Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 467

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 460

←

Archive 465

Hitting the reference mark

Hello, Our first run of an article on Trauma-Informed care was declined because I mistakenly submitted the article twice and the version that was chosen for review was not our final draft. We added a "For Further Information" section to the final draft and I will make the reference section more robust. I just want to make sure that this will do the trick to get the article accepted.

A second question is in regards to the User Page. The Institute on Trauma and Trauma-Informed Care is the user and I created a description of the agency. This too was declined. Would you be willing to give me a bit more information about how to craft that page, please? I know it is a fine line between promotion and information - especially when it comes to an agency so how can we effectively describe what the Institute does to the degree that the page will be accepted?

Thank you for your assistance! ITTIC (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ITTIC. I'm afraid you have some fairly fundamental misconceptions. All user accounts must be for individuals: they may not be shared, or have names which suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation. Your username is unacceptable, and you should either change it, or abandon it and create a new one. This must be personal to you, and if other colleagues are also editing, they should create personal accounts. You do not have to use your real name: I do, but many editors choose pseudonyms.

Secondly, a User page is a page about this user as a Wikipedia editor. Some biographical information is acceptable, but it is not appropriate to say more about an institution than that you support it, or work for it, or whatever the case may be. It is a page about you as a Wikipedia editor, not about any organisation. A WP:User page must not be made to look like an article.

Thirdly, if you do work for the institute, then you must declare this fact under the rules on Paid editing, and you should be aware that your conflict of interest may make it difficult for you to write in the proper neutral tone, and your work is likely to be scrutinised closely.

If the Institute meets our criteria for notability (which are nothing to do with importance, significance, influence, excellence, fame or popularity, but are solely about whether several people who have no connection to the institute have chosen to write at length about the institute and had their writing published somewhere reliable), then we may have an article about it; but because of your conflict of interest you are discouraged from writing this. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all that ColinFine has written above, so my own comment on Draft:Trauma-Informed Care is probably irrelevant. I tried to read it, and it starts "Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) is an approach in the human service field". An approach to what? What is the "human service field"? I have no idea what the article is about. Maproom (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses and feedback! It is hugely appreciated as I feel like I'm stumbling through this first Wikipedia article experience. I will adjust course accordingly. ITTIC (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How to edit if both talkpage and refdesk are protected

How do I submit an edit request if both the talkpage and refdesk are semi protected? I have a question about Donald trump but the humanities desk and talkpage are semi protected.75.134.16.79 (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 75.134.16.79. You can go to WP:RFPP#Current requests for edits to a protected page and post your request there. (Or you can wait 6 days for the protection of the Humanities desk to expire.) Deor (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Another excellent option is to open a Wikipedia account. This offers many benefits including better privacy protections, improved collaboration with other editors, and no significant disadvantages. After four days and ten edits, you can edit semi protected pages yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I mostly concur with the suggestion to open an account. However, I will also add that, if the question is relevant to what Wikipedia says about a controversial politician and businessman, another good place would be Talk: Donald Trump. If it isn't directly relevant to what Wikipedia says about him, then it might or might not be appropriate for the Reference Desk, which does not deal in speculation and opinion. When the Humanities Desk and its talk page are semi-protected, it is often because of efforts to introduce opinion and speculation. So if what you ask is relevant to the article, ask at the talk page. (I have only ever once known of an article talk page to be semi-protected, and that was because it was being group-vandalized by unregistered editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Georgi Dimitrov Georgiev

I reviewed Draft:Georgi Dimitrov Georgiev and declined it, both because it has no references (more precisely, no satisfactory references), and because it is loaded with peacock language. I said that it needed a complete rework, not a tweaking, and that the subject may or may not be notable. The author, User:Doicho Uzunov, posted a blank request for Teahouse help template to my talk page. Does anyone have any comments? Unfortunately, I can't be optimistic that this draft will ever make it into mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

After I posted the above, I included a note on my talk page to come here for further discussion. I discovered that the author had put the following on my talk page, but, presumably not understanding the effect, had embedded it in arrows, which made it hidden text. I removed the arrows on my talk page and am also bringing it here.

So, if I understand properly, the description of my friend Georgy should not contain any words describing his personal character?

Regarding the references – is it not enough the articles in the magazines and the IHPVA (international Human Powered Vehicle Association) official speed records for the guy to be recognized as a notable Canadian. I see that bloody Canadian murderers like Robert Pickton, Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo have been honored in Wikipedia, but you think that a guy creating a human powered vehicle that goes with the speed of 83 mph and holding the record for 10 years is not notable enough? Anyway, I humbly need your help in correcting this article in a way acceptable for Wikipedia.

