Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

Year of Birth and Death of people mentioned in articles

I was checking the contributions of an account banned for non-constructive edits. One of the things the user was doing was adding years of birth and death after the names of people mentioned in articles that are not about that person. I can't find anything in the MOS regarding that, so I'm not sure whether to remove them or not.

My feeling is that they're out of place in the body of an article - it's not information about the subject itself. For example, someone reading about a building doesn't need to know when the architect died, or if they do, can click through to the architect's page, if one exists. If a page doesn't exist, is the dates of birth and death really that relevant?

Just after opinions: I've been away from wikipedia for a while, trying to get back into it now.

Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 02:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

My science advance may be too good

Hello Tea Room Host, My scientific advances are so new that my Periodic Table of Units of Measure may not be allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lug-Unit/sandbox

My discoveries about mass have started a revolution, which BIPM.org needs to believe before authority figures at NIST will condone my wiki page.

Should I abandon my work on my Wiki page? Lug-Unit (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Template:UY, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new theories. In fact our policy No Original Research forbids doing so. Until and unless reliable sources independent of the creator have written about a new theory in some detail, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Kadam (clan)

Hello kind Teahouse Host. A long while ago, I copyedited Kadam (clan) and so, it was on my watch list. I notice this morning there is all sorts of weirdness going on with the editing just now. There might even be an edit war but it is difficult to tell. Is it possible an administrator might be able to create some stability at the article? I'm not sure what route to take. Many thanks, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Myrtlegroggins. It appears that one editor made a massive and unexplained set of changes. I don't know the subject area well enough to know if these are improvements or not. They aren't obvious vandalism, at least not to oen who doesn't know the subject. I have removed improper formatting (mostly boldface where it doesn't belong) and formatting things that purport top be quotes and citations as such. I suggest discussion on Talk:Kadam (clan) if you disagree with the changes. DES ^(talk) 22:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Should I create an article for a government engineeer found dead under mysterious circumstances

An Engineer working with Indian Railways was found dead. As reported by his family, he was under constant pressure from some local scrap dealers and mafia for unlawful activities. Is this worthy of a new wikipedia article.Ravi.shekhar00 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ravi.shekhar00, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is worth having a read of WP:ONEEVENT on this. The way I see it the answer is no, involvement in one event such as this does not establish notability, unless the person's death comes to have some longer-term significance (and even in that case, an article about the event rather than the person would be more appropriate). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is also addressed in WP:NOTNEWS - there are lots of things that happen that are merely events and not encyclopedic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have received a notification for speedy deletion

I am trying to create a profile for a research journal. I have received a warning message that it is promotional. This is first time I am creating a page on wiki. Do you have any suggestions how I may avoid this warning? The page I am creating is about Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and technology Mukhtiar unar (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mukhtiar unar, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will leave it to others to help you with writing style (and note that DESiegel has removed the speedy deletion nomination anyway), but just to note that a key policy of Wikipedia is that subjects need to be notable in order to merit articles. In the sense that notability is defined on Wikipedia, this means that the subject generally requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. There is some specific advice on the notability of scholarly journals at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). You'll see that that page suggests that journals need to be considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area, frequently cited by other reliable sources, or have a historic purpose or a significant history. Can I ask whether you think this is the case for Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

How to add more info to an existing person infobox

There is already an infobox on the Chaim Perelman page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AFm_Perelman) but it just contains an image and name. How can I add more fields to this existing box?Oregondigital (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no infobox on the Chaïm Perelman page just a photo with a caption. I suggest you copy the blank text from Template:Infobox philosopher onto the page, fill in the relevant data, and move the image into the infobox. Do not worry about, or delete, lines you can't fill in - someone else may be able to fill them in later. Please don't try to add or alter lines as only the parameters in the existing template will show. - Arjayay (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My first article is about to be deleted

It seems I probably jumped in and tried to write my first article Tracy Thorn: Solo: Songs and Collaborations 1982 - 2015 without reading all the rules but I'm still unsure what the problems with it are as I don't consider it be promotional blurb, more a factual account of a new album. Also I made a typo in the title (Tracy should have an "e" as in Tracey and I can't see how to edit that Micksheff (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Micksheff, User:Mz7 has already removed the speedy deletion notice from Solo: Songs and Collaborations 1982 - 2015 as they believe "the article is not unambiguously promotional, see talk page"
I suggest you wait for them to finish their edits to the article before seeing if you can add any additional information. - Arjayay (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Micksheff, welcome to the Teahouse! As Arjayay mentioned, I would actually agree with you; I didn't think the content you wrote was wholly promotional enough to qualify for speedy deletion. Note, however, that this does not prevent your article from being deleted by other processes. A good page to read before writing your first article is Wikipedia:Your first article—the page does a pretty good job at explaining our expectations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means that we should only cover topics which are encyclopedic in nature. The Wikipedia community has discussed what constitutes "encyclopedic content", and we've come up with a set of guidelines called "notability". The single most important factor which decides a topic's notability is its sources.

Generally, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In clearer terms, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only writes about what reliable sources have written about. Reliable sources include things like newspapers, reputable websites, magazines, published books, academic journals, etc. "Independent" means that sources which come from or are affiliated with the subject matter, such as Thorn's official website, don't contribute much to notability. If independent, reliable sources do not exist or do not discuss a topic in meaningful detail, it is likely Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on that topic. To improve the article, I recommend you continue to do research to find reliable sources which discuss Thorn's upcoming compilation album in detail. I've added a couple tweaks to the formatting of the page and a source myself. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Micksheff, and let me also welcome you to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia). It looks to me, from reviewing the article as it currently exists, as though the album at least will be notable in the future... but it's possible it is not yet notable now. The Exclaim! and Pitchfork articles you have cited are generally speaking the right kind for establishing notability (reliable sources and more than mere mentions of the subject) but some editors may consider them to be not long enough to count as in-depth treatment of the subject. If other such sources don't exist yet, they can be added to the article once they're published. In the meantime it might become necessary to move the article to the Drafts area of Wikipedia for further development, but we'll see what consensus develops. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback and welcome messages. It is my intention to add further information including details about its reception and reviews and its commercial success but it isn't likely to be reviewed for a couple of weeks yet so maybe moving it to the Drafts area is an option. To be honest I wasn't aware there was a Drafts area, can I move it myself or does it have to be done by admin. Alternatively if you are happy for it to stay where it is on the promise that it will be enhanced soon that would be great. For future reference can you let me know how I write an article in the Draft area? Micksheff (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Micksheff. Any autoconfirmed user can move a page, including moving it to draft-space. However you aren't autoconfirmed yet, it takes a minimum of 4 days and 10 edits, and your account isn't yet 4 days old. I will move the article to draft for you. In future, you can create an article in draft just by starting the name with "Draft:" or you can use the article wizard. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:Solo: Songs and Collaborations 1982 - 2015, Micksheff. Please do continue to inprove it there. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolution for "The neutrality of this article is disputed"

Hi,

Would someone help me resolve the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" issue that keeps popping up in some pages. I am working on Odisha page and would like to resolve the pending issues. I am unaware as to what should be done to resolve the same.

Thanks in Advance and Happy Editing.. Sanket Edits Wiki (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sanket Edits Wiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to have come across a maintenance tag: users can add these to articles if they think they have found a problem, which will hopefully encourage other users to fix the problem. The tag says it was added in September 2013. Usually, users should write messages on the talk page of an article to explain why they put the tag there if it is unclear, but I cannot find any place where the neutrality tag was explained. Anyone can remove these messages by removing some code at the top of the page (in this case, {{POV|date=September 2013}}) if they do not think the issue is still present. However, at the moment I am writing this, it appears that GrammarFascist is currently making some changes to the article so it may be best to wait until they are finished before editing the article yourself. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bilorv, as sometimes happens I went to the article for one purpose (to prepare to answer Sanket Edits Wiki's question) and got distracted by grammar in need of fixing.

Sanket Edits Wiki, the neutrality tag seems to have been put on in relation to whether the article title and text should say Odisha or Orissa. Going by the archived talk page conversations, this was quite contentious for a while after the name of the state was changed legally, but the edit warring seems to have died down since the page move (renaming) finally happened. The recent history of the article shows no sign of the dispute, though one user does keep putting mention of Telangana in as bordering on Odisha. (My reading of the map suggests this is not really accurate, so I removed the mention again.) As for the additional-citations-needed tag, I have not evaluated the article for that, but I have noticed that there are many sources cited in the article. Some of them may not be reliable sources, and there may be some facts stated in the article that need citations.

On a related note, Fuhghettaboutit has discovered that there may be some plagiarized content in the Economy section of the Odisha article. A tag related to this possibility may thus be added to the article, or the suspect section simply deleted or replaced.

I have finished working on the article for the time being, having copy-edited up to the Economy section. After the copyright issue is resolved, I will use the "in use" tag again to copy-edit the second half of the article. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: There are a few edits in the page history that I'm quite sure are copying and pasting but unfortunately, the sources are so old that I can't find them (they may no longer exist). (I wish I could see further back than this in the Wayback Machine. However, the specific section I thought might be a copyvio actually appears clear (was made over multiple separate edits showing it developed organically – was not a cut and paste job). The site I found that looked like a possible source actually post-dates, so it's a backwards copyvio. Please go ahead and edit that section if you wish to edit further of course.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

I got a notification that i'm being investigated for sockpuppettry and its funny because i think they're trying to relate me with Srinu523 and we tend to have same names and same interests. So my question is how do i go about it? It seems to be an honest misunderstanding and i'm ready to to provide any help required. srini (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, srini, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While I have never been involved in a sockpuppetry investigation at Wikipedia, whether as accused, accuser, investigator or spectator, I think the advice to simply be as honest and forthcoming as possible is unlikely to steer you wrong. Good luck, and feel free to come back if you have any more specific questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi,srini it hasn't even been opened properly as it's not listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and they just added the investigation request on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Srinu523. Plus they have not given any evidence/diffs anyway. Unless you are a sock-puppet I would not worry about it, the page has an edit request open on it I'm sure someone will sort it out one way or another. KylieTastic (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with my page

Have I put up too many references on Cry For Silence (band) and would anyone please help me get it up to Wiki standards? i'm using the help documents but getting a bit lost. I don't want the page to be deleted.

Thank you in advance!! Majorityverb (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Majorityverb. The first thing that I noticed is that your references are bare URLs. Please flesh them out as described in Referencing for beginners. You also need to pay attention to which sources are reliable. Facebook isn't and YouTube rarely is. Wikipedia itself should never be used as a reference. Far better to have just a few truly reliable sources than to pad an article with unreliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Majorityverb, and welcome to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia). I have formatted a couple of example citations for you, to show you what they should look like when fully populated with all the relevant information. The second one I added mainly so you could see how to format a news citation as opposed to a web citation. Strictly speaking you can use "cite web" for anything you find online, but it's best to use "cite news" for newspapers and magazines.

There's a handy trick for citation formatting that means you don't have to do as much remembering or typing. The four most commonly-used citation templates are included in Wikipedia's article-editing toolbox. To use one, place your cursor where the citation <ref> should go, then look at the blue bar at the top of the edit window. On the right, click "Cite". Then, at the left-hand side of the second blue bar that appears, click "Templates" and choose whichever of the four is most appropriate. (Cite books is for books, of course; cite journal is for scholarly journals, though you can also use it for regular magazines.) This opens up a form which you can type or paste all the information available about the source into. Note that in order to enter publication dates with the Cite web template, you need to click the "Show/hide extra fields" button. For access date (when you viewed the source) you can just click the icon next to the field and it will fill in automatically. Note that references should be placed after punctuation and before spaces.

