimes you have lots hitting the same backlogs, sometimes not enough! Special:NewPagesFeed is getting quite large! Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • CryOceD, if you haven't added it already you should look at adding Wikipedia:Twinkle - it makes reporting such pages for speedy deletion quick and easy, and you can do these yourself - especially when as obvious as MD Sumro was! Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, KylieTastic, I use Twinkle just to do the right job. Well, I often patrol 10 pages at once seperatedly, and I keep seeing new pages that is blanked, especially on new users. Regards! CryOceD (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My first Refusal[edit]

Hello, I've recently been notified that my article submission has been refused because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement" However, I do not know why it would be considered as such. I've checked other articles about Unilever or Callebaut which both possess a page. Could you please help me figure this out? Thanks for your return. Luco Luc-Olivier Rahier (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Luc-Olivier Rahier! Welcome to the Teahouse! I have read your draft, the layout text is indeed some form of advertisement, and apparently it's hanging down at the NPOV (Neutral Point of View), please, read the guidelines within the link I gave you. You must be neutral when it comes to companies like these, "Puratos is a multinational company offering a range of products", that indeed looks like advertisement, it doesn't really specify what kind of products Puratos offers. CryOceD (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, "Puratos is a specialist in the taste of chocolate. They are passionate about rare chocolates", the statement obviously confirms that it's not in a neutral point of view. Your text is biased by the way. Please see Being Neutral. CryOceD (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CryOceD for your feedback. Much appreciated. I'll make sure to go through the text to correct this.

Luc-Olivier Rahier (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Finished first Wikipedia copyedit[edit]

I just finished copyediting my first article. I think I've found all of the errors, so should I go back in again and remove the copyedit template? Or do I wait to have someone approve what I did? Thanks. Book Marker (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Book Marker. Any editor should remove a maintenance tag from an article after resolving the issue. You do not need permission from anyone else. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Book Marker! I think the page needs extensive dose of links to other articles, I can gladly help! You don't need approval by the way. CryOceD (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses! I'll go ahead and remove the copyedit template. I agree that the article needs a lot of links. I haven't learned how to do those yet so feel free to work on them if you'd like. Book Marker (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My First User Interaction[edit]

Hello! I'm not entirely sure whether it is appropriate to ask a question about a specific conversation with a user, but seeing as it was my first, and I don't think it went very well, I really would appreciate any advice (or suggestion for a more appropriate platform for such a question).

The link to the conversation is

Clearly, I did in fact do something 'utterly pointless' on my userpage - I made the unintentional mistake of copy-pasting in the speedy-delete tag. The resultant conversation unfortunately had a combative tone. My question is how can I avoid similar conversations in the future, besides avoiding similar mistakes?

Is this sort of conversation/tone unusual or am I experiencing culture shock?

Sorry to bother you all. I very much appreciate this service. A L T E R C A R I 22:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Altercari, Welcome to the Teahouse, Apparently, the user you were talking to eventually have been angered, since he thought you're an experienced editor, and you knew the templates, he claimed that you continued to edit until to the point it reached the sufficient number with the wikilinks, and yet you didn't notice the speedy deletion tag. You can't just say "You have no idea", you must ask questions first and further, that will only dissapoint the user your talking to, at least that's my opinion. As they always say, have good faith, and civility. Be bold, don't be scared to ask further questions off of, users that sometimes teach you unexpectedly. CryOceD (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Altercari. The other editor, RHaworth, is a highly productive contributor who also happens to be a blunt speaker. If you read his user page, you will come away with a better understanding of his personality and style. Do not take it personally. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328. Please ignore my previous message below. If I would want to appeal something like a page deletion, is there a way to contact another admin, if the person I'm talking to, as in this case, has a somewhat blunt style? That would make a big difference to me. A L T E R C A R I 22:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply, CryOCed. So this isn't normal behaviour? I am unfortunately rather sensitive to combativeness and I felt intimidated and actually quite worthless after this interaction. If, in the future, I encounter someone else with whom I have a not-ideal interaction, is there some other way I can contest a userpage deletion? A L T E R C A R I 22:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, Altercari. I hope that helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Thank you for all your advice. A L T E R C A R I 23:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Altercari, although RHaworth might have been brusque, he actually continued to converse with you and tried to provide information to you on what happened to your user page. He was trying to be helpful. If you become a productive editor on Wikipedia it is highly likely that you will come into conflict with another editor on WP because, well, people have different points of view and different opinions. Arguing and trying to persuade other viewers that your edit is appropriate is part of the editing experience for most editors. It helps a lot if you do not take these disagreements personally as they are a fact of life on Wikipedia, it's what happens when people from all over the world try to collaborate.
If you are looking for an introduction to WP, I recommend Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Altercari If you have better sources at your hands, you'll definitely win a userpage deletion discussion, on the other hand, don't feel worthless after someone's reaction through your skills, it's better to have experienced the reaction to know yourself more better, so you can make changes to your personality when it comes to other people, worldwide. By the way, I recommend Ssilvers to be your adopter, he is really good! CryOceD (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
CryOCed, I shall try to get in touch with him! Thank you for the recommendation! A L T E R C A R I 23:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Liz − absolutely. RHaworth was very informative. Were it not for him I wouldn't have heard about this resource, which has been of great help to me! He also fixed the problem very quickly, which I appreciate. I know it's not ideal to have such thin skin as I do, and it may well be my undoing as a wiki editor. I'm not afraid of disagreements though. In this case there wasn't even a disagreement. It was simply a mistake that had to be corrected. I would rather avoid (unnecessary, from my point of view) brusqueness in the future, unless it's part of a debate that's really worth having. A L T E R C A R I 23:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not Copyright - please help![edit]

Hello there,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for the nonprofit at which I work. We would like to transfer information from the website to the Wikipedia page in order to save space on the website. However, when I did this, Wikipedia notified me of copyright issues. Is there a way to let Wikipedia know that I am not copying information from the website, but that we are in fact owners of it?