Describing an individual "as you know him" is not okay unless you can describe him as you know him neutrally. Read the neutral point of view policy, which does mean, among other things, that you may not provide your own assessment of his personal character. Any statements about character must be attributed to reliable sources. As to the speed record, the Popular Science article is an independent reliable source. In general, establishing notability requires multiple independent reliable sources. Also, the independent reliable sources should (with very few exceptions) be supported by footnotes. I am aware that footnoting is the most difficult aspect of Wikipedia. Read the help page referencing for beginners. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven’t read the articles on the Canadian murderers yet, but I doubt that they have been "honored" by those articles, so much as remembered notoriously by them. Wikipedia does not accept articles to "honor" people, but to provide an encyclopedia that summarizes notable good and bad people. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

My advice to the author is to ask if someone here agrees that this individual is notable, and, if so, to ask them to blow the article up and start over and write an article about him. Of course, if the author acquires an understanding of NPOV and other policies and can do a complete rewrite, that would be good, but the current doesn't need tweaking; it needs rewriting from the start. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that the article had minor improvement made, and was resubmitted, and was declined again, still with comments similar to mine that the article needs multiple in-line citations (footnotes), not just a few references at the bottom. If the author continues to resubmit this draft with minor improvements, it is likely to be declined again as needing major improvements. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft Maia Chung, would a stub be more practical? revived

I appreciate the wonderful help from ColinFine, but have another challenge for the wikipedia expert. I've since identified two newer links which I believe may pass the independence test. They are http://www.loopjamaica.com/content/maia-chung-autism-foundation-launches-scholarship-programme and http://www.signet7.org/docs/MC%20Foundation%20Bio.pdf. I don't want you to think I'm difficult but could you say whether this previously used reference link may also pass the wikipedia independent reference test. Is there a minimum number of references that maybe cited to establish, I seem to recall reading a number of say four (4)? http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Blow-for-Ja-s-autistic-children_11359380 If you recall I need to establish notability for Maia Chung on wikipedia. Your feedback is well appreciated. KDT73 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The second of those links is obviously a press release; the use of the word "our" makes it even more obvious. The first looks as if it may well be a press release too. You really need to look for coverage in a newspaper with editorial control. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources are also much more about the Maia Chung Autism and Disabilities Foundation than they are about Maia Chung. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, KDT73. Yes the signet7.org source is very obviously a press release from the foundation, and so is of no value in establishing Chung's notability. The loopjamaica.com source mentions Chung so very briefly that it is of no use even if it is fully independent. A source does not have to be mostly about the subject to help with notability, but it does have to have significant discussion of the subject in some depth. I usually consider this to mean at least 2-3 paragraphs focused on the subject. In fact, I think that the jamaicaobserver.com story you link above is good enough to be one source that does help with notability.

You ask "how many sources are required?" There is no set number. Indeed if a single book-length work (or a feature-length documentary film) is focused primarily on the subject, that will be ample to establish notability (if it is a reliable source). In more usual cases we require "multiple" sources, which means at least two. But three or four solid sources are better. Remember that this is a judgement call, not a matter of mechanically satisfying a formula. The more in-depth and reliable each source is, the fewer sources are needed. Contrawise, if individual sources are a bit slimmer, more of them can help compensate, except that mere passing mentions have no value at all, no matter how many of them there are. I hope this helps a bit. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

All the comments are feedback are very helpful. Thanks alot wiki peepos KDT73 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Digital Down (Artist)

It said I could not write an article about my band, so I am wondering if any new editors (or any) would like to? I just released my first album "Incunabula" and is currently doing very successful on Pandora with 13,000 spins in 2 months time. There is a lot of information on the album as well as the artist all over the Internet. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorian Needle (talk • contribs) 04:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Victorian Needle, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, rather than a place to post requests for other editors to write articles. However, there is a place to do the latter, which is Wikipedia:Requested articles. Before you post there, may I suggest that your consult our criteria for the inclusion of articles about albums? They're at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What will be required, Victorian Needle, irrespective of who writes the article, is that several people who have no connection with you or your band have chosen to write at some length about the band, and have their writing published somewhere reliable, such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher. Until that happens, no article on the band will be acceptable to Wikipedia, whoever writes it and however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Images under fair use

In order to upload an image under fair use, I have to provide an online source. I want to upload an image of a comics character, but I can't find any proper image online. Can I scan the image myself and then upload the image under the clause of fair use? Greek Legend (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming your scanned image meets all the fair use criteria then yes, you just need to acknowledge the printed publication you scanned the image from as specifically as you can. Nthep (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Synthelabobabe21 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)I like something. YesSynthelabobabe21 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

duplicate

Hello...

I was guided to write you.

I noticed that I have two accounts in Wikipedia. One Antonio D'Alfonso and a second under USER: Antonio DAlfonso.

I noticed that they both appear when in log in. The good file is Antonio D'Alfonso with the apostrophe.

I wonder how to delete the USER: Antonio DAlfonso without the accent...

Or would this disrupt the entire folder?

Thank you for your assistance.