I made several other edits to the article, including adding a lead section, adding some missing punctuation, removing some capitalized letters that should be lowercase, changing the html headers to Wikimarkup (done with == around the heading title), and removing the flag icon (which is supposed to be used only for people who are representing their nation officially, such as Olympic athletes). Finally, I removed the reference to Alessandro Venturella being in Slipknot from the first sentence that mentions him, since it had implied that he was in Slipknot first and then formed Cry For Silence. Information about him later joining Slipknot is now at the end of the article.

In terms of how many refereces you should have overall, it's really based on what factual claims the article makes. Anything that's likely to make a reader think, "what, really?" should be referenced.

Feel free to come back with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you soo much for your help! it is very much appreciated! I will get better with time and practice! I promise!Majorityverb (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Cricket templates

How to create [[national cricket team|]] template for Ranji Trophy teams?srini (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Srinivasprabhu933. Please read Template:National cricket teams, which explains how the template works. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, Thank you vy much, but it seems my question was not very clear, I want to create a template similar to {{cr|IND}} which appear as India, for the team playing the current Ranji Trophy, so that the crest of the corresponding cricket association and the respective region appears together. srini (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My user page doesn't exist?

My user name is in red and when I click on it it says that there's no user page with this name, but I can still log in and create artices, I'm wondering how can I make my user page active? thank you ZaidiAsmaa (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Click the link, start adding stuff, and then save it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To add a bit more detail to RudolfRed's explanation, you can create your user page by just clicking on the link and writing whatever you want to put, but you don't have to. A user page usually contains some information about the user—so you might say "Hello, my name is __ and I'm interested in editing pages about __". Or you can put anything that will help you when editing: maybe a to do list or some useful links. User pages are entirely optional and lots of very experienced users choose not to have one, but many people like having one. If you do decide to create one, it might be worth reading the "This guideline in a nutshell" box on Wikipedia:User pages, or skimming through the page so you know what you can and can't include on your user page (this section lists what is not allowed). In general, anything that's related to Wikipedia is allowed and limited amounts of unrelated material about yourself are too.

On a separate matter, thank you for using the ~~~~ code to sign your posts, but it is not necessary to do this in the names of section headers (the box that says "Subject/headline"), only at the very end of your message. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Format

I noticed that you guys recently changed the page format, and everything is visible on the pages now. You don't have open and close the sections anymore. But for some reason I can't edit anymore, is there a good reason why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, I don't see the edit button anymore, or even the options on the side of the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kalope, welcome to the Teahouse. Some mobile users are currently reporting such problems with the mobile interface. The desktop interface is not affected. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ask Question Button bug

There's a bug in ask question button on this page which I want to report. When we post a question with this button using smartphone it gets posted at the bottom of page. Please rectify it. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Pankaj. (I thought I replied to this last night, at the bottom of the page). There is probably not one single person who reads this page who is capable of rectifying it: you are asking at the wrong place. WP:Village pump (technical) is the place to ask this sort of question. My memory is that this is a known bug which has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the archives of the Village Pump, so I may be wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft rejected again

When I created this article, it was deleted on the grounds of notability. After the appeal it was restored as a draft with a mention that media and books are good enough source for notability. After that I have tried to improve the article following suggestions from teahouse and added many additional reliable sources to lay emphasis on notability. Can anyone please explain me that why is this article still not notable? Just to mention do a simple Google search for the name of the person and you will get flood of results from multiple sources. The article is Draft:Vishuddhasagar. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pankaj. I think you'll need to ask the editor Onel5969 why they declined the draft. On a quick look, it appears to me to be satisfactorily referenced; but I have not looked at the sources. Perhaps Onel5949 has done so and thinks they are not adequate. --ColinFine (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember that to establish notability, generally a minimum of two (and preferably at least three) sources must cover the subject of the proposed article in depth, such as by devoting an entire magazine or newspaper article, or television segment, to the subject. Interviews with the subject of an article do not count towards establishing notability because they focus on what the subject says about themselves. And the sources that publish these in-depth looks at the subject must qualify as reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition. Lots of brief mentions don't "add up" to one longer piece, either, because they aren't in-depth either alone or taken together.

I have taken a look at the sources listed for you, although I am not an AfC reviewer like Onel5969.

1. I don't understand Hindi, but this appears to be at least partly an interview and thus might not count towards notability.
2. This is simply a one-sentence synopsis of the show, not an in-depth discussion of it.
3. I can't tell what this is, other than it mentioning a misspelling of the subject's name.
4. From what I can tell using Google Translate, this source may contribute to notability; the automatic translation is not good enough for me to be sure of this, however.
5. This article makes only two brief mentions of Vishuddhasagar, and thus does not contribute to proving his notability.
6. This brief mention of Sri Vishuddha Sagar Maharaj does not contribute to proving his notability.
7. "Singh 2007" does not appear in the References list; an incomplete citation cannot contribute to notability.
8. Neither "Vishuddhasagar" nor "Vishuddha" yields any results when searching inside the book, so it can't help establish his notability.

Seven of the nine remaining sources are written by the subject of the article and cannot therefore contribute to establishing notability. I hope this has given you a better understanding of the standards AfC reviewers use when evaluating drafts. If you can find more independent sources that discuss Vishuddhasagar in depth, that will help establish his notability for Wikipedia purposes. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 09:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of the above editors for responding. First, like ColinFine, on an initial scan of the article, it looks well-sourced. However, when you look at the individual sources, there is not enough there to show notability. GrammarFascist's analysis is very good. In addition to his comment's, I would add that the first two sources do not appear to be from reliable sources, and the large pdf was difficult to evaluate. Remember whenever providing a source with a number of pages, to let readers know which pages refer to the subject of your article. 2-3 in-depth articles about the subject are usually enough to show notability, if they are from reliable, mainstream sources. Hope this helps. Ciao. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

All Star Mr & Mrs

Hi! I had a small question about vandalism. I help edit the page for the British game show All Star Mr & Mrs. A new series has started and it was confirmed that Martina Navratilova and her wife would be the first lesbian couple to appear on the programme, which is still sourced on the page. She appeared on the first episode this Wednesday. For the past few weeks, since the show actually was confirmed to air on ITV, I've noticed that there is an unregistered user who continually changes Martina's name for Maria Menounos and her boyfriend Kevin. It's happened as lately as earlier today a couple days after the airing of the episode, but this user keeps on reverting the name whether it's sourced or not. I don't know if the person is homophobic or not. I've heard people elsewhere criticising the gay couples saying, "it's Mr & Mrs, not Mr & Mr". But it's getting annoying, as this user is unregistered and adamant on reverting it every two days. (I know of the 3 revert rule). BTW, I am a casual user who just likes to contribute to my favorite programmes and has a busy life . I don't really fee the need to regjster, but I edit correctly learning from the other registered users for other British programmes. It jst seems like this unregistered user might be knowingly vandalising the page. Am I correct in reverting the edit evey few days when he makes his reversion? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks66.130.12.185 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC) samusek2

Hello, IP user. What you can do is to put warnings on the user's talk page, starting with the gentle {{uw-vandalism1}} and getting progressively more severe warnings if they continue. Eventually, you can report them at WP:AIV. I have put a level 2 warning on their talk page (I used WP:Twinkle to do this easily, but that is only available to users who have accounts; you can edit their talk page manually.) Please remember to assume good faith - I agree that the user is being disruptive, but we have no idea what their motive is, and shouldn't assume that we do know.

On a different point, please format the references in the article to be more helpful. At the very least, if you are using bare URL's, don't put them in brackets unless you are going to apply some display text. So

[http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week40/all-star-mr-mrs]

displays as

[1],

whereas

http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week40/all-star-mr-mrs

displays as the rather more useful

http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week40/all-star-mr-mrs.

Even better, use one of the citation templates such as {{cite web}}. See Referencing for beginners for how to do this. --ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, ColinFine, However, I saw that you put the warning on my account talk page. I can edit Wikipedia from two households and you can see my warning from both IP Addresses. It's the other unregistered user who reverts Martina for Maria. The user below, Grammarfascist, sent a warning to that user. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks greatly for the good advice and will try to remember that in future. Wikipedia does seem to be a tad confusing sometimes. 66.130.12.185 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)samusek2

(edit conflict)Hello, IP user at 66.130.12.185. Thanks for helping protect Wikipedia from vandalism. Yes, you are correct to revert vandalism when you find some. You should be careful to assume good faith and consider the possibility that another user has made their edit in good faith, as a general rule, but the case you describe does certainly sound likely to be vandalism.

I see that the repeated replacement of Martina Navratilova's name with Maria Menounos's goes back to mid-September. These changes have been made by a variety of IP addresses, however, so I don't know how effective an IP block would even be, if an administrator were to consider one appropriate. In the meantime, please continue to check on the page as you are able. I will also add it to my watchlist, but I am terrible at keeping up with my watchlist. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 08:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have placed the {{subst:Welcome-anon-unconstructive}} welcome message, which warns against unconstructive edits, on the pages of the IP users who have made the Navratilova > Menounos change. (I think I got them all.) You could use this template in future instead of typing an entirely custom message, IP user. Thanks again for reverting the incorrect information. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 09:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Citing references when they come from a private chat (Privacy question)

Hi!

Recently I've created this Wikipedia page for an EP, "The Worst Case Scenario" by the band "Stereo Skyline". First page I'm creating from scratch :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Case_Scenario

I got a warning saying that my article lacked any source, which I was not surprised much. I do know how to add these sources, but I'm concerned about privacy issues to get started adding these sources.

I stated that "100 physical copies of the EP were ever produced" which makes the CD close to impossible to find, so is any information on that record. I actually got that information directly from members of the band using Facebook private messaging.

All of these infos were mentionned during the long chat I had with 2 different band members:

- [...] released on July 20th 2006; - Stereo Skyline stated that 100 physical copies of the EP were ever produced; - Credits > Claude Zdanow - Drums Recording (Stated in album liner notes. Official album artwork, originally not on the Internet, was also shared by a member of the band during a 1-1 Facebook chat); - "If These Walls Could Talk, You'd Be In So Much Trouble Right Now" was later re-recorded in 2007, along with the un-released songs "Baby, You Win", "Fast Times" and "Black and Blue".

I sure understand that my article does not have any source as of yet, but what if the band members did not wanted me sharing these sources on Wikipedia? Am I supposed to quote parts of our private chat with their personal Facebook accounts? Providing a JPEG screenshot in the article source? I sure would ask for permission first, but I'm concerned about their privacy by sharing our 1-1 chat we had (While this is the only source to confirm these details).

Alternatively, I would be willing to share parts of our conversation here, and remove it (Using a Dropbox upload?) after it gets approval, but I doubt that would be sufficient. I should check out with the band members first?

Thank you for helping out.

GameX2 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @GameX2: and welcome to the Teahouse!

Private chats with Wikipedia editors are never* appropriate sources for article content. We only use material that can be verified as having been previously published by a reliable source. (*OK, so if your private chat was discussed and published by a reporter from a mainstream newspaper, the content from your chat might be usable) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying really quickly, I appreciate it.

Well I had these 2 chats with members of the band, original members back in 2006, from their personal Facebook accounts. It goes without saying that the EP being really old/rare, no article, virtually nothing was ever published on it (So no "verifiable" source, without believing what the band members told me).