Wcc1915 (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Wcc1915: and welcome to the encyclopedia, Wikipedia!
While I am sure your organization does wonderful things, as an encyclopedia, we are not a free webhosting platform for your organization. You will need to find other options. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Wcc1915, what you need is secondary sources, that is independent coverage of your nonprofit which typically is in the form of books, magazine coverage or newspapers. This will demonstrate notability which is important in establishing this article and prevent it from being deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll explain a bit further, Wcc1915. On the subject of copyright: any material on your website is automatically copyright, whether you explicitly mark it or not. Wikipedia does not accept copyright material unless it has been explicitly released under a suitable Creative commons licence. Your organisation may do this if it chooses (but it should be aware that in doing so it will granting anybody permission to use the material for any purpose - see donating copyright materials if you should want to pursue this). But the other point is that material on your website is very unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia. If Wikipedia has an article about your organisation, it will not be your article: you will not have any control over its contents, it is possible that it will contain information which you would prefer not shown (and likely that it will not contain some information which you would like to appear) and your are strongly discouraged from editing it. This is because we are an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @TheRedPenofDoom @Liz @ConlinFine. This is very helpful.

Wcc1915 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

When to move an article from userspace[edit]

Should User:Rubbish computer/Composed salad be reviewed before I can move it into the main article space? Rubbish computer 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just add that material to salad? Doesn't make sense to me to have it as a separate article.--ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: I agree with @Ukexpat:- a composed salad seems to have little notability, but could be a section of Salad#Types of salads instead, I guess. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:@Ukexpat: Okay I will do this. I made this page after seeing it listed as a potential article on Cullen328's user page. Rubbish computer 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May an employee of an organization create that organization's page?[edit]

I'm an intern at an education advocacy organization located in a major American city. I've been asked by my boss to create a Wikipedia page for our organization. (One does not already exist.) The group has existed since 2012, has received local and regional media coverage, and has partnered with national funders and research partners; I do believe the group is "worthy of notice." However, I don't know whether Wikipedia encourages / allows employees to create pages for the organization that employs them. Any thoughts? Benjaminpstein (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Benjaminpstein: You need to read WP:COI and, if you insist on creating this page, hard to refuse because it is a direct order, I advise you very strongly to use the WP:AFC process and take all reviews on board. Your boss may want publicity. Wikipedia is a two edged sword because it finds out warts as well. We do not allow any form of publicity. You ought, also, to declared your COI using {{Connected contributor}} on the putative article's talk page.
You have to be very good at writing dull but worthy text, material I doubt your boss will approve of, but we will not approve any form of puffery. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Benjaminpstein, Welcome to the Teahouse! If an employee is asked by their leaders to create an article about their own organization is allowed, thus you cannot govern your opinion into it. It's not allowed here. you must know the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) guidelines. If your organization is worthy of such notice, please go ahead, make the article at a draft and send it for review. Don't allow such publicity, like stated by Fiddle Faddle above. CryOceD (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both; your explanations and the links you included illustrate exactly my concerns. I'll try AFC and I'll make my Connected Contributor status explicit. Thanks again! Benjaminpstein (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Your boss has put you in a very difficult position. Anything you write about the organization is bound to be mercilessly edited by other users and will likely bear little resemblance to your original contribution - that's how Wikipedia works, but your edits will be even more closely scrutinized because of your COI. That is bound to be a source of frustration for you. I would suggest that you ask your boss to reconsider his request.--ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
A final opinion, Benjaminpstein? It is difficult to write an article about a person, organization, event or product that you have a personal connection to as it hard to have a neutral point of view. Your boss should realize that the task he has given you is not a walk in the park. New articles are scrutinized very carefully and I also encourage you to use the WP:AFC process.
But while you will have some challenges ahead of you, I think you should try any way. What Wikipedia cares the most about are reliable, independent sources that cover your organization, not primary sources, that is, material that comes from your organization. Feel free to come back to the Teahouse as you work on your article and questions come up. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions in Userspace?[edit]

I recently used the { { helpme } } template to ask for feedback on a draft article saved in my userspace. It was a draft BLP about a musician. One editor commented that it might be too promotional but there wasn't anything that couldn't be fixed. Another editor tagged it for speedy deletion under criteria G11, "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and it was summarily deleted by an administrator.

I found these two responses quite interesting, particularly because speedy deletion under CSD G11 is by definition reserved for pages that are "exclusively" promotional and that would need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to become encyclopedic, which isn't what the first feedback said. Also, CSD G11 states that if a subject is notable (which it was) and the "content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion", which is the nature of the advice I was seeking out.

Regardless, I have a couple of questions:

1 - My primary question is whether it is an appropriate practice to apply speedy deletions to drafts of articles that are saved within userspace.

2 - Also, when administrators delete pages based on speedy deletion tags, is it common practice to examine the pages and decide for themselves, or to just delete the pages without examining them? In other words, is the tag essentially a request for an administrator to take an action, or to look into whether an action needs to be taken and then take the action if necessary?

