Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, 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

In the lemma 'Lehmer-Schur algorithm' the reference 'Wilf(1978)' the doi-number is given. This number brings one to the site of the publisher where only limited acces to the article is possible. I found a link 'https://www.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/website/Global%20bisection.pdf' that gives the full text. My question: should such a link also be mentioned in the reference? Windeman (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

dIn the lemma 'Lehmer-Schur algorithm' the reference 'Wilf(1978)' the doi-number is given. This number brings one to the site of the publisher where only limited acces to the article is possible. I found a link 'https://www.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/website/Global%20bisection.pdf' that gives the full text. My question: should such a link also be mentioned in the reference? Windeman (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Image display problems

Hi. The article Hyperloop pod competition is scheduled to go live on the Wikipedia Main Page in about 5 hours. I could use some help in getting the main image on that page to display just a bit larger than a "thumb".

Unfortunately, every time I try 250px or 325px instead, it displays larger, but it loses the image caption. There is discussion about this on the article Talk page.

If anyone would care to help, please do. I won't be able to be back on Wikipedia unitl after the did you know period starts for this article in 5 hours. Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Maproom (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

First draft of Wikipedia entry rejected; respectfully seeking help to get it published

yes, it was disappointing to have my article rejected (Clocktower Books). I am also working on a related article (Far Sector SFFH) about the well-known magazine we published for a decade (1998-2007). this stuff should have been on Wikipedia from the beginning because we published some of the first true e-books in history. This can be confusing because many people immediately cite Michael Hart, 1972, and shut down. I knew Michael Hart, and he's a different story (Gutenberg).

Brian Callahan and I launched Clocktower Books (originally Clocktower Fiction) in 1996 and published the first true online e-books. Criteria (utterly different from Hart & Gutenberg): (1) not public domain, but proprietary - all rights owned by author; (2) published online for reading online in HTML, never done before in this context with these criteria; (3) entire novel, not sample chapters; (4) no portable media (CD-ROM, floppies, etc) - we were 100% online; (5) standard industrial length, often over 90,000 words...

Our citations include the SF Encyclopedia (Mike Ashley); Karen Wiesner's Electronic Publishing History; Writer's Market 1999; Wayback Machine; and many others.

The reason I have to cite the Clocktower Books museum pages is because some of the records dating to 1996 are ephemeral. For example, I found a piece of a web page from a site no longer doing this type of web publishing, tracing one of our mid-1996 websites that evolved into Clocktower Books.

I had a personal letter from Ray Bradbury, praising my novel (published by us at CTB) The Christmas Clock.

On and on...so yes, we weren't talked about much because we were suppressed by the print people in the 1990s. Library of Congress in 1999 refused to grant copyright registration on one of my novels (which they did by 2003) because "we don't know if those are real books but you can register it as an unpublished manuscript..." this in reference to a book available by then already world wide in POD and ebook (Rocket eBook, Nuvomedia) formats.

Bottom line, I believe we probably published the first true e-books on line, according to the criteria outlined above. Karen Wiesner, a well-known author, discussed us at length in her book (I forgot to add the full statement from page 161 of her book).

So while I am a trained researcher and understand the need for rigor, the flip side of the coin is that we may let history sift away through our fingers based on the notion that if the blind did not see it in 1996 and write oodles of hype, it must not have happened. It's a 50/50 and I hope someone there can help me get the important information to the table.