Taking your statement in consideration, I should remove the release date of "July 20th 2006" right away. It is confirmed that the EP was release in "Summer 2006", but the bassist told me "I think July 20th", which is a possibility, but far from verifiable (Besides, they're no way for me to know the exact release date, which is not mentionned in the artwork either. I can't expect band members to remember an exact release date from an EP that was released close to 10 years ago as well. All I know is "I think July 20th", which is definitely not verified and should be removed, will do).

I assume I could keep the "Credits" section untouched, since it is mentionned in the artwork liner notes.

The "Trivia" part on the re-recorded can also be verified, considering 2 versions of the song exist. Possibly I could modify that line, removing "2007" to make it verified.

I will modify my article accordingly, thank you. Best I could do regarding the "100 copies pressed" is to get an email from the producer, Nick Zinnanti, confirming that quantity (Which was confirmed by 2 different band members on Facebook, probably true, but possibly not verifiable I suppose). Might not bother with sending an email and remove such statement from the article (Which I do believe, but obviously, I can only believe the band members and no one else, which doesn't seem valid for Wikipedia).

Thanks, will modify that article a bit.

GameX2 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, GameX2. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be referenced to a reliable published source. Personal recollections, emails, forums, social media, even iMDB and Wikipedia itself (because they are largely user-generated) may never be used as sources, because a reader next week or next month or next year has no way of determining whether they are correct. (Even if your information comes directly from the producer, it might get changed (by somebody else who remembers differently, or by mistake, or even maliciously) and a reader has no way of going and checking which version is right. It doesn't have to available on-line (though it's more convenient if it is) but as long as it has been published and a reader can in principle get hold of it (eg by ordering it through a public or university library) that's OK. But if it has not been published, it should not go in the article. Period. --ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, that's fully understandable.

In that case, the only thing that can get fully verified, is that the EP was released in 2006 (Month and day unknown officially), along with the original band lineup tracklist and producer, which are mentionned in the artwork liner notes. But that would be it.

Ironicly, the official artwork is not on the Internet either, so are the liner notes as well (Google only shows up a fanmade artwork). Unless I upload them anywhere, I would remain the only "source" for that, considering even the artwork or liner notes are nowhere to be found.

Obviously I was trying to help by adding information on this, considering it's nowhere on the Internet, but it's no big deal and understandable that the article got deleted (I don't feel bad or anything, Colin mentionned it really well. There would be no way to verify much stuff, since nothing was published. That's OK).

Thank you for your time, I appreciate.

GameX2 (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Before there is a stand alone article about the subject, the subject must meet some standard requirements- that third party reliably published sources have discussed the subject in a significant manner] or alternatively for music WP:NSONG. If all we can verify about a song or album is that it exists, it doesnt merit a stand alone article, merely reference in the article about the creator. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi GameX2. Just to note that sources don't have to be available online for them to be used to support material in Wikipedia articles. They need to be published, but not necessarily online. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

and books.google.com has old issues of Spin and Billboard and some other music magazines from the paper only age of publishing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Translating an article from English Wikipedia into other languages?

Arttalk1984 and I were discussing an article which Arttalk1984 created and which has finally passed AfC review, and Arttalk1984 asked me about getting the article translated from English to other languages. I know English Wikipedia has a place to request help with translating articles to English from the Wikipedia articles that already exist in other languages, and I imagine that most of the other-language Wikipedias probably have something similar. But is there anyplace at English Wikipedia to make such translation-from-English requests, for someone who doesn't necessarily having any facility with the target language themselves and thus would have difficulty using the request area at, for example, Arabic Wikipedia? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There is this Wikipedia:Translate us. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! That page links to Category:Available translators in Wikipedia, which does indeed list both users who translate articles from other Wikipedias into English and users who translate English Wikipedia articles into other languages. Thanks, TRPoD! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixing issues with a page

Hi! I'm trying to edit the NeoCell Wikipedia page, to fix the issues on it. First, it says it needs verification, but there are already several citations on it. Next, it says their needs to meet the general notability guideline. I can change a few lines to make this, but I want to make sure it will pass that. Lastly, it says it's an orphan page, but their are several links to related articles throughout the other page. What can I do to make this an all around better page? Thank you! This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoCell EileenTree (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @EileenTree:, and welcome to the Teahouse!

What Wikipedia is looking for is third party sources with a reputation for fact checking that have covered the subject in a significant manner. Passing mentions, or puffpiece repackagings of press releases do not count. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, EileenTree. It is not possible to fix notability in an article by changing the text. The only way is what TRPoD said - by finding substantial coverage by people unconnected with the subject and published in reliable places - that is actually what the jargon word "notability" means in Wikipedia-land. An orphan is a page with no links to it from other pages. --ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi EileenTree, ColinFine's point is often ignored or misunderstood - please see the essay No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Replace an existing article?

There is a brief article in Wikipedia bearing the name of a well-known psychoanalyst, Henry Z'vi Lothane, but which is actually about only one of the areas of his research ("dramatology"). In fact the article itself was recently formed by merging two smaller articles, one very brief on Lothane and a second brief one on dramatology, each basically a paragraph. I have drafted an extensive article on the whole of Lothane's work as well as on his life. I would like to propose that the article I have written bear the name "Henry Z'vi Lothane" since it actually deals with his whole body of work, and that the existing article be re-titled "dramatology," since that is more properly what it discusses. Can anyone tell me how and to whom I should propose that change? Should I propose it along with the submission of my article or should this change be proposed separately? Thanks!

whitjrWhitjr (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are proposing replacing the entire contents of the existing article Henry Zvi Lothane by your draft, currently at User:Whitjr/sandbox. You should discuss this at the talk page of the existing article. Maproom (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Whitjr: In addition to the above, your draft is based almost entirely upon your interpretations and commentaries sourced to Lothane's own works not what other people have written about him. Your draft is not ready to move to main space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

neutral tone in my draft

Hi! I am attempting a resubmit for my draft of Blenheim Art Foundation which was rejected for sounding like an advertisement. I've cut it down quite a lot and gone through it with a fine tooth comb as well as speaking directly with the person who reviewed it. A shorter version of the foundation has now been accepted onto the Blenheim Palace page so I am very hopeful, but I was wondering if anyone on here might also be able to give it a quick look over and tell me if there are any concerns? It's my first wiki page so all ears! Thank you! This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blenheim_Art_Foundation Belh89 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Belh89: welcome to the Teahouse!

I read to here: "aiming to give the greatest number of people access to world-class contemporary artists in the context of the historic setting of Blenheim Palace " and, well, Advert. People from marketing backgrounds have a terrible time writing appropriately for Wikipedia - they are two entirely different and non-complementary skillsets. Have you been directed to WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV? They give advice and the policy language that helps govern the tone of how we cover content as an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And please remove all the WP:External links from the bodytext, reduce the over-praising newspaper quotations, and include some criticism - someone must have said something less laudatory - we need balance, not overt promotion. - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