Thank you for the information. It will help me understand the context behind the speedy deletion process.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: The concept of speedy deletion is one where there are intended to be checks and balances. The deleting admin should check that the deletion is valid and based upon policy. It's perfectly acceptable to ask that admin politely where they considered your draft met the criterion under which they deleted it. All edits are subject to community scrutiny, and admins are not an exception to this. Speedy deletion is sometimes applied to userspace drafts. My view is that the transgression must be blindingly obvious to warrant the approach. I am not an admin so I cannot see the deleted material. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fiddle Faddle: thank you for your response. You answered exactly what I was wondering about. Kekki1978 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kekki1978, what I think Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent was also saying was that it is not inappropriate to ask the admin who deleted your page why it was deleted. You can also go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and see if your article can be undeleted. Be prepared to have an argument on why your article should be undeleted and what steps you will take to improve its content. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Thank you for your suggestion. Very helpful.Kekki1978 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

How to remove inline citations and[edit]

My article is still under review but I've been referred, again, to WP:CITE, WP:IRS, WP:REFB and WP:RS, all of which I've read and attempted to understand. The article was declined initially, and I went back and exhaustively footnoted/referenced and sourced all of the information in it.

Below are the comments that persist. I really need some help with how to improve the article and fix these remaining issues. Can you help?

Comment: Seems notable, mainly due to coverage in NYT, etc. Unreferenced information must be removed, and please see WP:IRS and WP:RS for indications on what Wikipedia considers good sources, and adhere to that. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you are adding references. Please do read WP:REFB and WP:CITE before you go much further Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS

All inline links must be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links Fiddle Faddle 14:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Annmarieholcomb (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to include the link to the article: (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Annmarieholcomb: The comments remain as review history, rather than persisting. Reviewers use them to check what has been said before and that you have taken them on board. They are also used when a reviewer disagrees with another. Since yu have resubmitted your draft please do two things:
  1. trust the review process
  2. Continue to make improvements while awaiting a review.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 18:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Specific strategies to improve Multicultural BRIDGE[edit]

One of the articles I've been creating for a community organization in Berkshire County called Multicultural BRIDGE ( was recently rejected on the basis of the subject not being notable. Given the organization's received independently written articles in at least five different newspapers and journals (and received accolades from Deval Patrick and Carmen Ortiz), I respectfully beg to differ.
Having said this, I realize as a new Wikipedia editor, my article might not be written as professionally or neutrally as it could be. I'm looking for suggestions on how to showcase this organization's notability/advice on properly writing the article.
Thanks in advance, Kdipierro (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kdipierro Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse!, I'll give you my opinion about the article you submitted, "I am having trouble reading it", like what Blue Rasberry said, "Focus on making 2-3 good sentences with good citations. Wikipedia has low standards - make an attempt to meet them. Read the guidelines.", and also, it looks like an advertisement page instead of an article. However, I find it unbalanced with the NPOV. I think it just needs spaces with the programs section, to make the reader understand more. It looks sophisticated that way anyway, but given with the 2 declines with the reason "advertisement", I indeed agree. It looks like an advertisement. CryOceD (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Kdipierro. I may be overreacting to one word, but I am concerned tht you refer to creating an article for the organisation: I think it may help to avoid thinking this. A wikipedia article is not for anything except Wikipedia. It must be a neutral summary of what independent people have published about the subject in reliable places: neither more nor less. It does not belong to the organisation, it is not controlled bt the organisation, it will not necessarily benefit the organisation, and people associated with the organisation are strongly discouraged from editing it. If criticisms of the organisation have been published in reliable places, they should be included as well.
In answer to your question on the page about links and PDF's: please incorporate those URLs into the appropriate citations; but do not, on any account, upload PDFs. Besides the fact that it will probably be a copyright violation to do so, there is no way to establish their provenance, so uploads of them will not be reliable, and cannot be used in references. --ColinFine (talk)
Thank you CryOCed and ColinFine for your critiques. What specific things can I do to give the article a more neutral point of view? In past drafts, I removed a list of awards, a mission statement, and other articles which weren't directly about the organization. I've looked online for criticism of the organization's programs, but haven't found any.
CryOCed - When you mention "spaces with the programs section," what exactly do you mean? Should I separate the programs under different sub-headings, or should I do something else?
ColinFine - I'm not a staff member of BRIDGE and haven't supervised any of their programs; however, I'm familiar with their work as a Berkshire community member and it seems they're significant enough to have a Wikipedia page about them. Is it permissible to share a PDF of an article that's beyond the paywall by uploading it onto Google Drive and setting the PDF to "read only"? Are there other ways to work around not having access to some of these links?
Thanks again, Kdipierro (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Kdipierro. I didn't actually review the article before my previous reply: I don't find anything promotional in the text as it now stands. In fact, the text's a bit thin, probably because you have taken out material trying to get it neutral. I haven't looked through the history to see what was there before, but my guess is that you could put some of it back, as long as you're careful about the wording: it shouldn't have any empty marketing speak, and any even slightly evaluative terms (especially about how wonderful the organisation is) should be include only if they are directly referenced to an independent source. Awards are fine as long as they are properly referenced: to say that BRIDGE won XXX award (with a reference to prove it) is a simple statement of fact.
I did wonder if you were employed by, or connected with BRIDGE: the wording I picked out suggested it, but only as one possible interpretation. I'm quite happy to accept that you are not.
As for the PDF: no, still not. Unless you have specific permission from the copyright holders, it is probably an infringement to upload it onto Google drive or anywhere, and Wikipedia does not allow linking to material that infringes copyright anywhere. Sources cited are not even required to be on line: obviously it's convenient if they are on-line and free-access, but the critical thing is that a random reader can in principle get hold of them. For the reader to need to subscribe to a service, or to go to a library and order a copy of something, is acceptable. (And Wikipedia has the resource exchange to put people in touch with others who have got access to resources). And even if you have permission to do so, it can't then be used as a reliable source. If a source is not easily available, it is permissible to include a short quotation from the source to show how it supports the text in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Declined Article[edit]