Antonio D'Alfonso76.69.243.252 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Antonio DAlfonso. You have only one Wikipedia account with a user page called User: Antonio DAlfonso. On the other hand, Antonio D'Alfonso is an encyclopedia article about you, not a second account. These are two entirely different things. Your user page should be about your experience, interests and goals as a Wikipedia editor. The article (assuming that you are notable) should be about your entire life. However, you have a conflict of interest and should not edit the article directly. Instead, leave suggestions for improvement at Talk: Antonio D'Alfonso. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Antonio DAlfonso: if you really want to change your username, see Wikipedia:Changing username. But I wouldn't bother if I were you unless you want to do something other than write about yourself. Virtually all you have done on Wikipedia is to write about yourself, either on your userpage or in the article about you. That is not appreciated on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 05:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm doing sign. Still I'm getting "Previous unsigned comment added by" ! Sine bot also giving me Warnings.

I'm doing sign. Still I'm getting " — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs) " .

Sine bot also giving me Warnings.

Why is this happening so-many times? Rajarshi Rit 14:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome @RIT RAJARSHI: Your signature needs to link to your user talk page, or it is not recognized as a signature. Instructions on how to do so can be found at This page. You can also revert to the default signature by clearing out the preferences you changed to create your custom signature. The simplest way to fix the problem, if you want to change your custom signature to work right, is to set it to [[User talk:RIT RAJARSHI|Rajarshi Rit]]. I hope that helps. --Jayron 32 15:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank You so so so much. Rajarshi Rit 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC) @RIT RAJARSHI:

How to do this-one?

  "--SineBot (talk) "  --SineBot (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC) ?
I'm seeing the users added hyperlinks to both their main-page and talk-page. Would I have to type my username & talk in bracket , & then hyperlink to respective page?  It doesn't seems the standard method.

Please also inform, how can I mention/ reply someother user? Would that send a notification/ message to that user? & what I have to do if I want to send a message/notification alert to the user to-which I'm commenting? Rajarshi Rit 03:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

@RIT RAJARSHI: The proper/easy way to sign is by typing four tildes (that is, ~~~~). To alert someone that you have responded, you can ping them by using the ping-template, which you do by typing {{ping|Username}}, with "Username" of course replaced with the user's actual username. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I came to know about ping command taught to me in previous answer, that is adding the @ (at) sign . I meant how to do this-kind of sign "AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)" with a bracket() for talk page, that all the users do (& you've done also?) @AddWittyNameHere: 05:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Rajarshi Rit @RIT RAJARSHI:

By signing a post with ~~~~. Alternatively, the bottom of the editing box has an option that reads "sign your posts on talk pages". If you click on the little box after that (the one with ~~~~ in it), it should work too. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Thanks so-much for helping. However got the answer from another user on my talk page.  I quote the conversation here:
 
  
 " Perhaps you have tried to customise your signature and have erroneously ticked the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box at Special:Preferences? --David Biddulph (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 Unticked. Restored default in all sections . Thanks, & it was very much helpful. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "

 RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Rory Emerald page

Thank you for taking my question. About two weeks ago I was on here chatting with some very nice Wikipedians'. They gave me a direct link to fix [my] Wikipedia page because many lies and horrible things had been said about me. Now I can't find the damn link. Anyway, this is what I've done thus far, and I have a feeling I'm doing it all wrong. I AM RORY EMERALD so I know what's true and what's not. Here's what I've done so far. Please don't laugh, oh, and Happy Easter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rory_Emerald RORYwikiEMERALDpedia (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi RORYwikiEMERALDpedia. I am unable to find any record of you asking a question or any record of any questions about an article titled "Rory Emerald" in the Teahouse archives. Do you remember if you used another account to ask your question? I was also unable to find any record of a Wikipedia article titled "Rory Emerald", so I'm not sure what changes you're referring to. Even so, I will try to offer you some general advice about editing on Wikipedia.

First of all, the subjects of Wikipedia articles do not own the articles written about them, so its best to not refer to such an article as "my Wikipedia page". Articles are intended to reflect really only what independent reliable sources say about a subject and they are edited collaboratively by any number of editors in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. In other words, no single editor has any sort of final editorial control over what is written and article are improved over time through achieving consensus with other editors.

Next, individuals are strongly discouraged from creating/editing articles about themselves per Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written according to the five pillars and it can be fairly hard for someone to write about themselves or something/someone in a neutral manner. Wikipedia makes a distinction between what is true and what can be verified thorough reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for more details) which is something that can be hard to understand for editors new to Wikipedia. What we know to be true is considered to be our own original research unless we are able to provide independent reliable sources which verify what we know.

Finally, and please don't take this the wrong way, Wikipedia requires that the subjects of its articles be notable for an article to be written. This means that basically it is up to the article's creator to show that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which establish the subject's notability beyond a shadow of doubt. Wikipedia's definition of notability differs slightly from what most people are used to, but it is what matters when trying to create an article. If you feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines and are able to provide information about independent reliable sources which show you do, then my suggestion to you is to request assistance at Wikipedia:Requested articles and see if an experienced editors feel there's enough there to write an article about you. You can try to write the article yourself using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, but many first time efforts often get rejected multiple times by reviewers simply because the submitted drafts are not up to Wikipedia's standards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi RORYwikiEMERALDpedia, welcome to the Teahouse. Which page do you want changed? Please give a link. Rory Emerald was deleted in 2007. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Emerald was blanked as a courtesy by User:DragonflySixtyseven 19 March 2016. Here is what it said before the blanking. Do you want Draft:Rory Emerald to become a Wikipedia article? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Yes, PrimeHunter." For: Rory Emerald to become a Wikipedia article. <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RORYwikiEMERALDpedia (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Most current information regarding Rory Emerald page? Thank you and happy Easter.✝ RORYwikiEMERALDpedia (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