how to edit

````Omnictionarian21 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Help:Editing of help?--ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Help

Mmmmmm, just moved my draft article and my name is still in the title. Did I do something wrong? The title is Systemic Operational Design. ????? Guy Duczynski (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Guy and welcome to the Teahouse! You didn't do anything "wrong", you left your user name as part of the title when you moved the page. However, the article as it stands is not ready for the main article space. You need to establish the notability of the topic by adding references to independent sources that show there is widespread coverage in reliable sources. You might find this guide useful. In the mean time I have moved the article back to your user space. Cheers,  Philg88 <sup>♦talk</sup> 05:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Guy Duczynski, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your work-in-progress to Draft:Systemic operational design because while, as Philg88 said, it is not ready for mainspace, you did say you wanted other users' input, and draft space is a better place for that than your sandbox is. I agree that adding inline citations to reliable secondary sources is the number one area you should focus on improving. Feel free to ask if you have any more specific questions about improving your draft or inviting others' input. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 05:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add those references and resubmit. So do I take my name off the title myself?

Hi Guy Duczynski - as User:GrammarFascist stated above - it has been moved to Draft:Systemic operational design so your name is no longer in the title.
However, I notice the name "Duczynski, G" appears in both the References and the External link section of that article. Assuming this is you, please read our guidance on conflict of interest and avoid using our articles to plug your books. - Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The section WP:SELFCITE is particularly relevant. Note that it doesn't say you can't cite yourself, but that you should only do so within reason, if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies and is not excessive. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I able to change my user name?

I don't like the Username I originally chose, is there a way to change it? or Do I have to delete the account and start a new one?

ThanksAdriana Correa 00:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Adriana Correa 00:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adcorreausa (talk • contribs)

Hello, Adcorreausa, and Welcome to the Teahouse. You can change your username without having to create a new account, see Wikipedia:Changing username and the Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple for the usual case. Note also that accounts cannot ever be deleted, but they can be renamed to a random name if you ever want to vanish. I hope this is helpful. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 00:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adcorreausa. Another option is to abandon all use of your existing account, 100%. Then you can start a new account with a name more to your liking. Please see WP:CLEANSTART for the policy on this. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 02:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the person in my article notable and should I add more details?

I recently submitted an article on Domenico Tranaso, a notary from Altamura, Italy who led a riot to take over the city in 1848. Altamura was under the control of the rioters (and, presumably, their leader, Tranaso) for a span of roughly two weeks. It was an experience that foreshadowed the future unification of Italy 12 years later, and Altamura is a rather large city. Would this person be considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry?

Additionally, does my draft contain a sufficient amount of detail about him? What changes, in general, could be made to ensure the acceptance of this article?

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Domenico_Tranaso

Hlt443 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Hlt443: ,

At Wikipedia "notability" is shorthand for a particular set of criteria and not the dictionary or popular usage of the term. Here it is whether or not other people have considered the subject worthy of writing about in some depth. I dont read Italian, but from a first glance from your draft and google books it seems quite possible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hlt443. I encourage you to continue improving your draft article. You may find Your first article to be useful. Remarkable things happened across Europe in 1848, and though the revolutionary movements were defeated, their after-effects spread throughout the world and are felt to the present day. You may find Revolutions in 1848 and Revolutions of 1848 in the Italian states useful for placing the events in Altamura into a broader context.

I happen to live in the Napa Valley, near San Francisco. Many refugees from the 1848 uprisings contributed to our explosive 1849 Gold Rush boom. And in Napa, an Italian-American family named "Altamura" has been involved in local real estate development for many years. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 02:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Curation issue.

Hello, I have been using page curation for about 3 months, up until as soon as earlier today. I am trying to use page curation, but I can not get the panel to appear. Also, I can not use twinkle on certain pages either, mostly those on page curation. Please help me. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi ThisGuyIsGreat. If the curation issue is just that the curation tool bar has been turned off, while on a page subject to curation, go to the Toolbox list of links on the left hand side of the page and click "Curate this article". That will reanimate it. I don't know about the Twinkle issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I cant find the curate this article part. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to help ThisGuyIsGreat. Let's just make sure we're on the same page. Not all articles are subject to curation and, as far as I know, only those listed at Special:NewPagesFeed. You will only see the toolbar if it's on, or the link to turn it back on, if you're at an article listed there. So, once there, click on an article. Now look to the far left of the page. Underneath the Wikipedia globe, you'll see a series of links, sorted under "interaction", "Tools", "Print/Export", "Languages". Under the Tools menu, if the curation tool bar is off, the last entry there should say "Curate this Article". If that's not there then I don't know what it might be. Have you changed any setting recently? Your skin? Added any scripts or tools to your interface? Have you tried a different browser to see if it works in one but not another? You might post to Wikipedia talk:Page Curation to seek more specific help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a whole thread about this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Twinkle and Page Curation failing to load on certain pages. Nthep (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Where do I go to ask for a new template to be created?

Where do I propose a new template?

I have an idea that I think would be very helpful to everybody who reads Talk page sections which have links to sections on fast-moving pages that soon become archived, leaving the original links red, and no clue in which archive the actual item is on. This is especially problematic in links that are old to pages with hundreds of archives. In case this is the right place, I'll just describe an example:

{{link archive |page=User talk:Jimbo Wales |section=Wikimedia project index pages |anchor=WM proj Indexes |next=196}}

This would render as: WM proj Indexes<sup>(ar 196)</sup>

The idea is that this would put up a working, blue link to the desired section, with a superscript (ar nnn) link which shows up as red, because the archive doesn't exist yet, but it's the one the user predicts, i.e., most probably one greater than the highest archive number in use currently. Once the next archive is created, the link would simply render as a "normal" blue link (assuming the guess was right) with the parenthetical part no longer needed. (The one-up numbering scheme isn't fool-proof, I know, but would work well enough most of the time to make it a useful template.)

As such, this would work conversely to {{Interlanguage link}}, which does things the other way round, with a main page red link, and a blue superscript link to a foreign WP article which disappears once the English article is created.

If this isn't the right place, please let me know where to post this. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mathglot. I love that idea. I think you could make it easier for people to place by having it automatically recognize some things such as the page it's placed on using something like {{FULLPAGENAME}}, so there would be no need for a page parameter. Anyway, Wikipedia:Requested templates comes to mind. I worry it doesn't look too active from the history, though that may be a result of a relatively low number of requests, rather than the number of template wizards watching and acting on requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Fuhghettaboutit, I'll try that. I didn't know about {{FULLPAGENAME}} so I checked it out and unless I'm mistaken, it appears that it wouldn't be useful for this template, as it expands to the page it's on, whereas normally I might want to link from my Talk page, or some article talk page, to Teahouse, for example, or some other page undergoing frequent archival, in which case {{FULLPAGENAME}} won't help, unless I'm missing something? Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It might be useful in something like (mock documentation) "if the page-parameter is left out, then it assumes the link you are placing is to an archive of the same page you are posting on".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this whole idea is that pages are not always archived in a predictable fashion. If a thread keeps being discussed, it may not be archived as soon as a later thread that peters out, and it may not get the "next" archive number. I think this would happen a significant number of times, and would actually make the situation worse, as the only thing worse than no link to an archived thread is a link that this supposed to work but is wrong. Moreover this will happen most often on particularly active pages. Now if the archiving bot could be made to update such links, that might be worthwhile, but that would be a much larger task. 00:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that archiving isn't always predictable, but will it really be worse than no link? Seeing that red link with '196' in it, will mean the user searching for the archive knows that it's no earlier than 196, and likely within a few numbers of that. A few tries on the address bar in the browser, or following a 'next' archive link if there is one, should quickly land the fish, no? As things stand now, you'd have to search everything. Or if you really think it's unworkable this way, maybe the superscript should be a search link instead, and launch a delimited archive search in a new browser tab, starting at 196 and going up from there? The current situation seems worse to me. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that once archive 196 is created it won't be a red link, it will be blue, even if the particular thread isn't in that archive. (Section links still work and are blue even if the specified section doesn't exist.) I generally feel that wrong info that looks as if it might be correct is indeed significantly worse than no info at all. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 13:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Note there is a bot fixing links to archived sections in at least some cases,[2] maybe if it's the bot which archived the page (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot III). Getting a bot to do this more widely would be better than users having to add a template with complicated and uncertain parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Entry keeps getting rejected

Hello,

We have had several rejections for an entry for Nature's Art Village (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nature's_Art_Village) and I'm hoping someone can help us by pointing out what needs to be fixed for the submission to be accepted.

The first rejection notice stated that the entry read too much like an advertisement, so we made changes to remove promotional language from the entry. The second rejection stated that the entry failed to show notability through secondary sources. We then added links to articles in several local and regional news publications to back up the content. We then got another rejection stating that the entry read too much like and advertisement. This is a bit frustrating since we see other area attractions like Crystal Mall, Mystic Aquarium and Mystic Seaport who have entries with fewer references to secondary sources.

Would someone be able to help us by explaining which language is problematic? Many thanks for your help!

-Chelsea

CNN519 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@CNN519: - who is "we"/"us" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CNN519. It is highly problematic to include detailed promotional language describing how wonderful your various attractions are. Language such as "Guests can dig for gems and bring them home in a souvenir bucket" belong in your brochures and on your website, not in a neutral encyclopedia article. And detailed descriptions of your various food concessions, including hours of operation "rain or shine", plus lists of the various menu items served, is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is promotional content, pure and simple. Why should an encyclopedia report that you serve root beer floats?

A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent, reliable sources say about the topic. It should not be based on what a company or organization says about itself, except the most basic uncontroversial facts. We are looking for significant coverage of the topic. A reference to an article about a "dinosaur trail" that simply reports that your attraction is one of many on that list does not establish notability, as it is not significant coverage.

I will not comment on the shopping mall article since I have no interest in malls. But it is not a good idea to try to compare your business to Mystic Seaport or Mystic Aquarium. We judge the notability of a topic based on the coverage in reliable sources as a whole, not the sources present in the article currently. When I search the New York Times archive, I see dozens of articles over the years about the seaport and the aquarium, and none about the Nature's Art Village. Many books have been written about Mystic Seaport going back decades, and it is widely considered a world class maritime museum. Four ships at the seaport are National Historic Landmarks. Yes, both of those articles should be expanded and better referenced, but the topics are indisputably notable. Millions of articles can be improved. When I search for reliable source coverage of Nature's Art Village, my initial results are scanty. It is your job to convince uninvolved editors that Nature's Art Village is notable. You have not yet done so.

My recommendation to you is to do a radical rewrite of your draft, eliminating any trace or hint of promotionalism. Prune it way back. Include only information which is discussed in independent, reliable sources. Eliminate low quality references, and emphasize high quality references. Quality is far more important than quantity when it comes to references. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 01:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Chelsea. I would like to add something to Cullen's excellent answer. Everything about your language on this page, as well as in your draft, says to me "These people are here for the purpose of promoting their product". That purpose is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in what has already been independently published about a subject, and if nothing substantial has been published (in reliable places) then there cannot be an article. If (hypothetically) it happened that there were several reliable sources and they were all or nearly all heavily critical of your establishment, then there might well be a Wikipedia article - which would cover the criticism and little else.

My advice to you is to cross out every single thing in your draft which is not directly supported by an independent source. If when you have done that you still have some material in your draft, then you can add back in some uncontroversial factual information which is support only by non-independent sources, such as the place's own website (dates, locations, for example. Opening times should not go in as they are simply not enyclopaedic). In my opinion the individual attractions should not go in unless they are mentioned by the independent sources, though some might feel that a non-independent source is enough for them. The concessions absolutely do not belong in the article in my opinion, and they are one of the things that make it promotional, independent of the language. (If an independent review singled out one of them for special mention, then it might be appropriate to mention it in the article). --ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Chelsea / CNN519. I would add to the important information the other Teahouse volunteers shared above several also-important points.

• First, Wikipedia has a one user, one username policy. That's why you were asked about your use of "we" rather than "I" earlier. If more than one person at your organization wants to edit Wikipedia, they must each have their own username.