Hi Sami, My article Dr Surendra ajnat has been declined. The reason given to me is "Not verified by reliable sources". Could you help me to improve my article? Kind Regards Dr Surendra Ajnat (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't write about yourself on Wikipedia. Apart from the complete lack of sources, your submission is also woefully self-aggrandising, and would never be accepted as a Wikipedia article. It is clear that you are not able to write about yourself in the neutral manner required here, and I would strongly recommend that you abandon the attempt and consider alternative outlets instead. Yunshui  12:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

article up for deletion-no reason[edit]

Someone siad this article is an unimportanrt aprtmrnt building and said it will be deleted. I added more info and removed the tag with reasoning. They then added the tag back and wont tell me what needs improving. Wrightie99 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wrightie99, Welcome to the Teahouse! You're looking for this page, please read the guidelines, also the reasons for deletion. If the page has something that violates the deletion policy, then, if you can, please make changes. SEE WP:Deletion policy

CryOceD (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see a small problem, how can I move an article into a draft space. This is to work on it. I feel that the article is not notable enough and I have some refs to help. thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, you added links through the page that doesn't exist. You doubled the same reference "emporis, emporis". That is not allowed. Yes, you need more sources, of where did you get the info. Apparently DGG claims that "A 16 story apartment building in the UK is not notable; it' s not even the tallest one in this particular city,. The only 3rd party sources are about a non-fatal fire that took place there--that's local news, and was covered by the local papers". CryOceD (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Could I move it to a draft space to work on it. If its still not notable I will understand if it gets deleted. The only reason I created this article is beacuse I was told to create an article for every building on this list article Wrightie99 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You're apparently looking for incubation. Incubator is the place where you place your article that does not meet the Wikipedia's guidelines, I haven't tried incubating yet, you can ask an administrator for it. CryOceD (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The incubator was closed down in January 2014 - and was superseded by drafts. The article is going through the articles for deletion process, which takes at least 7 days from the nomination, which was 23:39, 25 May 2015 so you have nearly a week to improve the article, without worrying about moving it. - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
CryOCed: I can see that you are trying to be helpful, but I'm afraid you're giving wrong information. I suggest you sit back and watch the Teahouse for a bit, and get more experience, before jumping in with suggestions. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Wrightie99. The article St Francis Court is being proposed for deletion not because it is "unimportant" but because it does not appear to be "notable". These sound like the same, but "notable" has a special meaning in Wikipedialand. It is not about importance - it is about whether there is significant writing about it in reliable sources - and that is what the article does not demonstrate. If you could find an article about it in a national newspaper, or a book from a major publisher, that would be different. But Wikipedia does not have articles on everything, and in particular it does not have articles on things that nobody has written significantly about, because there is nothing that could go in the article (every single thing in an article should be referenced to a reliable published source).
You certainly could move it to a draft space to work on it - I would move it to Draft:St Francis Court myself, but I am not certain how that would interact with the deletion process. I think if you posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Francis Court asking for it to be moved, somebody would probably do so for you - though from what DGG says there, it seems unlikely you will find suitable sources.
I haven't looked at List of tallest buildings and structures in Ipswich, but if somebody indeed told you to create an article for each building, then I think they need to look at WP:Notability themselves.
And despite what CryOCed told you:
  • Two citations to the same reference are certainly allowed, though it's neater to use WP:NAMEDREFS to combine them
  • The incubator is long dead. articles for creation is the current system (which uses the Draft: namespace, but an article can indeed be moved into Draft: space).
Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I was reading the wrong article, why wouldn't they remove the incubator page? CryOceD (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
CryOCed, the page says at the top "No articles should be added to the Incubator. Consider WP:DRAFTS instead" and "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.". Articles are not deleted except according to the deletion policy --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the information. I have found most of the info through the Ipswich Society-a local organisation that protects architecture however, I was informed I can not use this as a reference so I found the relevant information in the local newspaper and emporis. Regarding st Francis Court the building itself, it was part of a catastrophic development disaster in the 1960's and 1970's. I have found more sources for development not just the building. The development has 3 buildings that survived, the rest were destroyed. So I propose I create an article for the GreyFriars Development (the name of it) and have a section talking about this building. Would this be accepted? sorry for the continued questions, thanks again Wrightie99 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Wrightie99. It is possible that the Ipswich Society's publications would be usable as a reference: if they appear to have somebody exercising editorial control and checking facts, but not if their site is effectively a blog which anybody can just post on. (And you couldn't use anything they haven't published). The reliable sources noticeboard would be the place to ask about that.
From your description it sounds as if the Greyfriars development might be a suitable topic for an article: I suggest you work through the article wizard, and when you think it's ready, submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Wrightie99: Whatever approach you take, the deletion discussion will roll on inexorably. It is important that you participate in it. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
In that case I will start work on an article about Greyfriars Development. Shall I delete the St Francis Court article or state on the talk page that I'm starting a new article which will incorporate some of the information from the article? Wrightie99 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, i think moving it to draft space is a good solution. There are several other similar articles by the same editor I whave not yet nominated, for which i would suggest doing the same. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

uploading cover art for a CD single[edit]

Spent ages some time ago uploading the cover of a CD that was lacking ('shameless' by Billy Joel, the page only shows the cover version by Garth Brooks!) only to see that is has now been deleted. Just spent more time reading and trying to redo it with choosing the right parameters but it is frankly too complicated Joel52st (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joel52st
You were notified of its impending deletion on 4 December 2014, and it was deleted on 12 December 2014. As explained on your talk page it was deleted because it was not being used.
I see that User:Exciter106 deleted the picture from the Shameless (song) article on 14 November, in this edit but did not explain why. You could ask him/her, but they have not edited in the last 10 weeks so may well not reply. - Arjayay (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