For Draft:Rory Emerald to be accepted as an article, RORYwikiEMERALDpedia, it would need to be written as one. It currently just consists of some notes on possible sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Cordless Larry. Please elaborate a little. What do you mean: "written as one?" RORYwikiEMERALDpedia (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (talk) RORYwikiEMERALDpedia (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean written as an article, RORYwikiEMERALDpedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rory Emerald does not remotely resemble an encyclopedia article, It is a list of references, most of which do not mention "Rory Emerald", who is anyway a fictitous person. Maproom (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Not in copyright" status

When a document on the Internet Archive is designated "not in copyright," are the document's images eligible for use on Wikipedia? For an example, see The 1946 Radio Annual. The page lists various facts about the publication, one of which is "Possible copyright status NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think the key word here is "possible". A work such as this could have fallen into the public domain in at least two different ways (see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm) :

If it was been originally published without a copyright notice, under the authority of the copyright holder.
To demonstrate this, one woudl need a copy published withotu notice, and some evidience of the date it was published
If the copyright was not renewed at the proper time.
A through search would need to be made of the copyright renewal records, enough to establish that no renewal was made, even under a variant title, or a different name of copyright holder.

Since this appears to have been published in the US, after 1923, several other possible scenarios and complications don't apply.

Moreover, the images might have been separately copyrighted and separately published, and only reprinted in this work. That would need to be checked for any given image, and that is not the easiest thing in the world to research.

Teblick, I would advise caution here. DES ^(talk) 02:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I see now that the matter is much more complicated than I thought. I appreciate those insights. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone is messing up with my page

Hello,

Someone edits my page every single day! He/she just deletes content. When I click on a username, wikipedia says: Wikipedia does not have a [1]user page with this exact title. Please, can you warn this user? Or delete him?

Details: User:Eslaeit
My page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precision_agriculture&action=history

Thank you in advance and hope to hear from you shortly!

94.45.44.238 (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello 94.45.44

It seems that the changes entirely involve your attempts to add a link to Cropio to the see also section of Precision agriculture, and the efforts of Eslaeit and other editors to remove it, on the grounds that it is not relevant and helpful to that article. Neither side has discussed this on Talk:Precision agriculture, which is the proper place. You in particular seem to be edit warring, which is a very bad idea. Please discuss instead. Note that it is not "your" article: no article is owned by anyone. Noe also that although Eslaeit does not have a user page, User talk:Eslaeit does exist and is the proper place to leave a message for that user. But this issue should first be discussed at Talk:Precision agriculture. Note also that Cropio has been tagged as excessively promotional since 2012 -- something needs to be done about that. DES ^(talk) 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Article not found on Google.

I created a new article but it cannot be found when I search it on Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joymenezes (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Joymenezes. Wikipedia has no control or influence over Google results. It's probably just a case of waiting a few days for Google's bots to pick up the new page. When did you create it? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Google finds it now. Maproom (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I created it on 29th February 2016. Joymenezes (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Presuming that you are referring to GFA First Division League, Joymenezes (it always helps to specify), then as Maproom notes, that article is appearing in Google search results already. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I checked just now. Sorry for disturbing you. Cordless Larry. I apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks. Joymenezes (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, Joymenezes. That's what we're here for. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Inserting a link to anotehr language entry

I'm editing the English entry on Juan de Valdes. In the list of works there is a reference to teh Italian humanist Niccolò Franco, but a Wiki entry is available in Italian but not in English.

May I link the Italian reference into the English entry ? If so, how ?

Thanks

mauro

Mallegranza (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is at Wikipedia:Help desk#Linking in text to foreign language wiki page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Drafted, need help on building verifiable sources

Hey there, have drafted the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aegon_Life_Insurance_Company_Ltd Need your help adding additional reliable sources for the subject Itsyousuf (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Itsyousuf, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to learn how to edit Wikipedia by asking questions, rather than a place to request help with improving an article. If you want advice on identifying reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, or if you have questions about the reliability of specific sources then please do ask here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Template removal

I have resolved issues with a article but how do I remove the maintenance templates with out it appearing as disruptive editing? 69thstreet (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 69thstreet, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are confident that you have in fact resolved the issues that caused the tags to be placed on the article, you may simply remove them, as any editor may. Doing so in good faith is not disruptive. It might be a good idea to post on the article's talk page saying why you think the issues have now been resolved. Or you might want to ask a more experienced editor to confirm your view that the problems have been resolved. In any case, if your removal is reverted, don't edit war or become angry over it. Do ask at the article talk page what the remaining isuse is, and what would need to be done to fix it. DES ^(talk) 18:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If this is about Radio Bums, i took a quick look at it. I removed the "context" tag as in my view the article now has ample context. To asses the notability isuse would mean reviewing the cited sources, and i don't have time for that at the moment. I did notice that one source is via PRwire. Such sources will not mcontribute to notability, but it may be that the other sources are enough. DES ^(talk) 18:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures/ Finding the right picture