• If you are working on this Wikipedia article as part of your job, Wikipedia's TOS requires you to disclose that you are a paid editor. Ideally you would do this both on your own user page and on the talk page of the draft article you have created.
• I know that the AfC review process can be frustrating; one of the things I do at Wikipedia is help newer editors who have had difficulty meeting the standards required by AfC reviewers, so I see the process from your "side" (though I hope everyone is on the "side" of making Wikipedia better). Even though it may not always seem like it, all Wikipedia articles are held to the same standards. I would focus on comparing your draft to the standards, rather than to other articles. You can keep working on your draft and resubmitting it, and if your organization is legitimately notable by the Wikipedia definition and the draft is edited so that it adheres to all other Wikipedia policies, it will eventually become an article. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 18:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Invited to teahouse by a bot

If you look at my talk page, you'll see that I was invited by the user Soni, but (I think) via a bot. This has caused some questions in my mind.

If a bot invited me (on behalf of Soni), then does Soni even know I exist? How is the best way to reply to Soni? For example, do I reply to the invite on my own talk page, or go to Soni's talk page and add a comment? If on my own page, would Soni somehow be notified of my reply, and if so, would it actually go to the bot?

And finally, this comment/reply method of editing the page seems weird to me. I would think there would be a more "message board" kind of functionality with proper threads and reply box, but that isn't the case. Am I just not getting it yet, or do most people feel the same? Thanks! Worker9 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hell, Worker9, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I am an actual human host, making an individual response.

Yes the invitation was automatically delivered via a script (bot) It uses a set of criteria to find users likely to benefit by a Teahouse invite, and invites up to 100 users per day, as can be seen at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database_reports/Automated_invites page. That page says "Currently, all automated invites are signed by a Teahouse host." I think the host whose name is used is randomly selected from the list of experienced editors who have registered as Hosts. By so registering they agree to have invitations sent in their names. (Previously hosts were expected to send such invites manually, but it often didn't get done.)

This "comment/reply" format is the method used on almost all Wikipedia talk / discussion pages. It is more like an email or USENET exchange than a web "forum". There is a proposed replacement that would be more forum-like, but it has had problems handling the many features and functionalities that are sometimes needed on Wikipedia discussion pages, and I do not look to see it implemented any time soon. This method does have some advantages, in that it is the same one used to edit actual Wikipedia articles and other non-talk pages.

In any case you are here now. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works or how to accomplish some result in editing it, please do ask here. Also, feel free to read the questions posted by others and the responses. You may find some of them helpful. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi, and thanks for the response. As far as replying to the thread (like I am now) so that you know I have replied, how best do I do that? In this case, I'm trying the "reply to" template with your user name, assuming it will send you a notification of this message. Thanks again. Worker9 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Worker9. Yes, that worked. There are several templates which can be used to notify another editor of a comment on a talk page. These include {{U}}, {{ping}}, and {{reply to}}. They have slightly different formatting, but they all do basically the same thing, create a link to a user page. For the matter of that it can be done without using a template: [[User:Example]] would render as User:Example and would notify Example (if there were such a user). All of these will only work as part of a signed edit, however -- going back and adding them to an existing edit, or going back and adding a signature to an edit that contains one of these will not trigger the notification. See Wikipedia:Notifications for more detail. Also one can notify another editor by placing {{tb}} on that editor's user talk page -- this was created before notifications were implemented, but is still used.

However, in many cases one may assume that if another editor is interested s/he will put the page on his or her watchlist, or just visit the page to check it. For instance, i visit the Teahouse fairly often, and so will generally see anything that mentions me or responds to my comments even if no one triggers a notification for me. But using a notification is a good way to alert another editor. Some editors find them annoying, and ask others not to ping them, but that is not too common. I hope that is helpful. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is great info. Thank you. Worker9 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

semi related discussion on inactive hosts

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge#Inactive hosts and bot signatures. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@DES and Jayron32: Hello and Thank you very much for your help. I am a bit overwhelmed with so much information. I'll be more careful. Lumeigpo (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Misspent Youth UK Punk Band Article rejected

Hi I am completely new to writing for wikipedia and was redirected to you here. As a collector of music for many years and somebody who often uses Wikipedia to look up information on many musicians/bands etc I noticed there are some omissions so felt that with my own personal knowledge I might be able to clear up a few holes. However on writing my first article on 1976 UK Punk Band Misspent Youth I seem to be coming up against problems regarding acceptance of cited support? I have used quotes from a well recognised published book by Borderline Books, also referenced 2 major websites plus other references but not sure really what else I can use, I felt I had covered points section 1 point 7 and recordings section point 5 on artist notability and relevance fairly well. I would appreciate any help you might give me as I would like to carry on writing such articles Kind Regards Geoff Bubbles (Geoff Bubbles (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Geoff Bubbles, and welcome to the Teahouse. The primary issue here is notability. (see also WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.) This normally requires "significant coverage" in multiple independent reliable sources. So let's look at the sources currently in Draft:Misspent Youth (Band). www.punk77.co.uk seems to be a one-person hobby/fan site, and as such would not be considered a Reliable source unless the author is a known expert with a reputation for reliability on the subject. Can you indicate anything about this site's reputation or that of its author? popsike.com seems to be a search engine leading to auction results. As such I would think it constitutes "user-generated content" with no editorial control, and so again would not count as a reliable source. (Note that even if he site were considered reliable, a Wikipedia citation should never be to a search query, because the result of that can change without notice. It should always be to a specific publication or a reasonably stable web site that could be archived.) boredteenagers.co.uk. appears to be a series of album/track listings, with no commentary or analysis of any sort. It therefore does not provide "significant coverage" even if it is considered reliable for the facts it does state. That leaves only the Alex Ogg book. This looks as if it might be a reliable source. It is held by major libraries, although I know nothing about the reputation of the publisher: "Cherry Red Books". Indeed I see it is held by a library near me, and so i could in theory obtain and verify the content. However, it is at best a single source. Multiple reliable sources really are needed here, and none of the other sources cited so far qualifies. Finding and adding additional reliable sources should address this issue. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 14:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Update of Wikipedia articles on Roland Berger

Dear Wikipedia-Team,

Roland Berger has recenetly rebranded its business. Therefore, there are many deviations in the Wikipedia articles as they still contain the old firm name/ logo etc. I already proposed changes on the relevant Wikipedia pages (Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, Roland Berger and Burkhard Schwenker). I could also provide you with new sources as some of the existing ones are dead links. Could you be so kind and assist me with the implementations of the changes?

Thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards,

--Franziska Poszler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franziska Poszler (talk • contribs) 12:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Franziska Poszler, and welcome to the Teahouse. (Please always "sign" your comments here with four ~~~~ tildes.) I will review the requested edits to see whether they can be sourced and are thus appropriate for Wikipedia. If so, I will make the edits. I will probably check myself for updated URLs for links that have gone dead, but yes, if you already know working URLs to replace dead links, please list them, either here or on the appropriate article talk pages. Thank you for respecting Wikipedia's policy discouraging users with a conflict of interest from editing pages about them or their organizations directly. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello GrammarFascist, thank you very much for your assistance. I have left the updated information and links on the talk page of each side (Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (German and English), Roland Berger (German and English) and Burkhard Schwenker (German and English)). Here is the press release to Roland Berger's rebranding: http://www.rolandberger.com/press_releases/Roland_Berger_rebranded.html. On the webpage you can also find the new logo. Thank you in advance.

Kind regards, Franziska Poszler --Franziska Poszler (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Franziska Poszler. The press release you linked to about the rebranding does not mention the firm's previous name (surely an oversight, but nevertheless we cannot assume here) and so the "rebranding" is easily mistaken as referring solely to the new logo. To make the change I would need to see a source that mentioned both the old name and the new one. I hope this is clearer. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 12:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits template?

If I have come accross an editor that has been making a LOT of non-minor edits and marking them all as minor, is there like a bracketed template I can place on their user:talk to warn them against doing so in an elegant way? I don't know where I'd find something like that... Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, and welcome to the Teahouse. You could use {{subst:uw-minor}}. This and many other warning and notification templates are listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Do be careful that when you use a template, it actually says what you mean to say -- you are as responsible for the message as if you had typed it manually. But in this case I suspect that {{Uw-minor}} will do the job. Please remember to subst it, as shown above. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 13:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lost my Account

i wrote an article on an Account.... username of that account was " tariqqureshi " , when i created that account i didnt give any email address because it was written optional on it. now i forgot the password... what can i do please help me!! Ahmadabdullahmustafai (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahmadabdullahmustafai, welcome to the Teahouse. The account User:Tariqqureshi was created in 2006 but Special:Contributions/Tariqqureshi shows it has never edited. Do you mean User:Tariqqureshiadv? That account was created today and has the edits at Special:Contributions/Tariqqureshiadv. If you don't know the password then you cannot retrieve any of the accounts. You could write on the user pages that both accounts were made by you. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

how do I add vision / mission statement to a page?

Please guide me how I can add vision or mission statement on a wiki page. ThanksWillsparkles (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't. Corporate mission statements do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Yunshui <sup>雲</sup><sub>水</sub> 09:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Willsparkles, In some cases, they are included in a form such as "XYZ company states that its mission is ..." with a citation to some company publication. However this should only be done if such a statement is relativly brief and the statement is not overly promotional, and if the article is substantial enough that the mission statement will not get undue weight by its very presence. If in doubt, leave it out. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 12:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Body of Knowledge and Certification

I love the Wiki idea and community. Is there some body of knowledge or certification around this? Really engaging stuff! Well done!!Olufemi Ariyo (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Olufemi Ariyo, and welcome to the Teahouse (and Wikipedia). I dream of horses has left a bunch of links on your user page that should be of use to you in learning your way around the Wikipedia community and our policies and guidelined. Happy editing, and feel free to ask any more specific questions you may have. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My article was deleted immediately!

Hello, I am Ahmad Abdullah's secretary, He is a Well known Karachi business man. I created new account on wikipedia today, I was writing the article mean while i saw the save button, so the article was saved... soon after a minute or less..the article was canceled due to some violation. please guide me about this. Thanks Ahmadabdullahmustafai (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahmadabdullahmustafai. Do you know what the title of the article was? Knowing that would help us understand why it was deleted. There is an existing article called Ahmad Abdullah, but that appears to be about someone else. What I can say, though, is that you appear to have a clear conflict of interest here, as Ahmad Abdullah is your boss. The relevant guidelines here are set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Note that the page states, "If you have a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahmadabdullahmustafai, and welcome to the Teahouse. Ahmad Abdullah Qureshi was deleted by RHaworth, a very experienced admin, with the logged reason "A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". The total content was: "Ahmad Abdullah Qureshi (Urdu: احمد عبداللہ قریشی) is presently student of class 8.He was born in 2001 in the city Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan.". That text does not in any way indicate why this person is significant, much less notable. Are you really the secretary of a 15-year-old? Or is this perhaps your boss's son or other relation? (This is the only article that your account has saved that has been deleted.) In any case, please read our Golden Rule and Your First Article before trying to create an article in future. I advise that you use the Articel Wizard and the Articles for creation process for your first few articles at least. Also, I endorse what Cordless Larry said above, and I also ask you to note that https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use requires that anyone editing with a financial conflict of interest disclose this. {{paid}} may be used for such disclosures. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 12:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(fixed link to WP:42) —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I start a discussion about functional changes that might be made to wikipedia

I am an extremely frequent user of wikipedia and over the years I have learned to keep track of citations in order to determine which information I can trust as fact.

I believe that there is a major problem with the overuse of [citation needed]. While I have learned to notice this overtime I believe that a majority of casual users do not. I saw a discussion on this topic on the citation needed page however it was all about controlling its abuse, which is in itself a daunting task if the feature is not outright removed.

I want to suggest and discuss a format change for any information still requiring a citation. At the very least [citation needed] should be in red like with missing citations, however I believe that something more noticeable like having all un cited text in red would do a much better job at solving the problem. Thesowismine (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thesowismine. This is something that would need to be discussed at the Village Pump Proposals board - the Village Pump is Wikipedia's general discussion area for project-related topics. Major changes to functionality are generally put forward there for consideration by the editing community before being implemented. Yunshui <sup>雲</sup><sub>水</sub> 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki page flagged again for promotional content

Dear Wiki -

Somewhere around March 2015, our company's wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_and_Resources_Institute) was flagged as having promotional content. To resolve it, certain corrective changes were made to conform to Wikipedia's standards. The re-written article was approved, until recently, when the article has been flagged once again as having promotional content.