I created an article about a professional program which is a co-presentation between the Banff Centre (an 80 year old institution) and the Citadel Theatre (a 50 year old institution), yet it was found to be "not notable". The Program is an 8-year old professional training institution which has over 120 celebrated alumni, all of whom are highly regarded in their profession in Canada - yet while this is not notable, there are entries for 7th round NHL draft picks who never played a professional game. Please explain "notability". Wilfdirk (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wilfdirk. Before I discuss notability, I want to tell you about an important concept in the minds of experienced Wikipedia editors, called other stuff exists. There is a well-documented tendency on the part of some new editors to defend their new article on the basis that even worse articles exist on this encyclopedia, which has nearly five million articles. Experienced editors respond that this other stuff should either be improved or deleted, but we just haven't gotten around to it yet. We constantly work to delete poor quality articles, both old and new, in large numbers every single day, and are well aware that we have many such articles. But that is not an excuse to create more non-compliant articles.
I do not believe that, in general, we should have articles about professional athletic draft picks who have not yet played a pro game. But a small percentage of these people will have achieved notability through their college or amateur play.
Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia. Briefly, it means that the article topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. We demonstrate that notability by citing those sources as references within the article. That is closely connected with another core content policy, namely verifiability. Every substantive claim in an article should be backed up by a reference.
I am not judging whether or not the program you mentioned is notable, because I haven't looked into it. But I will say that such a program does not inherit notability from the sponsoring institutions, nor from the accomplishments of its alumni. It comes from significant coverage in reliable independent sources of the program itself, and nothing else matters here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To add to what Cullen328 has said, Wilfdirk: in some ways, "notability" is an unfortunate choice of word, because of all the associations the word has in normal speech (though it's difficult to think of another word that would fit). "Notable" in Wikipedialand does not mean any of "important", "famous", "influential", "popular", "valuable" or "worthy". In fact, it has nothing to do with any of these, except incidentally. It means only that several people unconnected with the subject have decided to write and publish substantial material about the subject. That's it. And the reason, as Cullen says, is that, since almost all of an article should be drawn from published sources independent of the subject, if the subject fails the test for notability, there is almost nothing that could be put in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I need help with an article, I don't know how to edit tables[edit]

Hi, So I was on the Hilary Duff concert tour page and I noticed someone had moved a concert date incorrectly in the table for Most Wanted Tour. They have the September 12,2004 date in Calgary as cancelled. However, I was there and I know this isn't correct. I can't for the life of me remember how to format the table so I can insert it after the Vancouver date.

WestJet (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello WestJet! Welcome to the Teahouse! This is the tutorial you were looking for >> Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, other than that, to insert a table, press the box above, the right side of Insert. I hope I have helped you! CryOceD (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The table itself exists, but I don't know how to add it in. Every time I tried to make a table in the past, adding a thing here or there would cause the table to implode on itself. --WestJet (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello WestJet
Try to use edit tab instead of edit source
I found it more easy when editing tables.
Best wishes
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 09:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Foundation Board of Trustees[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Joseph 2302 & Positive Contributors

RE: My concerns (The Minimization of the Contributions of Black Britons & Working Class) please kindly take the time do some research of this matter. Yes, it is sensitive subject but Wikipedia has a moral responsibility to educate and inform it's readers in a correct manner of which it is worthy. All contributions must be truthful, fair and correct.

Yours sincerely,

TouchingHeaven247. TouchingHeaven247 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I find this offensive, since it implies that I'm not a positive contributor, as you did with the statement "Wikipedia ought to know that racism and class discrimination is highly prevalent among the UK/and some European contributors" which is offensive to British and European contributors (of which I am one). I agree that the quality of Wikipedia articles shouldn't be based on race, but the way you're arguing this is not in good faith. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, User:TouchingHeaven247. I see your concern about the minimization of the edits that the black Britons has, please take this into consideration. Minimized contributions from that of black people aren't entirely suspicious for racism, the fact that it has small edits compared to people that are white, is simply lacking of on examination and information. Other than that, you cannot justify that if some article with minimized contributions and their own working classes with the reason that they are black is not racist. You must know why sometimes, some articles have that "stub" template on them. It's not because contributors dislike how britons are black, it's because they do not know what to do. Often times, they skip the article because they're not too attached to it, or they don't have time to research. But I clearly see your point, Wikipedia at least tries to give considerable ruling, regarding this issue. CryOceD (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, TouchingHeaven247. Please be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation, its Board of Trustees, and its paid employees do not create nor shape the content of English Wikipedia. That is entirely up to volunteer editors like you and me. I agree that Wikipedia has systemic biases. There is only one solution. That is for volunteers, such as you, who see shortcomings of our coverage of certain topic areas, to research, expand existing articles, and write new articles, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. There is no other solution to the problem, other than doing the kind of volunteer work that created this free encyclopedia. Please pitch in and help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Despite using WP:Refname I cannot apply this to cite reference 2 twice in User:Rubbish computer/Composed salad without not using the accessdate, etc. The Help:Footnotes section does not explain this. Rubbish computer 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rubbish computer. If you want to use the second one again (which is what I think you mean), you need to change
<ref name=cookthink>
(or whatever name you choose). Then when you want to use the same reference again you put
<ref name=cookthink/>
(don't forget the / !) as the whole of the citation.
Does this help? If not, you'll have to explain your problem in more detail --ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I was trying to do and I have now done this successfully. Rubbish computer 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

How to improve a start-class article[edit]