I am recently new on Wikipedia, and I am having a hard time on picking the right picture to put on Wikipedia. I am still confused on how to upload and choose creative commons pictures onto Wikipedia. Bryson483 20:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryson483 (talk • contribs)

The recommended process has two steps. First, someone takes an image which is not restricted by copyright (because they created it themselves, or it was published before 1923, for example), and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons. Then someone (maybe the same person, maybe not) finds a useful image in Wikimedia Commons, and uses it in a Wikipedia article. Which of these are you trying to do? Maproom (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to create a page 3 times and each time it's rejected because of my footnotes and citing.

I have tried to create a Wikipedia page for Croatian journalist Fani Stipkovic, and on 3 separate occasions it has been rejected. The first time it was rejected for not writing the article in a neutral point of view, I then edited the article and re-submitted it. The second time it was rejected for the sources not being reliable enough, I then edited it and found better articles referencing the information I was writing. And now the third time the article has been rejected for: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes."

The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fani_Stipkovic

If anyone can help me in regards to making the footnotes right I would really appreciate it.

Joshuawinterton (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joshuawinterton. You've got the order of the rejections wrong there: the neutral point of view rationale was behind the most recent rejection of the draft, not the first rejection. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

They may have the order of the rejections wrong because the order of the rejections reads first at the bottom, last at the top, just like this Teahouse. The most recent decline says that the article reads like an advertisement for her, so at this point what is needed is to reword the tone of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Order of topics in forums on Wikipedia

Why is the Teahouse the only (at least as far as I have seen) forum on Wikipedia that posts the most recent items first? When a reader comes here, he or she can easily see the items that were added since his or her last visit. In other forums, it is necessary to scroll through items that one has already read in order to get to the most recent ones. To me, your method seems much better than the other. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Many regular editors consider the Teahouse to be wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I tried raising this issue numerous times in the past. I was politely and condescendingly patted on the head and told I was a nice little boy and told to leave this matter to the adults by the various WMF officials who were instrumental in establishing this page each time I raised the issue. I knew when I wasn't invited. So, the answer to "why" is because "the people who are in charge told us they want it that way." If someone else would start a thread at an appropriate talk page to homogenize it with the rest of the entire Wikipedia I would gleefully vote support, but I was disenheartened by my prior attempts to start civil and consensus-building discussions on the matter before, and thus I'm not going down that road again. --Jayron 32 01:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Teahouse format works pretty well. And the usual Wikipedia talk page format works pretty well also, though it is different. In the abstract, I would prefer consistency. In the real world, I recommend not getting all worked up about such issues. It accomplishes very little toward building an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't get worked up, indeed I find it amusing that on a page specifically directed at new users, we start by throwing them this curveball. But if the issue is ever formally discussed, I will be !voting with Jayron32. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Searching the Teahouse archives for "top posting" shows that this has been discussed at least a dozen times before (at least one of them initiated by me). I agree with Jayron. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen, both works well enough. I assume the difference is because some notion (right or wrong) that it is helpful to the new editors likely to show up here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I just received a notification that I have six messages on my talk page. I was unable to find them until I used the history feature and discovered that they were by one user at the top of my talk page. The problem with the Teahouse is, in part, that the people who started it decided that they understood how complicated it was for new users (which it is) and to make the Teahouse easier by making it top-down. However, what they really did was to make Wikipedia more complicated for all editors by establishing two different protocols rather than expecting new Teahouse users to learn the more common bottom-down protocol to use the Teahouse. As a result, new editors who start in the Teahouse may be out of place on article talk pages and project talk pages. First, as several regulars editors including Cullen328 and ColinFine have said, it makes little difference in the short run which way the Teahouse works. However, there are solid reasons why article talk pages and project talk pages are set up the way that they are, and there are solid reasons why they should not be reversed. As a result, there is a long-term reason, confusing inexperienced editors and making their learning job harder, why the Teahouse should be consistent. Those are my opinions.