Again, citing our Museum pages is not circular or trivial--I have posted some incredibly valuable snippets of the past, gleaned from important sources *with references/cites/etc* and a glance through those will tell you it is not just a self-reference but a true museum of fragments from the past. Includes articles at the SF Site (which I helped the originator design, that's how far back I go), plus Locus Online (we published Tim Pratt and had his support in many ways) etc etc. More recently, Mike Ashley of the SF Encyclopedia has published info about us on the SF Encyclopedia. So in the net effect, that cannot be trivial. I think alone the reference in the SF Encyclopedia should justify both Wikipedia pages I am trying to create: Clocktower Books, our publishing house since 1996, and Far Sector SFFH, our acclaimed magazine (ran 10 years, published lots of top SF writers including Ted Kosmatka, Kameron Hurley, Pat York, Tim Pratt, Dr. Andrew Burt, and many others).

thanks for your interest. I believe we must get this info out there. Cheers/Jean-Thomas "John" Cullen Jean T. Cullen (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jean T. Cullen. By coincidence, I also have "Cullen" as part of my username, but we are unconnected.

You write articulately and with great enthusiasm and passion. However, much of what you write indicates that you may misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose, and its policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything on Earth that someone considers interesting and useful. Instead, Wikipedia is a reference work, more specifically an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize what published, reliable, independent, secondary sources have written about a topic. What I say next is very important: Wikipedia does not publish original research which is analysis of a topic which has not previously been published in a reliable independent source with professional editorial control. Much of what you propose to add to Wikipedia is either original research or based on sources which are not independent, because they are controlled by you or closely affiliated with you.

No experienced Wikipedia editor would argue that an event of 1996 that was not described in independent reliable sources "must not have happened". The issue is not whether the event happened, but whether it meets the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wonderful things happened in my life that year, and a few bad things, that have no place at all in an encyclopedia.

What you ought to do, in my opinion, is to write a thorough, well referenced history of your publishing venture, and submit it for publication in a reliable magazine with professional editorial control, something like a hypothetical Journal of Publishing History if something like that exists. When published, such an article would be good source here on Wikipedia.

We simply cannot cite your online museum as a source, because it is not independent. You control it. Perhaps individual published items from that collection might qualify as reliable sources, on a case by case basis. The SF Encyclopedia may be a reliable source depending on its publisher. An unpublished letter by Ray Bradbury is not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. I have an unpublished letter in my files from Isaac Asimov praising some of my activist work 35 years ago. It has no value on Wikipedia. The fact that you published notable writers does not make your venture notable unless someone independent of you published a description of your venture pointing out that your business was important because it published those writers. The book by Karen Wiesner may be useful unless it is self published.

In conclusion, when you write that "I believe we must get this info out there", please be aware that there are millions of websites and tens of thousands of publications you can use to achieve that goal. In order to do so on Wikipedia, you must comply 100% with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Should I message someone who add a template to my article before removing it?

I wrote a stub article with the purpose of requesting a translation. From reading the guidelines for translation requests, I didn't think that adding a reference was necessary, yet the article was tagged as unreferenced. I've gone ahead and added my reference, so I'd like to remove the unreferenced template. There are really two questions here: 1) should I message whoever left the template before removing it, and 2) does deleting the template from the source remove it from the hidden categories it was added to (due to its being unreferenced)? Hiramicus (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hiramicus. (1) If you added the needed references, you may go ahead and remove the tag. (2) Removing the tag will also remove it from the hidden categories it was added to due to the tag. RudolfRed (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hiramicus. I expanded your article Alsós a little bit, added another reference, categorized it and removed tags that no longer apply. In the future, feel free to remove tags yourself when they no longer apply. There is no reason to discuss this with the editor who placed the tag, unless they object. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

should someone make a page for Curtis Clark Green?

Curtis Green was Ross Ulbrichts administrator that he put a hit out on. Id do it, but dont know how wiki works. there are tons of web articles for referencePokergooch12 (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pokergooch12. We do not normally have articles about people known only for one event. Perhaps he can be mentioned in Ross Ulbricht. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Re-submission Dennis Harp