Hello, all! My first article was created a few months ago and I have finally passed the stage of pure awe and have entered the improvement stages. The article, Cambridge Political Equality Association, is a start-class article. I've read into the criteria for each article grade and what I'm so far understanding is that to improve a start-class article, one might need to fix or improve citations, grammar or writing style, and content. I previously had some technical citation issues, which have since been repaired, but I'm looking for more suggestions for how to improve this article, as it's often difficult to edit/proofread one's own writing. Any ideas? -- Kristinnlizz (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kristinnlizz. What mainly separates the grades from each other is the comprehensiveness of the article, so expand the article if you can. However, in your article, I don't think there is really too much more to talk about, so I have reviewed the article again and set it to C-class.
I don't have specific suggestions (another host may have some), however a good way to improve the quality of any article is to improve the writing, mainly by removing redundancies and copyediting. Tony1 has some very good writing guides and exercises, including User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing, among others: take some time to read them, and apply those ideas, and your article will be much easier to read and be popular with the grammarphiles. Esquivalience t 00:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Kristinnlizz. Thank you for helping us improve our coverage of the U.S. women's suffrage movement. I did a little bit of copy editing, including wikilinking to the governor you mentioned. Here are my observations: It is surprising to me that an article about a group based in Cambridge mentions neither Harvard nor MIT. According to our Manual of style, we do not attach honorifics like "Mrs." or "Dr," to people's names. Instead, when appropriate, we note that a person was a physician or someone's spouse. I am smart enough to guess why the group was dissolved in 1920, but the article should state it explicitly. I would like to know what specific stands the group took regarding tactical, strategic and ideological issues within the women's suffrage movement. What, specifically, did this group accomplish? Lists of otherwise non-notable people do not improve an article. Who were these people and why should they be mentioned in an encyclopedia article? I hope my questions and comments are helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Lenny Henry & Richard Curtis[edit]

I believe that someone (User MFlet1) removed my valuable contribution about Lenny Henry and Richard Curtis in bad faith. Lenny Henry & Richard Curtis have an excellent legacy: Comic Relief, Red Nose Day, Charitable/Philanthropic causes - all of which ought to be included in their Biographies. Therefore I will be re-writing my contribution in due course.

In the meantime, what can be done to avoid unwarranted bad faith deletions? TouchingHeaven247 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TouchingHeaven247. Sit down, cool down, and have a cup of tea. The place to discuss this is on the talk pages (eg Talk:Lenny Henry) where you have a conversation with the person who disagrees with you. I see that, after posting here, you have posted to the talk page with a declaration that you are going to insert the material again. This is not acceptable: putting an announcement on the talk page that you intend to add something, is reasonable. When you have added it, and somebody else has removed it, you must attempt to discuss it with that person on the talk page before adding it again, or you will be guilty of edit warring, which is a kind of disruptive editing. (And by the way, talk pages, in fact every discussion page other than this one, add new sections at the bottom rather than the top). I observe that MFlet1's edit summary was " (removed info already included elsewhere in article and/or in Comic Relief article)", so accusing them of bad faith is not a good way to start a discussion.
I am not commenting on your addition: I haven't read it. But it is not you that decides whether or not it is "valuable": it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors, via the dispute resolution process if necessary. --ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
With respect, nobody is forced to make contributions to Wikipedia. I have not made any further contributions/changes to Lenny Henry & Richard Curtis pages at this time. Wikipedia ought to know that racism and class discrimination is highly prevalent among the UK/and some European contributors. If I feel such a matter needs to be addressed, who do I is this concern of mine addressed in a non-discriminatory matter. Telling me to " sit down, cool down" and "talk" to the initiator of the racisms and discrimination is not at all helpful. It is a known fact that Lenny Henry and Richard Curtis are co-founders of Comic Relief and Red Nose Day. Their charitable works and philanthropic efforts warrant an entire Section. Why would anybody delete these truths from their Biographies?TouchingHeaven247 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@TouchingHeaven247: With respect, accusing other editors of discrimination and racism counts as a personal attack, especially when their reasons for reversion are clear, but your reasons for claiming discrimination/racism are not. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Joseph 2302 - Wikipedia ought to employ "Monitors" and/or "Forensic Editors" to ensure editorial equity and standards. It is come to my attention that black people and "people of a certain class" in the UK are not treated with good editorial regard. For example, since Sir Bob Geldof is associated with Live Aid, his Biography is rightfully credited with a Section. Mr. Lenny Henry & Mr. Richard Curtis are associated with Comic Relief and Red Nose Day BUT their good, charitable and positive works are missing from their Biographies. I took it upon myself to begin a Section only to have somebody in the UK delete it with a "flimsy" excuse. Please let's give credit where it is due. Wikipedia please do a special survey about the way Black British Entertainers are written about - you will find that good, positive information is deliberately omitted (or deleted after a contribution). In other words, their works are minimized. Wikipedia, this is wrong...this is unacceptable. I trust Wikipedia will disown such practices.TouchingHeaven247 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:TouchingHeaven247, Welcome to the Teahouse, please, sit down and have a cup of tea. I mostly think that Wikipedia has already have thought of this issue. Wikipedia doesn't humiliate black people by facts, at the least. I think you might have misunderstood, actually, the editors make Wikipedia's own words, administrators make the move. You can file a report about it specifically through the administrators so that they can modify it, so other people wont have to be offended. If you are unsure or you actually think, that the one who edited that article has a misconception or is violating the rules, please report it through the administrators. As for the survey, I think it is a good idea, but I mostly prefer on patrolling the pages with that regard. CryOceD (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


What's the difference between a sandbox and this User:(Username)/(Subject). And can it be created like a normal page? Paleocemoski (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no practical difference, Paleocemoski. "Sandbox" is just Wikipedia jargon for a place to experiment with wikicode and draft new encyclopedia content. Yes, such userpages can be created the same way as other pages. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Just make sure you spell your username correctly, but the "sandbox" title can be anything, also you can have subpages of subpages in your userspace, like User:Paleocemoski/Notes/And stuff. (My own example: User:Jeraphine Gryphon/sandbox/fiction.) And if you lose track of your subpages then you can always find them here:
— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect categorising[edit]