As to why article talk pages and project talk pages should be bottom-down, one reason is that they often develop multiple levels of headings, and the subheadings are all added at the bottom, so that having Level 2 added at the top would be weird. There are other reason why they should be the way they are. That is a reason why the Teahouse should not be the way it is, although it isn't worth starting a war, since an unsound decision was already made that would be work to reverse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I too believe the top posting here is a disservice, especially as this forum is geared toward new users, teaching them the exact opposite of how every other page on Wikipedia works. It's no surprise that we get new posts at the bottom fairly often here—from users who've learned the right way to post everywhere else, or who used the new section button which is rendered a non-functioning feature here, and then we have to move them, which is apt to confuse and to reinforce this page's up-is-down teaching propensity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Same here - I'd be happy to see this page start to operate as all others on Wikipedia do. The current setup can only cause confusion.Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It is stupid to get new users into a habit that is contrary to the way other WP talk pages work. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to inexperienced users if this page worked like other discussion pages, both in Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet. I support a change. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this should work like other pages on Wikipedia. My roommate pointed the Teahouse out to me after I tried editing an article and ran into ownership issues. I got what seemed to be great advice here, then I followed the Teahouse's top posting format and added a post to the battleground owner's talk page and the article talk page, for which I was rewarded by a two parargaph long attack on how to properly use talk pages on Wikipedia. Now I am back to being irritated at how contradictory, confusing and unneccessarily chaotic everything is on Wikipedia, and this thread obliterates what I came here for. Who decided you teach people with the wrong example on a website that is so hostile in the details to new editors in the first place? --2601:285:101:7076:6860:B555:B7FC:892C (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems that so far most favor this change and noone is really against. So what´s next, bold change, RFC somewhere, wait for more comments? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Change Title (Move) of Nob Hill Masonic Center to The Masonic

I work for the Grand Lodge of California, and I have been asked to change the name of The Nob Hill Masonic Center page on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nob_Hill_Masonic_Center) to "The Masonic". My account on Wiki is new, so I am not allowed to make a title change (a Move). Can someone please with a Confirmed account make the change for us? We would really appreciate it, especially this title is causing us some conflicts on Google web search.

The edit is to change the title from "Nob Hill Masonic Center" to "The Masonic".

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sbouzelha (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sbouzelha, moving the page would only cause confusion. There are lots of things that could be called "The Masonic". Also, you seem to have a WP:COI. I'd advise you to just leave it alone. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sbouzelha, the website for the venue says that its actual name is "California Masonic Memorial Temple". Please remember that this is a worldwide encyclopedia, and why would anyone think that "The Masonic" refers to a specific Masonic Temple auditorium in San Francisco? Read WP:COMMONNAME for a fuller explanation. Congratulations on booking Iggy Pop by the way. I saw him perform 45 years ago in Detroit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly, Renaming this venue was not my decision. Again, I work for the Grand Lodge of California which owns this building, however LiveNation is contracted with them to run it (rent it) for their events. Renaming it is a marketing decision taken by LiveNation. I am an IT professional which means I cannot answer your marketing questions (if this a good or bad decision)! Cullen, I am not sure what website you've looked at, but the LiveNation one is updated with the new name for this venue. If you are referring to the sfmasonic.com, I think it's only referred as the historical name not the current name...Can someone please help? Sbouzelha (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sbouzelha, those pings won't have worked, as you didn't make them in the same edit as the one which you signed your post, but added them subsequently. I am therefore pinging White Arabian Filly and Cullen328 myself, so that they are aware of your reply. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sbouzelha before Wikipedia could/would change the name of of an article, we would need a specific cited reliable source that says this is the curent name. It would be better if there were independent sources that said that this has now become the name commonly used for the venue -- as per WP:COMMONNAME we follow usage over "official" names in many cases. If "The Masonic" has actually become the common name of this venue, then we might need to clarify that with a name such as "The Masonic (Nob Hill)", but before any decision could be made, we need to know what the sources say? Has this change been covered in news articles or by other published independent reliable sources? DES ^(talk) 22:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How to revise an article to avoid deletion

Hi there,

I need help, please. Regarding the article "Stefan Semchyshyn" which has been deleted saying something like the article lacks appropriate referencing and it looks like an article of advertisement or promotion.

I am a ghostwriter writing it for my client who has was a doctor and has retired for over 10 years. The purpose of publishing it on Wiki is to let the world know the brutal fact of abortion and not doing good enough to survive new born babies. According to Stefan Semchyshyn, all babies are important for their families and it is God's will for the doctors to try their best to save as many babies as possible.

I will appreciate it if someone can tell me how I can revise the article to pass through it. Thanks in advance.

Jcheung852 (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jcheung852. I don't have access to the deleted article, but if it was deleted because it lacked appropriate referencing and looked like an article of advertisement or promotion, then the way to make it acceptable would be to improve the referencing by citing independent reliable sources, and to write it in a neutral rather than promotional tone. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to "let the world know the brutal fact of abortion and not doing good enough to survive new born babies", but rather an encyclopedia that summarises what published sources say about a subject. In Stefan Semchyshyn's case, this would presumably include the fact that his certificate to practice medicine in Ohio was revoked. Since you are being employed to write here, please also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid contributions. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, in order for a subject to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, it must be notable, which on Wikipedia is judged according to whether it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I've found a few potential sources, including this article and this book, but a few more are probably required. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX may also be relevant. Maproom (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Jcheung852 The deleted article included near the start the text: "...has been a professional obstetrician and gynecologist and a Maternal Fetal Medicine specialist with a never-give-up attitude. He was born as a middle child of 11 siblings in a poor, peasant family of Ivan and Katerina in a war torn Yugoslavia." The rest is similar or even more so, including such text as "His unparalleled results brought him patients from all over the US and as far abroad as Japan." and " Those cases which others labeled as train wrecks habitual abortions and disasters, he turned into joyous outcomes and shining success that earned him a great reputation all over the world.". It clearly did not adhere to WP:NPOV, it failed WP:SOAPBOX, it was very promotional, it approached an attack page -- It said some very negative things about people not named, but identified by position well enough that their identities are not truly hidden. It also failed to cite enough independent sources to establish notability, although it might well be that Dr. Semchyshyn is in fact notable as Wikipedia uses that word.