On several occasions I have submitted a bio on Dennis Harp. The first couple of times I was rejected because of not enough reliable resources. I submitted four resources and can submit more. Next, I was informed it was rejected because of "notability" issues. I am curious why a Division I basketball coach who when he was appointed was one of the youngest head coaches in the country and who is the all-time winningest coach at the university is not notable. I tried to keep submission to a minimum of words. I can add that this coach remained at the university when it went from Division I to NAIA. He assisted in all but one of his scholarship players landing at other universities, including UCLA, where they could continue their careers. Please let me know what I can do get this successful former Division I men's basketball coach into Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention.Marcdav10 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of a role it played in the decision to decline the draft, Marcdav10, but the referencing of Draft:Dennis Harp is rather unclear. First, you need to give more details about each source (such as an article title, not just the name of the newspaper). Second, it is not clear which parts of the article are supported by which source(s). To remedy this, you need to use inline citations rather than just citing all of the sources at the end of the article. See Help:Referencing for beginners for help with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Marcdav10. I added a ref that actually is online and Wikified the article. I believe this person reaches "automatic" notability under WP:NCOLLATH. That being said, the article does need a bunch of work, including the suggestion above to make the citations inline. John from Idegon (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing sources because AN editor can't access them

I wrote a draft article that was rejected because supposedly I left a personal note in it. I did not.

It was then rejected because the sources did not have page numbers. While ideal, it's not mandatory.

It was then moved to mainspace, with the information that had been sourced to reputable reliable sources in books on the topic removed by the second rejector because he could not access the sources.

Is there some rule on Wikipedia that I can only use sources fully accessible to everyone on the web? No. There isn't.

So why is this editor using what I wrote according to reliable secondary and tertiary sources that I properly cited to those sources but deleting the sources so there's no attribution making it intellectual theft? He could have just rewritten the article and left what I wrote according to reliable sources off.

Cryo-scanning electron microscopy

2601:283:4301:D3A6:A8A8:96CD:72DD:1925 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There was so a note to yourself saying to upload Figure 6 to Commons. More generally, you are more likely to get your drafts accepted if you are polite rather than by being hostile, and this post and your edit summaries in the article are hostile. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't a note to myself. When I have written other articles that have good associated CC licensed images, I usually put a note in to the reviewer and they upload the image, then I add it to the article. This has worked dozens of times. About 50% the last half dozen times I've used it. You're the one who freaked out that you couldn't access a source and decided this meant I was forcing you to read an entire book to verify a fact, so you removed proper sources from an article that were used to write it. You added a source from a lab's website, a good lab, admittedly, to replace the books, but that website did not include the fact you attached it to. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:6D6E:1683:F266:30D4 (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that was a note to the reviewer rather than to yourself. It doesn't matter. Any notes in draft articles should be above the line using the AFC Comment feature. It would also be useful if you would know the difference between one reviewer and another, rather than accusing me of having freaked out about a source that couldn't be accessed. I wasn't one of the reviewers of your article. You aren't helping yourself by being hostile. Anyway, your draft has been accepted into article space, so it is time for you to accept the fact that you have "won" rather than continuing to have a tantrum. If you have an issue, take it up with User:RadioFan rather than being hostile here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, I can't do that, User:RadioFan is hostile towards IP users, but still chooses one-sided interactions with them, then ignores them completely because he/she can't force a policy change about IP editors.