As bots can categorise redirects more specifically than me should I leave them uncategorised? Rubbish computer 16:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen a bot adding (new, relevant) categories to any article or redirect. I don't believe such bots exist. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
But we do have a guideline about this: Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


I found an artist I like on Pandora called Xavier Rudd. His wiki page is extremely short. Pandora has a long bio at Is this a citable source?Yarkko (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Another question(sorry). Is this a RELIABLE source?Yarkko (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently this website is only available in US, Australia and New Zealand, so I cannot view it. However, articles are generally better if they come from a variety of reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Yarkko. Like Joseph2302, I can't look at the site; but the fact that not everybody can see it does not necessarily rule it out as acceptable. It may be user-generated, and so unreliable; it may have editorial control and be reliable, but the biography may come straight from the artist, in which case it will not be an independent source. Or it may be both reliable and independent. The place to ask about it is the reliable sources noticeboard, being specific about the part of the site you are asking about and what you want to use it for in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

How to prove notability?[edit]

I have read the Wikipedia paragraphs on "notability," but I continue to be confused. In writing my first post for the site, that of artist Charles Mingus III, I footnoted a list of his many exhibitions and professional qualifications. What is needed here, I gather, is the imprimatur of other artists or critics. Am I right about that? Cluk-2 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What you need are citations to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected to the topic, so not his blog, website, Facebook, LinkedIn, other sources of his own writing or those of people connected to him, but third party sources writing about him – showing that the world has taken note of him. For example, books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources. Some of the sources here might be of use for this. However, I have deleted the draft article as a copyright violation. It can be created again, but must not copy and paste content as it did. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:Cluk-2, Welcome to the Teahouse! Please, have a seat, I know Wikipedia's notability and verifiability rules might be confusing in such ways, but you must know why and understand. Notability has guidelines.

Significant coverage is the addressing of the topic in such great detail, no need to research the original terms. Reliable sources are need for editors with their own integrity to allow them for the evaluation of notability, per each the reliable source guideline. Sources are the secondary sources, which provides great evidence of the main source. Generally, multiple sources are needed. There is no limit of what you can give sources for the reliable source you want to give evidence of. See WP:Notability. Just like User:Fuhghettaboutit had said, you need citations that are most reliable. CryOCed (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A useful simplification of notability is here. Esquivalience t 17:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What is "Live edits" and "deleted edits"?[edit]

Xtools shows that my total edits are 3659(3634 Live edits + 25 Deleted edits). What does it means? Does 25 is a number of edits that I have deleted? Human3015 Say Hey!! • 08:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Human3015. Welcome back to the Teahouse. A deleted edit is an edit made to a page that was later deleted. So if you make 6 edits to a page and then that page later gets deleted, you will have 6 deleted edits. Live edits are all the other edits that aren't deleted edits. It isn't important so don't worry about it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that deleted edits are only visible to administrators and not listed at Special:Contributions. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


What is a "canned edit summary"? —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Basically, canned has a meaning similar to that of boilerplate, referring to a standardized block of text that can be used repeatedly (and sometimes less than appropriately in individual instances). I have a feeling that you're referring specifically to the filter tags that can be seen here. Note that all those edit summaries are standardized things like "Added link" and "Fixed typo"—such summaries are common and may be valid, but they're also often used to disguise vandalism, which is why the edits may need to be checked by someone. Deor (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@DangerousJXD: "canned edit summary" refers specifically to a few canned responses in the official Wikipedia App: "Fixed typo", "Fixed grammar", "Added links", "Added content". The user can select them without typing. PrimeHunter (talk)

feedback on my draft?[edit]

I created my first article, the topic is the company Field Nation. I believe the article is justified because of the level of success they have achieved, and similar companies such as WorkMarket and Elance have Wikipedia articles. I am the wife of Field Nation's CTO, however tried to keep it as unbiased as possible so I hope this is not a conflict of interest. I would love any feedback before I attempt to publish this--I have created it in my sandbox.Thanks so much for your help.CarrieMarie21 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@CarrieMarie21: Since you have a conflict of interest please add {{subst:submit}} to the head of your draft and pass it through the reviewing system. Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, CarrieMarie21. I'm afraid that neither the "level of success" nor the presence of other companies is of any consequence for Wikipedia. The sole relevant criterion is whether there is substantial writing about the company by people unconnected with it, published in reliable sources; because if there are no such sources, there is literally nothing which can be written about it in a Wikipedia article. On a quick look at your sandbox, it appears there are plenty of references; however it looks to me as if most of these are press releases and interviews, which means that they are not independent writing about the company. (I admit that this was a very quick look, so I may have missed some independent pieces). --ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks ColinFine. I am using press releases, but there are significant reliable sources as well such as Inc. Magazine and the Star Tribune of Minneapolis. Thanks for the feedback! As you can probably tell I have a lot to learn. 15:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieMarie21 (talkcontribs) -CarrieMarie21

How long will this stay on a page?[edit]

This article does not cite any references or sources.

It's been there since January and I've cited everything on the page.