This comes as a surprise, as we have not made any recent changes on page which warranted the change of the promotional content flag suddenly.

Can Wiki please help and guide us in identifying the issue(s) which we are missing in handling the flag correctly, so that it is no longer flagged as being promotional?

It would be very helpful if you can please point out specific instances in the Wiki page which is being deemed as promotional so that necessary action can be taken from our side to resolve the same.

For your reference, this is the Wiki page being referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_and_Resources_Institute

Thanks in Advance!!

Neeshu30 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Neeshu30. The first paragraph of the article includes the words, "with a focus on formulating local- and national-level strategies for shaping global solutions to critical issues." That is vague, promotional language filled with meaningless buzzwords. That kind of language belongs in a marketing brochure, not in a neutral encyclopedia article.

Since you speak of "our company", you clearly have a conflict of interest regarding this article. Editors with a conflict of interest almost always have a very hard time editing neutrally or detecting promotional content which is quite obvious to uninvolved editors. You should not be editing the article directly, but should instead propose well-referenced changes on the article's talk page. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 06:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Neeshu30, I think you have also perhaps misunderstood how Wikipedia works when you say that "The re-written article was approved, until recently, when the article has been flagged once again as having promotional content". Edits to Wikipedia articles aren't "approved" in any real sense, they just stand until another editor comes along and changes them or, as in this case, decides to flag the content as problematic in some way. As there are millions of articles on the English Wikipedia and rather fewer active editors, it can take time for these things to be picked up on. That doesn't mean that article content is "approved" by anyone in the meantime though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks wiki for your guidance.Neeshu30 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

APOLOGY - I apologize for offending this Group's processes on Teahouse. I was advised to go to the Teahouse from the Wikimedia Support Team, and I see that I misunderstood the angle of approach and the platform for the Teahouse.

Please realize I do not understand the Wikipedia maze. We never asked to be on Wikipedia, and I do not want to contribute to Wikipedia. We were being attacked with accusations of vindictive tabloid rumors from over 25 years ago that has brought me to an attempt to learn a new language. Violence, especially committed against women are some of the worst crimes because the fallout is so devastating upon a society, and to be falsely accused is highly offensive. Consequently, I feel forced to participate in Wikipedia that makes the learning curve more difficult along with making mistakes.

I tried emails and the talk page, and only the attacker commented. I wondered why this person was so insistent with pushing inaccuracies. Then I saw his sandbox page, so I put the slides together to show a COI outlining the insistent interest in the attack on us. It could be said that I am doing the same by attacking back. I sent emails to the Wikipedia info address and finally got a response advising me to go to the Teahouse. With his above response I am hopeful he is sincere and this will become resolved.

Please accept my apology for not understanding the guidance I was given, and for offending your Teahouse processes. I am sorry. Wikiipedia-posting (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Bio on existing article of person

The article, "Ohl" with the complete name of: Russell Ohl is about an American engineer. I'm happy someone (unknown to me) created the article. It has special meaning to me because he is my grandfather and I would like to add some “Bio” to the article if this is appropriate. I've been a member for a few years however, have not taken my (valuable) time to learn all the ins and outs of Wiki editing. I read some of the rules saying you should not post about yourself so thought to ask here.Karl in Spokane (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Karl Shoemaker. Your grandfather Russell Ohl, the inventor of the silicon photovoltaic cell 75 years ago, is definitely a notable person and it would be wonderful to have a greatly expanded article about him. However, you cannot expand the article based on your unpublished personal family memories. We call that original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You must rely on summarizing what published reliable sources have written about him. Detailed newspaper obituaries may provide a good overview of his life, for example. Please read Your first article. Even though you will be expanding an existing article instead of beginning a new one, I think you will find a lot of useful advice there. And please free to return to the Teahouse at any time with more specific questions. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I cut and paste from a sandbox to an existing article?

Hi! I've rewritten an article that is under discussion for deletion that I believe addresses the issues cited. What I'd like to do is add to or replace the existing stub that doesn't have much content without rewriting everything and the citations. It doesn't appear appropriate to "move" my rewrite since the page already exists. It seems the best way is to copy the article then paste it into the one that needs help. What is the best way to do this? Thanks!PH Solution (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PH Solution and welcome to the Teahouse. If you really want to do a total replacement, and no one but you has edited the sandbox you have been using, you may copy the wiki-text of the sandbox and paste it over the wiki-text of the article, or the relevant part of that text. Since the article is under deletion discussion, you should post to that discussion explaining what you did and why. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I'm the only one who edited and I already put a message a week ago on the deletion discussion that I wanted to take a crack at a rewrite. I guess my original question is a bit more simplistic- do i just open the wiki-text on both pages and do a "right-click" cut, then paste? Or is there some more formal method?PH Solution (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, PH Solution, that will be fine. If any contributions by other editors were included, more formalites would be needed, and a WP:MOVE might well be better. But in this specific case, simple cut and paste is ok.

By the way, you have twice now blanked your own comment (and the second time the entire thread) here. Did you intend to do that? It is not usually a good idea. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Something weird is going on with my computer. I've twice had my response not show up and other times the whole text blanks. Must be poldergeists. But I appreciate your help and now know what to do.PH Solution (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Need more links template

Hello. My question is for pages that have the 'more links' template, how many links does an article need to have that template removed? Thanks. New User Person (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, New User Person, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is a judgement call. Terms which might help or inform the reader should be linked. Any editor can remove such a tag if s/he thinks in good faith that additional links would not be helpful. I have added some links and removed that tag, but added some other maintenance tags which seem appropriate in my view. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

However, don't go overboard! Link things that would help the average reader, but not those that every reader should know. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the helpful responses. New User Person (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How can I move a page created in my sandbox to a main article

Hello,

I would like feedback on the first article I have created under User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottelli and how can I move this article from my sandbox to a main article. I've seen a video with explanation and under User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottellibut it does not appear the "move" tab in the upper right of my page.

Please I need help! Thank you - Lumeigpo Lumeigpo (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lumeigpo and welcome to the Teahouse. You can't move a page until your account is autoconfirmed. This happens after your account has been used for at least 10 edits, and is more than 4 days old.

But User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottelli isn't ready for mainspace in any case. It still has significant amounts of promotional language such as "Yo Limpio a Puerto Rico programs achieve success in the island making YLPR the most call to the action and educational rganization in the Caribbean.", "capturing the attention of the whole island,", and "This organizations have the unwavering support of celebrities, including Oscar & Grammy winners, to serve as spokespeople for education campaigns, the support of several organizations, companies, leading scientific, and educational experts.". There are statements in need of citations. The draft needs copy-editing for spelling, grammar, and idiomatic English. Some of the citations need improved metadata, and duplicate citations need to be combined. See Referencing for Beginners. You shouldn't try to move this to mainspace until these issues are fixed, in my view. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 20:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @Lumeigpo: DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lumeigpo: Welcome and thanks for stopping by. The "move" function is part of a suite of tools which are throttled to prevent abuse, users need to achieve "autoconfirmed" status in order to move a page. Autoconfirmed status happens once your account is over 4 days old and you have at least 10 actions. If you'd like to help out some other Wikipedia articles for a few days until you reach that threshold, the move button will automatically appear for you once you get there. Or, if you just want someone who is autoconfirmed to move the page for you, let us know and someone can do that post haste. --Jayron32 20:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lumeigpo and Jayron32:, what Jayron32 said above is correct as far as it goes. But in this particular case, i strongly advise against moving or asking anyone to move the page into mainspace until more of the issues above are fixed. It could be moved into draftspace, say at Draft:Ignacio Barsottelli. As it stands, if moved into mainspace it might be speedy deleted as promotional. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How to protect against libel-slander attacks from competitor?

Take it somewhere else please

Help is needed I do not understand the Wikipedia maze, but I was advised to submit this question/situation to this discussion page. How do you protect against a competitor that commits libel-slander against you and then builds another page for self-advertisement for the purpose of promoting their page on Wikipedia as well as advertise for search engines? I put a picture summary report together with a small amount of historical background – please click to view summary report: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf I have identified tag teaming efforts of editor Nefariousski in latest Impact Self-Defense attack against Model Mugging. In her edit comments she is loaded with hypocritical contradictions such as COI, biographies of living persons (BLP), lack of editing balance, failure of editing in a NPOV, disregard to consensus for disputes, using an unreliable source to make libel-slanderous statements. And she is involved in a campaign to promote a competitor, Impact Self-Defense. Nefariousski-Impact tag team planned to link the Wikipedia ESD page to a derogatory Model Mugging Wikipedia page highlighting a tabloid source written with accusation heading, “controversy”. Impact also wrote a promotional page and pasted it into Nefariousski’s Sandbox where it has remained. They are also getting around Wikipedia rules against self-promotion and using Wikipedia for increasing search engine ranking by keeping their page in the sandbox status - FIRST PAGE on search results for "Empowerment Self-Defense". PLEASE CLICK the pdf link as evidence to view images in summary report of her COI campaign promoting Impact Self-Defense - again: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf Is this "nefarious" behavior? Should she be blocked and all her edits scrutinized? Does Wikipedia see a problem with hypocritical editor(s) attacking others for self-promotion of themselves or associates? Thank you for your assistance: (Wikiipedia-posting (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @Wikiipedia-posting: Hello there and welcome to the teahouse! One of the first things you do is stop tossing around claims of slander. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC) I think, instead of bringing these accusations to this forum, which is the wrong forum, you might be better advised to ask us here what the appropriate forum is. Please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG when raising matters of this nature. Fiddle Faddle 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Yikes. Sorry you're so upset, hopefully this will clear things up. 1. I'm not a "her". 2. I'm not affiliated with nor do I work for any self defense group. I'm just a regular ol Wikipedian who works in the Tech sector that has an interest in various topics. 3. I've been editing in good faith as the talk page will show, nothing I've added or changed on the page is unsourced, hyperbolic, or in violation of anything. If you or anyone else disagrees I'd be more than happy to discuss that on the talk page. 4. You not agreeing with something that is properly sourced doesn't make it NPOV. Your personal opinion of the events or the subject of the interview doesn't counter published and generally accepted sources, I'm sorry but that's just now how an encyclopedia operates. You can't just arbitrarily delete things you don't like because you don't agree with them. 5. My sandbox is exactly that. It's a place I go to put together potential articles that may or may not ever go anywhere. I think you give me way too much credit if you think a draft of something in my sandbox is actually somehow manipulating SEO against your company. 6. Although It's certainly challenging to have NPOV discussions with someone who's admittedly working for the company/group the page is about I've always been open and frequently used the talk page to detail / explain any editing and I'm more than happy to take the discussion to your talk page since this not the right venue Nefariousski (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hi, so I just joined Wikipedia yesterday, and I tried to add a few things to some pages with sources, but people kept deleting them saying they were't "reliable sources." What exactly is a reliable source? Smoore95GAGA (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Smoore95GAGA and welcome to The Teahouse. A reliable source is a respected journal or newspaper or a book by a respected publisher. It has a reputation for editorial oversight, accuracy and fact-checking its information. You would not want to use The National Enquirer. A blog, in general, is not considered reliable. Many web sites would not be considered reliable. This incldes Wikipedia. And you would want the source to be independent of its subject. No press releases, no interviews, no company web sites for anything but non-controversial information. And at this stage you want extensive coverage of the article subject, not trivial mentions. See more at WP:RS.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: if you use the more selective books.google.com or news.google.com that tends to bring a pretty high ratio of usable sources to non usable sources. There will still be non acceptable sources from both (blogs, and Wikipedia scrapings passed off as "books" for example) and you will miss a bunch of potentially reliable source coverage (such as major magazines) but they are good places to start than just a plain google search. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of MicroAssist

Hi, I've created a article for MicroAssist. Unfortunately, the article didn't get approval. I used neutral wording and and cited from different sources including news. I've visited other companies' pages to see what they have and been accepted and revised mine several times. But still the content is marked as advertising. I don't know what I can do to edit the the content. Could you please help me with my content and give me more specific guideline on creating a wiki page for company?

Thanks. Jessicahuma (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessicahuma hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Draft:MicroAssist needs a lot of work. What we really want is to know not what the company says about themselves, but what others not connected with the company say about them. The history is a list, but it would be better as a story.

Some of your references could be better. At this stage, you don't want press releases. And there is not a reference for every fact. At the very least each paragraph of each line in the list would have one reference. There is also some promotional-sounding language such as "actively participating" and "engages".

You want to provide more details than just a list of the company's activities. And of course those should come from someplace other than the company's web site. Right now that's what the first part of the article looks like.