"Won" what? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, information should be gathered from reliable and verifiable secondary and tertiary sources about notable topics for writing articles. Whoever the other editor was wanted to go to war to remove reliable and verifiable sources from an article, the sources were cited, and that is what the article was written from. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:3969:5FF4:D55:BB3B (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, please don't edit comments left by other users on your talk page. If you don't like them, you can delete them, but you shouldn't modify what people have written. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it turns out I can't delete them. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:3969:5FF4:D55:BB3B (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes you can, as you just demonstrated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you can't just delete the welcome to the teahouse template text, which is pretty funny, that it can't be deleted by an IP, and that it is even used for such a hostile space after a hostile action by an editor who can't be lowered to address IP editors. It gives an error that the action is unconstructive and can't be done, so I removed part of it, then went to remove the rest, and you had reverted. So, yes, I can remove it if I go in and remove it piece by piece, edit by edit, apparently, but not obviously, but a wholesale removal is not allowed to IP editors, whom RadioFan is too good to interact with in spite of placing this invite on their talk pages, lol. 2600:380:985F:CE86:10A1:525D:E257:D482 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason that the filter was objecting was that 2601:283:4301:D3A6:3969:5FF4:D55:BB3B was trying to delete content from User talk:2601:283:4301:D3A6:F9B7:86A0:DF7A:4653, which triggered the response "New or unregistered user blanking someone else's user or user talk page". --David Biddulph (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That was not the error message at all, and I only attempted to remove the Teahouse template, so there never was an attempt to blank the talk page to begin with. 2600:380:985F:CE86:8EB6:11E9:640A:A7AD (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, huge waste of time. It was a simple article. People could have been helpful not hostile to my errors in the first place. Now, everyone is trying to get a solid jab in. Enough already. I was just trying to write an article that doesn't have a good outline on the web in spite of their being decades of information and thousands of sources both on and offline.

That's all. An encyclopedia article, you know. 2600:380:985F:CE86:10A1:525D:E257:D482 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct style for identifying misspellings in URL titles?

What is the correct style for identifying misspellings in URL titles? "nolink=y" ?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Srednuas Lenoroc. Can you tell us what exactly brought you here or provide an example of the type of misspelled URL you are talking about and the use you're trying to put it or issue you want to flag? I don't know about others but I'm having difficulty understanding what advice to give you in the abstract. Does the documentation at {{Sic}} help at all? (Or is it that what brought you here but you're not sure it applies to a situation you've encountered?)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rednuas Lenoroc: Ah, okay, assuming this is about Ant-Man, I agree with the user that reverted you here. There is no need to retain such a spelling error. However, this whole link is no good. First it's to a blog, not a reliable source, and second that external source appears to be a copyright violation. See WP:ELNEVER, so I'm going to make some changes there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Elizabeth A. Spencer

I reviewed Draft: Elizabeth A. Spencer and declined it as not meeting the standards for in-line citations for biographies of living persons/; User:Healthps then posted to my talk page:

Hello Robert I started a page for Elizabeth Spencer (who is unknown to me) because she was listed as a woman scientist who lacked an entry in WIkipedia. I decided to create an article about her and what you see is the totality of her biography that I could gather. She is evidently an established academic but not famous enough to have multiple independent sources about her professional biography. You see I have been able to find three sources about her and her professional work. I think it would be difficult to find any more. On this basis her entry should be allowed or she should be removed from the list of women scientists needing an article about them in wikipedia.

Can some other experienced editor explain, first, that not every established academic is notable and entitled to an article in Wikipedia, and, second, for biographies of living persons, in-line footnotes are not merely encouraged but required? The draft as it stands cannot be accepted. The rule on footnotes is clear. The question is whether it can be improved. Papers authored by Dr. Spencer are not independent reliable sources that have commented on her. Will some other experienced editor please address the authors question of whether she should be removed from the list of women scientists needing articles, or maybe whether the draft should simply be left for possible improvement? In any case, I thank the contributing editor for trying to improve Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Robert McClenon, it is not correct that "for biographies of living persons, in-line footnotes are not merely encouraged but required?" What our policy does say is that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (from WP:BLP) and further WP:BLPROD says that if "the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." then it can be deleted after 7 days if no sources are added. Otherwise, while inline cites are preferred, they are no more required for BLPs than for any other articles. However, the requirements of notability remain in force, and the above-linked draft currently does not demonstrate notability at all. I will leave a message for Healthps, in addition to this ping. DES ^(talk) 17:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So I should have declined the draft on notability grounds rather than on footnote grounds. Should Spencer be removed from a list of women scientists needing articles, or should she be left in the list and her draft left standing for six months? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If it is really true that the sources now in the draft are all that can be found, she isn't notable and won't be any time soon, if ever, and so should be removed from the list. However, I would be reluctant to accept the conclusion of a single inexperienced editor that this is the case. If someone else attempts a comprehensive search, of at least WP:BEFORE quality, and finds nothing useful, then her name should probably be removed from the list. That is my view. DES ^(talk) 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and DESiegel, it seems to me that with an h-index of 47, she is a scientist who is highly cited by other researchers and therefore probably meets criterion #1 of the notability guideline WP:ACADEMIC. I know that the h-index is not perfect but hers looks pretty high to me. We do not expect most notable working scientists (except the very famous few) to be the subject of biographical coverage in independent reliable sources like actors, musicians and politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If she has a high h-index, can a statement to that effect be included in the article? I am concerned that we may need such a statement to survive a possible AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WE could surely say that "her work has often been cited by others in the field including <list of a few examples of work that cites hers>, and she has an h-index of 47 as of date (cited to a source that verifies this)" I would think. DES ^(talk) 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@DESiegel and Robert McClenon: The note in the review template refers to neither WP:BLP (directly) nor WP:BLPROD. It refers to WP:MINREF which says:

"Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source [for] the following ... types of statements[:] Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons"

. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine, Finnusertop. WP:BLP says almost the same thing, although it only requires that such statements are "explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". But "Contentious material" is not in the least the same as "all statements". inline cites are not required for non-contentious, unchallenged content in BLPs. DES ^(talk) 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any time limit (from day of account starting) for creating the first article in wikipedia?

Is there any time limit? Can we directly start with an article after having a history of some 10 edits? OR have to wait for some days? How to write an article? AnjaliWasim (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:My first article. In general, the subject must meet our notability guidelines, which require multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Reliable sources generally include professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AnjaliWasim, and welcome to the Teahouse. To create an article directly, you must be autoconfirmed which means that your account must have existed for at least 4 days, and made at least 10 edits. However, I urge you to instead make a Draft, using the article wizard. For this you do not need to be autoconfirmed, and there is no time limit. Your draft should then be submitted to the Articles for Creation project, so that it can be reviewed by an experienced editor. I absolutely agree with the comments of Ian.thomson above. Make sure that the subject is "notable" and has been covered by multiple independent published reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's Golden Rule. DES ^(talk) 14:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And who are "we"? Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared, please see WP:NOSHARING. It also sounds as if you may be about to start an article to promote someone? If you are, in any way, connected with the subject of your article, please read and follow our conflict of interest guidelines - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Good advice above. However, as to the technical question, no there is no wait required – no 10 edits or number of days restriction: The autoconfirmation threshold referred to above does not apply to page creation. IPs are restricted from directly creating pages in the mainspace entirely, but logged in users may do so immediately upon registration.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The three main permissions that are denied to new editors who are not autoconfirmed are the abilities to move (rename) pages, to upload files, and to edit pages which have been semiprotected because of vandalism or disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

My page has issues

Hello,

My page has lot of issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_german_hospital. I have followed wiki guidelines and developed this page. I have also removed external links from the article and given these links in references section. Below are the issues I want to fix.

Issue#1 : This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2016) Can you please let me know which part of my article is looking like an adverstisement? I will remove that part.

Issue#2 : This article needs additional citations for verification. (March 2016) Can you please give example on this.

Issue#3 : This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (March 2016) To which article I must link?