If an article about him is to exist here, it would need to be rewritten totally, not using much of anything from the former text. It would need to be factual and impersonal, not a personal statement. It could indicate what views Semchyshyn had held on issues, particularly if these were significant to his life, but it can't be a tract, a personal essay, nor an attempt to advocate for those views. It must include both the positive and the negative events of his life, but only to the extent that sources can be cited for them. It must not make evaluations, although it may quote the evaluations of others, if they have been published. And if you are being paid to write or help write this, you must declare that in accord with our procedures, linked above. I hope this is of some help to you. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

some external links are blocked in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Reno_Balloon_Race

Hello, Both external links to '... Race Gallery' give me a page saying 'Your access to this site has been limited.' So I can't see the photos. I think I should either mark those as dead links or delete them. Or... maybe something I haven't thought of. Any advice? Gab4gab (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Both links work OK. Note also that your question was malformatted because of leading spaces at the start of the lines of text. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.... They work OK for you, not me. I can get to http://www.patyuen.com/events/2008-events/ When I click on the link to 2008 Great Reno Balloon Races I get the page with "Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503)/Reason: Fake Google crawler automatically blocked" It's a puzzle. Gab4gab (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For reasons unknown I can reach the photos using Chrome on my phone. No go using my laptop. So now maybe my question is academic but - what should I do if I find links that lead to a 'your access has been blocked' type message? Gab4gab (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a technical issue with your laptop rather than a Wikipedia issue that we can help with, Gab4gab - unless lots of people are experiencing the same issue? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Cordless. I agree my example probably turns out to be my personal problem. So here's my backup example: reference #1 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_petition is a working web link. However only members of The Sales Tax Practitioners' Association of Maharashtra have access the the source material that is referenced. I gave that a fails verification with discussion on the talk page. Still wondering if there was something better I could do. Perhaps I'm asking in the wrong location. Gab4gab (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

On that, Gab4gab, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. We do not require sources to be freely accessible. A more suitable template to tag that source with would be Template:Request quotation, which requests a quote from the source from someone with access to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

An online source that requires registration or subscription isn't necessarily a bad reference (see WP:PAYWALL) and can be used but it's always better to search for another source that lacks those restrictions. In this case I would have thought that such a basic statement could be supported by a more widely available source (caveat: I haven't looked). Nthep (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Good info. Thanks everyone for your help. Gab4gab (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't have any sources. I have tagged it as having no sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And the tone needs work too.--ukexpat (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothy M. Herbst page

First Selectman is equal to Mayor, which is not a minor office as referenced to as a reason why the page was not approved. I'm unable to upload a picture at this moment because I don't have enough Wikipedia edits, but I'll pop around and make a few more so that I can upload photos. I respectfully ask someone to review the page and approve the content.

The page is Draft:Timothy M. Herbst Eaglewbc (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Eaglewbc, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can I suggest that you read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians? You'll see that they state that just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I haven't looked in detail at the sources you cite in Draft:Timothy M. Herbst, but I suspect that most of them just briefly mention Herbst rather than providing significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, a quick check reveals that some of the sources do discuss him in detail. Perhaps the issue is that the coverage is routine local news, which doesn't help establish notability? Other editors might be able to advise on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Eaglewbc. As for uploading a photo: If the photo is licensed as free content (which is the only acceptable kind of photo for a living person), you can upload it to Commons without the 10 edit restriction. —teb728 t c 05:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not a clearcut case, Eaglewbc, but my initial feeling is that this person's notability is questionable. In general, we keep articles about mayors of significant cities of regional importance. In this case, the city of Trumbull has a population of about 36,000 and is a suburb of the much larger Bridgeport, Connecticut. Losing a statewide office does not guarantee notability although it does bring extra media attention. I believe that many editors think that routine political coverage of local candidates and officials by the local newspapers of the area is not enough to confer notability, since they give similar coverage to every single such politician. Best to set the limit at the major city mayor and state/provincial legislator threshold. Another concern for contemporary up-and-coming politicians is promotionalism and I definitely detect a promotional POV tone in the current draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. This is helpful and I understand where you all are coming from. There has been a lot of other media coverage that was not cited in this article, both local and state, and an older (not available online) article from the NY Times. Even though he's the top elected official in the town, the barometer for city size is a helpful guide. I'll defer to your judgement for now and collect additional information over time. Eaglewbc —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, Eaglewbc. However, do take note that sources do not need to be online. A newspaper article can be cited with the title of the story, the name of the newspaper, the date of publication, the page, and the byline (if any). No URL is required. However, the NY Times has put a lot of its back issues on line for their digital subscribers -- if you have the date and other info, it might be that someone with such a subscription (like myself) could find the story. Of course, it might have only a passing mention and not help with notability. DES ^(talk) 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

to move the article

Hello I want to move a article to change it's name but there is no move option in menu bar of my wikipedia why it is hapenning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepali keto62 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. To move an article an account needs to be autoconfirmed, which means that the account is more than four days old and has made at least 10 edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Help in translating bible related content from Hebrew Wikipedia