If there is well-sourced negative information about the company you should include that too.

The article is not being deleted, but it just can't appear in mainspace, as we call it, until these issues are fixed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:FEI2015/Ingmar de vos

Hello, For the second time, the above draft was rejected. I must admit to be quite lost as I do not know what to do to improve the page. I have added outside sources to prove who Ingmar De Vos is but this doesn't seem to be sufficient.

Also, one of the comment I have is that the sources (do you means References) should not include wiki references .... How can I move them under a "See Also" section as recommended.

I really need help to get through this issue. Thanks in advance, Nicole FEI2015 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

To create a "Seel also" section enter

==See also==

on a blank line and then populate it with the things that ought to be in there

Those things where you have wikilinked already and have redundant faux citations to Wikipedia: I have handled some f those for you. You can follow my example and do the rest. Fiddle Faddle 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @FEI2015: What you need to do is establish that reliable sources ( not Wikipedia or blogs) that are independent of/no ties to the subject (ie not FEI), have found the subject someone that they wanted to cover in a significant manner.. This would be things like major newspapers, or magazines or books from traditional publishing houses. If those sources do not exist, then we cannot write an encyclopedia article about the subject that follows our content policies of verifiable claims and not creating analysis or commentary ourselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Fiddle and TRPoD,

thanks for your comments. @Fiddle: can you tell me which changes you did please. @TRPoD: we have added links from external and independent from the FEI, although some are from Horse Magazines (but they do not belong to the FEI). Nicole FEI2015 (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Timtrent and TheRedPenOfDoom, I am pinging you because FEI2015 needs more information. And she posted to the wrong section. I hope it's okay that I corrected this for you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Afd nomination

Hi, can a withdrawal of Afd nomination be done under this - "the author states that he/she wants to work more on the article and need more than a week" ? For details, visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resources Development Administration (RDA). What is a go ahead in this case ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

One may withdraw for any sensible reason. My view is that this probably ought not to include the author's wishing to do more work. Under those circumstances I have noted that in the past and asked simply that the discussion be extended for a further period to allow work to complete. I have then left this in the hands of whoever might close the discussion at the due time. Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that one may not withdraw once someone has supported it. In reality people do withdraw. Articles can improve or the nominator may have mind change. So we need to be pragmatic, which is what WP:IAR is about. Fiddle Faddle 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi since there is not much scope for the subject to have a stand alone article in main space as basic research done by me and one more editor strongly supporting the Afd. So, I will left it to the closing administrator. And I was not aware of this rule - WP:IAR Thank you for letting me know. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Help on deleted article

I have contributed an article Anupam (Politician) with various links as evidence but now it showing, article has been deleted. Kindly guide, what should I do? Shreeneth (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shreeneth. The article was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anupam (Politician), because it did not appear that the subject met Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. You have two options here. Firstly, you can try recreating the article as a draft, addressing this issues raised at the deletion discussion. If your new version shows that the topic is suitable for Wikipedia, you should be able to move it into mainspace, but be aware that if the problems are not fixed, it will just be deleted again. Your other option is to challenge the outcome of the discussion at Deletion Review, although the close appears to have been correct and I doubt that it would be overturned there. Yunshui <sup>雲</sup><sub>水</sub> 07:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How to edit a page?

Hi guys, I'm new here. Why when I edit the category and there always somebody delete it? Can you guys teach and guide me how to create a right and correct page? Thanks Luda88 (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luda88, stay well away from categories until you have a good understanding of how the system works, particularly in biographies where they can be a very thorny issue even for veteran editors. Rather edit article text; fix typos, improve grammar, etc. and engage in talk page discussions until you're more familiar with the Wikipedia environment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Luda88, part of the problem seems to be that you are categorising people by ethnicity, without providing a source for that ethnicity classification. I'd suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which states "the inclusion of people in an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability related category, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy and lists of words

Hello,

I am considering creating an article similar to List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom, except that it would have to do with French words used in France but uncommon in Quebec. I would like to have help understanding how the policies Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_words would apply to such an article.

I would much prefer to have the list on Wikipedia than on Wiktionary, because my intention is for every single entry to be reliably sourced (as not being common in Quebec), and I understand Wiktionary doesn't insist on sourcing its information that way. So there would be the risk of a reliable list eventually becoming unreliable.

I am confused as to why List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom is not much longer than it is. I am certain that such a list could be extended to many thousands of words, all reliably sourced to dictionaries. Is this because nobody has bothered to do it, or is it because making such a long list would possibly contravene Wikipedia policies or guidelines? I would like to know this before embarking on a major project.

Thanks. Ivujivik (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ivujivik. When I look at List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom, I see it as a pretty long article while you see it as a fairly short article. Perceptions can vary. If you want to expand it, please feel free to do so. But if it had thousands of entries, it would be unwieldy and overly long. If expanded that much, it should be broken into sub articles.

As for your idea for an article about words common in France but not in Quebec, it seems to me that such an article would be appropriate for the French Wikipedia. Articles here on the English Wikipedia should be written in English, not French. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 06:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with this line of reasoning. IF it is established that the comparison of vocabulary lists of one dialect to another dialect is encyclopedic and notable (big if), then it wouldn't matter if the dialects are English or French or Swahili, as long as the third parties are making the comparisons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you can only add what you can source. If there are no reliable sources that discuss a particular word difference it cannot be included in the article, doing so would be original research. While we do have articles about various languages here I agree with User:Cullen328 that a French word list as such would not be appropriate here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The example article is not even supposed to be here as an attractive nuisance , guiding people in the wrong direction: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom. No one ever got around to transwiki it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Dodger67, Thanks for your replies. The list could always be broken into sub-articles by alphabetical order. The individual entries would mostly be sourced to dictionaries, so I really think original research would not be a consideration. The article would be written in English, but the topic would be the French language. The only mention of language in Wikipedia:Notability is that to establish the notability of a subject, the language of the sources is immaterial.

In these circumstances, do you still feel that such a list would not be appropriate on the English Wikipedia? What I would like is to understand in a detailed way how Wikipedia policies and guidelines might apply to the article.

TheRedPenOfDoom mentions that the article I mentioned was supposed to be transwikied. It seems that that decision in 2009 came after a string of Keep decisions on a family of related articles here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of American and British words What is the status of the other articles in the group? Ivujivik (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There are (almost) four such articles, three of which have multiple issues and the fourth one is a section of another one.Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Xx236 I meant status with respect to deletion. In principle, it should be possible to verify entries in the lists using dictionaries. Ivujivik (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

mere existence is not sufficient rationale for an article, the topic must have been covered by reliable sources and not merely be generated by Wikipedians cross referencing dictionaries. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenofDoom The topic of lexical differences between French French and Quebec French is obviously of interest to scholars and has been written about extensively. The question is how this requirement applies to lists specifically. For example, the list of all episodes of some TV show is not a normal "topic" that must have been written about - it is the TV show itself that must be notable.

The policy on original research doesn't say anything about "cross-referencing dictionaries", however I saw that in an edit summary you mentioned this might be "Synthesis". But please have a look at Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition. No new thesis would emerge from gathering the information together. Ivujivik (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that a list is the most appropriate presentation rather than prose? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think on the one hand for readers' ease of reference, and on the other because it would be an almost impossibly difficult task to work a comprehensive list of words into well-sourced prose. Imagine if you asked that question about, say, List of municipalities in Ontario.Ivujivik (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Marking page as Patrolled or not when using WP:PROD

Hi, when using WP:PROD (with Twinkle) on any unpatrolled article. The article doesn't automatically gets patrolled. So, should an editor "mark it as patrolled" manually or leave it. What is the standard procedure in these cases ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Peppy Paneer: My logic suggests that Twinkle could/should also mark this as patrolled. This is a question best asked on the Twinkle talk page, so please raise it there. With regard to manual marking, I think the answer is that you ought to mark it patrolled (whether using Twinkle or manually), but that it is of no earth shattering importance either way, Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Hi, Thank you for answer. I will put the question there. And when tagging page with CSD using Twinkle, the article gets automatically patrolled but not in the case of PROD. I too second your logic. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I did not receive a fair and evenhanded appraisal from some of the editors involved on Wikipedia.

I have been referred here by other editors on Wikipedia.

A page about me has twice been opposed and defeated. I believe that I did not receive a fair and evenhanded appraisal from some of the editors involved on Wikipedia because of religious bias. Where can I appeal? Here or elsewhere?

Here's the Wikipedia back files or pages. I have continued to publish and receive an extensive worldwide recognition of my writing but am still not in Wikipedia perhaps because of this opposition:

At the time the “Frederick Glaysher” article on Wikipedia was under debate in 2008, Wjhonson observed,

"Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_4#Frederick_Glaysher

"The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson 4 April 2008" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frederick_Glaysher

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please advise.

My newly created account is fglaysher

Fglaysher (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have advised Fglaysher to come here to ask this question. I have looked at Frederick Glaysher and seen such of the history as I am able as a non admin and can see a deletion review. It seems to me that it is possible for this editor to use the WP:AFC process in order to create a neutral article, even as an autobiography. He needs to be aware of the process, and that reviewers will give him reviews based upon what they see in the draft article as both text and referencing. If the gentleman passes WP:BIO, despite the WP:COI of being the gentleman he may write about, he will eventually have an article here. It must however, be 100% WP:NPOV and must be very well referenced indeed.

I invite further opinions on the matter, please. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fglaysher: As a frame of reference, Fglaysher, you were never appraised on Wikipedia- the article about you and the potential for creating a suitable article about you were appraised. And they were appraised in a fair manner: the process by which all articles are assessed, the AfD process. And the results of the process, as determined by a number of well established editors who are still all in good standing as far as I can see, was that there was not evidence that an article about you could be created that meets the standards for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the appraisal was 7 years ago, the status of coverage about Glaysher may certainly have changed, but a quick google books search finds him listed as editor a lot, but nothing in the first three pages of results about him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the challenges is that subjects of biographies often stand too close to the subject matter to be able to make an unbiased judgement on their notability in a Wikipedia sense. Such notability is determined by references. 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, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL may bear some fruit here. Time has moved on since the prior deletions and notability may have been achieved. I have not followed up the searches to check.

I should declare that I have no knowledge of the faith Mr Glaysher writes about, nor any interest in it. I care solely about article quality. Fiddle Faddle 17:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fglaysher: Welcome and thank you for bringing your concerns here. A few general statements on the issue, before getting into the details. 1) The discussion above was from 2008. That's quite a long time ago, and things change a lot in those years. I would pay a seven-year-old discussion very little mind except where it makes cogent points regarding Wikipedia policy (more on this later), and anywhere that statements it makes have changed in seven years, by logic, do not apply. 2) If, perchance, Wikipedia does need an article about you, neither you, nor anyone you know, work for, employ, hire, or pay should ever create or edit it. This is because Wikipedia has fairly stringent conflict-of-interest policies (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information). Now that doesn't mean that an article about you cannot be created (pending other conditions, see below), nor does it mean you cannot help people at Wikipedia in certain ways, but we do ask people who are under a conflict of interest to refrain from directly writing about themselves or those they are paid to work for, but instead act as a resource by providing reliable sources of information (again, see below).

Now, some of the more details. Wikipedia does not publish information on everything which has ever existed. Wikipedia articles must only be about subjects for which there is ample 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) thorough source material in existence. That is, before a Wikipedia article can exist, there must have first been other writing about a topic. That writing must meet three basic criteria 1) it must be written in reliable sources. Reliable sources are ones with a reputation for fact checking, and solid editorial control, things like respected magazines and newspapers, books published by respected academic presses, peer-reviewed scholarly journals, etc. 2) It must be based on independent sources, that is the writing must be written by and published by people who themselves have no connection to the subject. For a person, such as yourself, this would mean interviews in a newspaper, in-depth biographies in book form, magazine articles about you and your work or personal life, etc, where the publisher was not hired by you or your employers to do that writing. Sources such as CVs, resumes, press releases, company bios published on employer websites, self-created or self-published works, etc. are generally unacceptable for this purpose. 3) It must be in depth enough to be able to write a reasonable-length encyclopedia article. For example, a magazine article which mentions a person's name in passing, but does not directly write about that person's life or work in detail is not considered an in-depth source. You can read Wikipedia:Notability for a lengthy, in-depth discussion of these policies or Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for a more pithy overview.