Pinchdatail (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pinchdatail: The message is there to prompt folk like you to act. If you feel your actions have met the need then please remove the message as part of your work. We work on the honour system. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
But if you do remove the template please explain in your edit summary why you are removing it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Style guide needed.[edit]

I'm excited to be a part of Wikipedia. Is there a style guide for punctuation, etc? I don't know whether, in a quote, to put the punctuation within the quotation marks or not. The traditional American way was inside, but it seems that Wikipedia uses the British way, outside. Also, when using numbers, Wikipedia seems to use the numeral sometimes and the word sometimes, as in "The 3rd president of the United States" or "The third president of the United States." I'm sure I'll need to check a style guide for many other questions as they come up. Thanks! N. Bolkonsky (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, N. Bolkonsky. Welcome to the Teahouse. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style will have all you need to know but to answer it myself briefly: it depends. I'll tell you this though: never put a comma at the end of a quote. More information on that can be found here. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. Wikipedia requires British style in all cases, even articles that are otherwise written in other varieties of English. This is one of the most frequently challenged rules in the MoS, but it is the rule. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Would like someone to do it for me[edit]

Hi, I have, on a pdf, a brief description of my page, and below, a few short paragraphs about a drama coach who died in 1962, named Barney Brown (Dustin Hoffman studied with him at the Pasadena Playhouse, for one). I also have two references for my article, and three photos, 492kb for all in tif format.

Could I send these to someone to put on the Wikipedia for me? In the past I tried to do something like this and ended up getting a helper to do for me--because of all those reasons.Kamitra1 (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kamitra1: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse, yes I suppose you could get a user to do it for you but first I would suggest trying to do it yourself, if not then there may be users who are willing to help you on this matter. Thanks and happy editing TeaLover1996 (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You might find somebody willing to help at WP:WikiProject Theatre. The references are the important bit: the more you can find, the more attractive the project might be for somebody to take up. If you took the pictures yourself, you probably own the copyright and can use them; if you didn't you may not be able to use them. --ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Account Hackers[edit]

Apparently, this user, was known as AHLM13, was considered a hacker, and is threatening to hack User:Mar4d and has little attention. Was hackers an often problem in the past? Was many users have been hacked before? I notice that there is little reports about this problem, and the majority of the influence, the most used: "Religions, cultures, and also humiliation or just plain prank". I am currently thinking of an idea that will let new users decide if they or not follow the rules. If they create a profile, before editing, they will be redirected into the "rules" page so that they can have the time to read, and also be invited by The Wikipedia Adventure immediately, if they don't know how to edit after their pages have been created. I am actually gonna add this at the Wishing Well, but the real main question here is, does Hackers really give off huge problems here in Wikipedia? CryOCed (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, sit down and rest for a bit. We are happy to have you here. I think you are talking about what we call WP:Vandalism. Check out that page and then get back to us. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, given the discussions I've just looked at, you're misinterpreting what happened here, which I'll sum up (without using any user names) as: One user used Twinkle to revert many edits they did not like, using an edit summary calling these edits vandalism, or naming the users as vandals. A bunch of users told the other to stop doing that. Some observed that these edits appeared out of character for the user, and postulated that maybe their home computer was hacked or they failed to log off a public one and someone then used their account to make these inadvisable edits. However, a later discussion revealed that the original user was making the edits – was using the word "vandal" or "vandalism" in their Twinkle-assisted reverts for any edit they did not like, and a discussion ensued that this must not be done, and there was eventually agreement by the user to stop doing that. I saw no threat of the user to hack the account of anyone. There have been a few major instances in the past of users whose home computer's were hacked, or who had their passwords hacked either through the their home computer (i.e., via a keylogger) or directly in our interface) because they has a weak password), and then a third person went on a rampage using their Wikipedia account. This happened to an admin a few years back. However, given the number of users we have, it's a true rarity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:Fuhghettaboutit I see, but this kind of user is actually making more and more sockpuppets to explain his own opinion that regards religions. Actually, these kind of users aren't so rare outside Wikipedia, and this user has bypassed all the warnings whatsoever. I am actually curious about that currently, but can we even prevent these kind of users? Especially, they're making new profiles repeatedly. Here's the link by the way. User_talk:Mar4d#My_account_is_hacked. CryOCed (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I still see only a user claiming they were hacked and that got them blocked, nothing in that conversation about a threat by the user to hack Mar4d. Did I miss it? Unfortunately, yes, we can and do end up playing whack-a-mole with persistent sock puppeteer vandals who are sophisticated in using proxies and IP hopping and setting up sleeper accounts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
People claim to have gotten hacked, or to be hackers but in reality it is very rare. It's like the "My brother did it" excuse, often times a user just decides to go vandalising and then pretends it wasn't them, often times using multiple accounts at the same time. I personally wouldn't be concerned about it, just choose a choice password and you'll be fine. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Google shows someone will hack upto 10 wiki accounts for $5 USD ... probably due to weak passwords people use. The same group offers a 1,000 reddit votes or 10 wikipedia affirmations (whatever that is) for $2 USD. Generally speaking, hacking threats are idle - but it really depends on how much you piss someone off - if you're not a donkey (live the wikipedia codes), you have nothing to worry about. -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the inactivity, my laptop just got struck by viruses, and I suppose I can react at that statement of yours User:IamM1rv, I didn't actually know that they're hacking for money, geesh, I didn't really expect on how far will users go down than just 5$... well, thanks for telling me. I just hope that this topic (hackers) will not be a threat to Wikipedia itself. CryOCed (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Lord Toby Jug[edit]

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia, so please be patient and kind. I've recently edited the Lord Toby Jug page, I added what I thought were constructive links, but they were soon reverted. Can anyone help or tell me why. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaffieDoodlebug (talkcontribs) 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SaffieDoodlebug. You should ask Mlpearc (either on their user talk page, or on the article's talk page) why they reverted your changes to Lord Toby Jug. My guess would be that they didn't intend to remove the additional text you added first, but were responding to your determined campaign to remove his former name from the article. I may be wrong though. By the way, on this page (Teahouse/Questions), unlike all the other help and discussion pages in Wikipedia, new questions are added at the top; and on talk and discussion pages you should sign your contribution with four tildes (~~~~) --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)