Hi there. I'm interested in biblical (old testament) research (I'm not a professional, though). I write mostly at the Hebrew Wikipedia because this is my mother tongue and I'm not fluent in English. However, I want to get the benefit of the great exposure that my content can get in English Wikipedia, which is naturally much greater than in the Hebrew one. And I do think I can contribute significantly here too, if I get some (much) help.

For a start, I want to expand the article Judgment of Solomon according to the corresponding article that I wrote in Hebrew, which is much more extensive and based on academic research. Is there anyone who is fluent both in Hebrew and in English and is willing to help me to translate the article? If I translate it myself (as I admittedly tried to do once in a different article...), it would be in poor style and language. But the content itself is quite good, if I can testify on my own work.

In short: Good content, bad language - but you can make it better. I would deeply appreciate any help. ראובן מ. (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your English seems pretty good. If you expand the English-language article yourself, there are plenty of harmless drudges like me who could tweak the idiom, despite knowing no Hebrew. Maproom (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll try to do that. I hope no one is going to be mad at me. Thanks! ראובן מ. (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ראובן מ. I recommend that you contact Ijon who is Asaf Bartov, an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who is fluent in both Hebrew and English. He is also a very helpful person who is familiar with these issues and with the people who help out in this area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I know Asaf a little from Hebrew Wikipedia, I didn't know he's active here also. I'll speak with him. ראובן מ. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Popularity is not Notability

There are many supporting characters in Indian comics who don't have a page of their own. There are no reliable sources available. Even though India's population in the 90's was higher than many countries today. The number of people who knew those characters are higher. These supporting characters who are like butler Alfred, Robin and Lois Lane.

These supporting characters are only mentioned in pages like Nagraj, Chacha Chaudhary, as list of friends and enemies.

Can their images be uploaded under "Fair Use" criteria? Or they need to have a page of their own for having an image?Greek Legend (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Greek Legend. There is really no clear-cut yes or no answer because so much depends on how the non-free content is actually used. Each usage of a non-free image is required to satisfy all ten non-free content criteria. Failing to meet even a single one means the the non-free content may be removed or deleted. It's hard to give you a more specific answer than that so let me speak in general terms. The hardest of the ten criteria to satisfy is often WP:NFCC#8, which by coincidence happens to be criterion most open to different interpretations. I'll try to explain using an album cover as an example. A non-free album cover used in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about said albums is generally considered to meet the contextual significance criterion because all of the article's content and reliable sources cited in support are considered to be about the album and therefore sufficient to establish the album cover's contextual significance (see WP:NFC#cite note-2 for more details). The use of the same non-free album cover, however, might not be considered acceptable in a discography article or a band/artist article because any discussion about the album is likely to be only a small part of the entire article, thus making the cover's non-free usage harder to justify. It's not impossible to do, but usually the album cover itself has to be the subject of sourced commentary so that actually removing it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. Simply adding the album cover to show what it looks like is tyoically not considered to be enough since decorative usage is not really allowed by WP:NFCC and generally a wikilink to the album's article is considered more appropriate in such cases. So, if you are just planning to upload images of characters and add them to embedded lists in various articles just to show what they look like, then I would say that is decorative usage and something not allowed by NFCC. On the other hand, if you are intending to upload an image that is the subject of sourced critical commentary within another article, then I would say it is possible that would satisfy NFCC. If you would like more specific advice regarding a particular file you'd like to upload, then try asking for assistance at WT:FFD or WP:MCQ. Finally, all non-free content is required to be use in at least one aritcle per WP:NFCC#7 and only in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, so I don't suggest uploading anything until you are ready to use it and I advise you not to use anything non-free you upload in templates, drafts or on userpages, etc. Doing so will almost surely lead to the file being removed, tagged for speedy deletion or both. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for writing so much. It seems only embed list can have such images. Now I have to know what is embed list. Greek Legend (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

locking article

How to lock a article from editing. Please provide the answer.Nepali keto62 (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nepali keto62. Pages can only be protected by administrators and it's only done in certain situations. See Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding another Eurostep

Hi, how can I submit information about the Company Eurostep wwww.eurostep.com as there is already an entry for Eurostep as an NGO? Thanks in advance. HåkanHakan.karden (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hakan.karden. The solution is to give the article a title such as Eurostep (company). However, before you go ahead and create the article, you need to ensure that the company meets our notability requirements. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) on this. If you think that it does, then your best bet is to create a draft via Wikipedia:Your first article. That way, you will get feedback on your proposed article before it goes live, which will significantly reduce the chances of it subsequently being nominated for deletion (something that happens to many articles about companies created by new users). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)