Why does Wikipedia have all of these standards and requirements? That's because of Wikipedia's core mission: Wikipedia is built upon the reliability of the information that is published in it. So our articles are only as good as the source material used to research and write those articles. If we don't have good, in-depth, reliable, and independent source material as our research base to back up what is written in our articles, Wikipedia loses it's standing as a trustworthy source. So, if a subject does NOT have, already in existence, right now, solid, reliable source material (good writing our there in the world outside of Wikipedia), then Wikipedia should not have an article about that subject, whatever it is, be it a concept, place, person, thing, product, historical event, etc. Good raw material in the form of good, reliable writing is what is needed before we create a Wikipedia article.

Here's where you can come in to help. If Wikipedia is going to have an article about you, and if someone who ISN'T you, your employees, your employer, or someone you hire to do so, then that person, who doesn't really know you, is going to need that source material to work from. You can help that writer by gathering as many reliable, independent, and in-depth sources as you can find, and go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and file a request that the article be made about you, where you lay out all of the good, quality writing about you that the person who is eventually going to create your article is going to use to write about you and your life. Now, with all this being said, there exists the possibility that the source material doesn't exist. That is, there is not enough reliable, independent biographical information written about you. THAT was the reason why the article was deleted 7 years ago; as I stated things can change a lot in 7 years. If things HAVE changed, then you can provide links to those biographical writings to Wikipedia:Requested articles as I noted above. If the situation has not changed, and there is still not enough source material about your life, then I'm sorry, but Wikipedia still will not have an article about you. I hope this lengthy explanation helped explain the situation in some detail, and if there is anything else we can clarify for you, please feel free to ask. --Jayron32 17:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure whether I'm supposed to post here or not, but here are some sources that might be independently verified. There are others but computer is running out of time. Admittedly, I'm biased:

Frederick Glaysher | W. W. Norton & Company W. W. Norton & Company Frederick Glaysher studied writing under a private tutorial with Robert Hayden at the University of Michigan, http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Author.aspx?id=4294967812

“My Odyssey as an Epic Poet: Interview with Frederick Glaysher.” Poets’ Quarterly / Spring 2015 (April 6, 2015), http://www.poetsquarterly.com/2015/04/my-odyssey-as-epic-poet-interview-with.html

Book review by Umme Salma in Transnational Literature, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2328/35084/Salma_Parliament.pdf

Frederick Glaysher’s “The Parliament of Poets” http://www.albanypoets.com/2013/02/frederick-glayshers-the-parliament-of-poets/

The Parliament of Poets by Frederick Glaysher (I believe it's in the UK) http://spirituality.today/categories/myth-story-telling/the-parliament-of-poets-by-frederick-glaysher

The Myth of the Enlightenment by Frederick Glaysher (UK) http://spirituality.today/categories/faith-belief/the-myth-of-the-enlightenment-by-frederick-glaysher

Modern epic poem reaches for the moon (Canada) http://landmarkreport.com/dgordon/2014/12/modern-epic-poem-reaches-for-the-moon

The Parliament of Poets by Frederick Glaysher (Africa) http://freduagyeman.blogspot.com/2013/10/41-parliament-of-poets-by-frederick.html

Perseus (Sweden) http://www.odyssey.pm/?p=1771

Fglaysher (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good start. I do not have the time to review all of these myself right now, and assess each one, but this sort of thing, where you help by pointing writers in the correct direction by providing sources, is excellent. If you have any more time in the future to provide more, please do so! --Jayron32 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed a couple. One thing to be sure about is that writings by Glaysher are unlikely to be appropriate as references, but writings about him are much more promising. Let me try to explain. If he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for him, simply because it is the product he makes. So it is with writings, poetry etc. However, a review of his work by others tends to be a review of him and his methods, so is a reference.

Regrettably at least one or two seem to be by him, but it's a great start. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fglaysher, and welcome to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia). As explained above, our notability standard means that multiple in-depth treatments of your life and accomplishments must have been published by third parties; while I believe enough of the review of you at www.examiner.com/article/frederick-glaysher-s-the-parliament-of-poets-a-modern-day-epic-poem seems to be about you, the author, to count toward establishing your notability, I did not find any other biographical articles written about you by reliable, third-party sources in an initial Google search. I will review the sources you linked to above for suitability. It is possible that other eligible sources exist offline, for example in books published by authors not affiliated with you. Please keep in mind that while interviews with you can be used to establish facts cited in the potential Frederick Glayser Wikipedia article, interviews do not count toward establishing notability. Material about you put out by a publisher of your work is considered promotional, and also does not count toward notability.

As the subject of the proposed article, you would be discouraged but not forbidden from contributing to the article about you. It so happens that I make it one of my hobbies at Wikipedia to help people in situations like yours, by involving myself, an editor without a conflict of interest, in the creation of the article in question. If sufficient sources do exist (and enough of them are accessible to me online or via my library), then I would be happy to work with you on this at Draft:Frederick Glaysher, and the draft article could then be submitted to another uninvolved editor for review and promotion to article status.

Please keep in mind, however, that at Wikipedia one of our principles is to assume good faith about other editors, and not for example accuse them of being part of a vast conspiracy. Meaning no offense to your beliefs, most Wikipedia editors have never even heard of the Baha'i faith, much less taken sides in its internal disagreements. I will disclose that I have one friend who is a Baha'i, though we lost touch after she moved out of state some years ago. It appears that the decisions to delete former versions of the Frederick Glaysher Wikipedia article were based on the same standards every other Wikipedia article is held to, not bias. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the fix it direction the discussion is taking. I went ahead and started the the draft. You're welcome over there, Frederick, as well as any and all other editors willing and able to work on the draft. It may grow to an acceptable article or fail but deserves a go. See you over in the draft's talk page. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Doctree, for creating a draft, and others. I've posted to it, hoping appropriately. Since I updated the sources above, should I copy them there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fglaysher (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added several sources, along with some content based on them. Note that only one or possibly two of the sources I added would count toward establishing the notability of Frederick Glayser; one of those sources was published by Examiner.com, which domain is currently blacklisted on Wikipedia. I have not yet researched the reason for the blacklisting; it is possible that the exact page on which the in-depth article appears could be whitelisted, but I have not yet made a whitelist request for it. The other source I found that might go towards notability focuses entirely on one of Glayser's works rather than the author himself, which some editors may consider to contribute insufficiently to notability. All the other sources I added are brief mentions, which are useful for establishing facts, but cannot prove notability. Hopefully this will give you something to go on, Fglaysher. I also recommend looking at other authors' articles for ideas about what kind of information should be included, how it should be presented, and where it should be referenced with citations. Good luck, and don't hesitate to ask if you need more help. —GrammarFascist <sub>contribs</sub><sup>talk</sup> 17:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, Examiner.com is noted for not excersizing any meaningful editorial control over the various publications that it hosts, for doing no fact checking, and for paying contributors on a formula which encourages them to write many posts/articles, while spending little time or effort on checking them. Also, it frequently includes slightly modified versions of stories from elsewhere, which has been considered plagiarism in the past. Requests to white-list particular articles from that site are most often declined, unless it can be shown that the author of the particular story is a noted expert on the topic, such that a personal blog post by that person would be considered reliable. Mostly it isn't worth bothering with as a source for articles here. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate tag for bio photo

Greetings~ I would like to upload a portrait photo of a subject whose bio page I was hired to write (my first wikipedia entry). My client is the owner of the photograph and the son of the subject. I definitely have permission to use the image however I'm unclear on which tag is the appropriate one to use as none of those listed seem applicable. The photo was probably taken in the 1960's. There is a credit stamped on the back of the print, so I searched the name of the photo studio and found nothing. It's highly likely that the photographer is gone from this life. I'd be most appreciative of advice on how to proceed. Thank you!Biowriterinpa (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Biowriterinpa, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the photograph was taken in or after 1964, it is probably still in copyright, particularly if it was never published. This is true even if the photographer has died. (If the photo was published without a copyright notice before the 1978 effective date of the US 1976 copyright act, it might be in the public domain.) It is in fact unlikely that the son of the subject owns the copyright of the photo, for this to be true he would need to have a written agreement with the original photographer specifying that the photo was a "work made for hire" or transferring the copyright to the subject (or possibly the son). This is unusual for ordinary personal portrait photos, but is often done if the photo was intended for professional use, for example to form part of an actor's portfolio. (I have a photo with such a contract, it was taken for publicity purposes for use in a political campaign.) In the absence of such a contract, permission would need to be obtained from the heir of the photographer, whoever that might be. This is a frustrating situation which the US Congress has declined to deal with althoguh it has been presented to them on several occasions. See http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ for some additional details.

Also, if you have been hired to create a Wikipedia article, you must disclose this in accord with our terms of use. Using {{paid}} is one way to so disclose. Please read our conflict of interest guideline. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 16:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate tag for bio photo_follow up

Thanks very much for your response, DES. The photo in question was surely published somewhere as that would be the primary reason portraits of the subject were taken. Finding the heir to the photographer would be a time consuming and likely unfruitful quest, so I will have to forego using the image. Regarding my compensation for improving the content and accuracy of the bio for the subject of the page, I have opened up an ethical can of worms without knowing it. To follow the proper procedure you explained in answer to my initial question, I've disclosed the source of compensation in the edit box, and now there are 2 unsightly warnings on the page, the first of which was already there when I began working on the page. How is a page evaluated to determine if it qualifies as being neutral? Also, I'm unclear on how or where {{paid}} would be placed to identify the page as such. Thank you again for your time. Biowriterinpa (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Biowriterinpa. As it says on https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

{{paid}} is designed for use on the user page. Its documentation says "For article talk pages, use {{Connected contributor (paid)}}." It also gives examples of how to use {{paid}}.

Yes it is possible for an experienced editor with no COI to review the article and remove the COI tag (notice) if s/he believes that the article does not violate WP:NPOV. This should probably not be done until you are done editing the article directly, and the citations are in a much better shape. The tag about needing additional citations can be removed as soon as there are in fact sufficient citations. Any editor may do this in good faith, but you would be well advised to ask some experienced editor to review and give an opinion about whether there are enough citations before removing it yourself. I hope that helps. DES <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thomas B. McCabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - just so we all know which article is being discussed...--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lost my User page

I started a new article and cannot retrieve it. How do I get it back on the screen. It was created from within my account

Guy Duczynski (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hullo, is anyone there??? Guy Duczynski (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski - It helps if you tell us what the article was - if it was User:Guy Duczynski/Systemic operational design - that is still there - if not, what was it? - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Guy Duczynski, welcome to the Teahouse. Click "Contributions" at the top right to see your saved edits. Special:Contributions/Guy Duczynski shows User:Guy Duczynski/Systemic operational design. Is that it? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Found it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a plain language version of 'what you type' alongside 'what you get'. Learning the language is torture and I find myself creating all sorts of bizarre text with probably inappropriate results - links and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski - I'd start with Help:Cheatsheet - there are links to explanations of more complicated formatting at the bottom of that page. Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski I am not a Teahouse host, but I did notice that in the External Links section of the article there is mention of a Duczynski, G. If that is you, it might be worth your while reading WP:COI to prevent wasted effort. A Teahouse host could explain better why. SovalValtos (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

CSD and PROD logs

How does one go about creating their own CSD and PROD logs? Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Hey Rubbish-- these CSD and PROD logs are generated by Twinkle. First, Twinkle needs to be enabled under the gadgets tab under your preference. Then, under your preferences with Twinkle, check the boxes for the CSD and PROD logs under this CSD section and this PROD section. Getting past nominations in there is possible, but takes a bit of manual work. Let me know if you're interested and I can show you how I did it. Take care, I, JethroBT <sup>drop me a line</sup> 17:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@JethroBT: Thanks, could you show me please? Cheers, --Rubbish computer 17:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Well, it's not working for me at the moment, but I used Snotty Wong's edit summary tool several years back to find instances where I used CSD / PROD using Twinkle, which produced standard edit summaries (e.g. Proposing article for deletion or Requesting speedy deletion). So you'd want to use this tool search through your contribution history for those instances. Try it out and see if it works. I, JethroBT <sup>drop me a line</sup> 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Thanks, but can you get logs that are filled in automatically when you CSD or PROD a page? --Rubbish computer 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Yes, the logs will start to populate with subsequent CSD / PRODs you make, but past ones you've done have to be filled in manually. I, JethroBT <sup>drop me a line</sup> 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)