Sghbkapt (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sghbkapt and welcome to the Teahouse. Phrases such as "...part of the biggest private hospitals groups in the Middle East..." and "has already established a reputation as a major player in the healthcare sector " and "offering a wide range of medical services to the very highest international standards": are all highly promotional. That could be fixed. However, the page was largely copied from http://ae.99nearby.com/place/saudi-german-hospital-dubai/34539 and so I have deleted it as a copyright violation. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

For your future reference, Referencing for Beginners ddescribes how and when to insert references into articles. An "orphan" article is an article that no other Wikipedia articles links TO. It is fixed by finding other articles that mention, or should mention, the subject and inserting links TO the orphan article. DES ^(talk) 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your introductory statement, "My page has lot of issues" sets off red flags for some Wikipedians. The use of the first person possessive pronoun with respect to an article raises concerns that you may think that you own an article that you create. If you have a conflict of interest, please declare it. If you don't have a conflict of interest, avoid using the first person possessive with respect to an article and write something like "The page that I created has issues". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that I own this source ae.99nearby.com. Its my content. How it is copyright infringement? How can I verify I own this listing at ae.99nearby.com? I am unable to edit the content also, I am blocked from editing my article. Please suggest do I have to create a new page now? I am also mentioning under the references for the website I am taking content from.

Sghbkapt (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sghbkapt. At the bottom of the home page of that website is the statement "Copyright 2016 © 99Nearby - All Rights Reserved". That legal language is 100% incompatible with Wikipedia's freely licensed text. Wikipedia reserves no rights except attribution. We simply can't include anything more than a very brief attributed quotation from such a website. If you are actually the owner of that website, then you freely chose to reserve all rights. You exercised your rights but that means that the content cannot be used on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cullen,

Thanks your for your email. Please suggest me what should I do now? Do I have to write unique content for Wikipedia? Can I copy content from www.sghdubai.com on which I am creating page? Whatever content I write about my business it will be there on the website and other directories which is published by me only.

Please let me know how can I create a page like apple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc. Sghbkapt (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sghbkapt, you will notice that Apple Inc is not copied from any web site owned by Apple. It is very much the best thing if any content for Wikipedia is in original, unique words, not published anywhere else. It is possible to reuse content if it is released under a free license, see Donanting Copyrighted Materiel. But generally such content is too promotional and does not have a properly neutral point of view, nor a proper encyclopedic tone, and so cannot be used here anyway.

Also, please note clearly that no article on Wikipedia is your article, even if it is about you or your work, or even if you created the first version of it here. Anyone can and will change any article at any time. Moreover, you have a clear conflict of interest when writing about your own work, and should either not do so at all, or be very very careful to be neutral and non-promotional about it. Most people find this very hard to do. Good Wikipedia articles are usually created by many people working together over a period of time, not by one person writing the whole thing. The first thing needed for any article is independent, published, reliable sources that discuss the subject in some depth, and so establish notability. Without that, there can't be any article anyway. DES ^(talk) 14:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

how to create a new barnstar & wikiproject based on a city

1. how can we produce a new barnstar.i like barnstars very much,eventhough no one awarded me a barn star.
2. i want to knew how to make a new wiki project..if anyone give me a excellent and proper answer, i will learn a new thing to do in wikipedia.....................user: Wiki tamil 100

I'm sorry that no one has replied to your questions yet, Wiki tamil 100. Based on our interactions today, can I suggest that you try to gain more experience with basic editing tasks as a first task, before trying to create a new WikiProject? You might also want to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

May I create a page for studio?

I want to create an information page about one studio (Audio Video Production house) to explain and exhibit the functionality of the studio. ? Innovativeengr1992 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to Studio5 productions, I would recommend against it, as you appear to have a conflict of interest with them. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

How to refer to a scanned copy of a text by dead author?

The text in Russian was part (first 2 pages) of a brochure/booklet/program for a concert in 1997. I know the name of the author (now dead) and date (1997) but it was self-printed and distributed to listeners. No other copyright-owner was involved. It was scanned and given to me by the best friend of the author and contains _very interesting_ information about Russian composers. I will give full copyright attribution to author and thanks to friend. Thanks for your help! UberNemo (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, UberNemo, but the answer is, You don't. Referenced sources must be published by a reliable publisher (they don't have to be on the web). If a document is placed on the web in a way that respects copyright, then it is permissible for a Wikipedia article to link to it (it's forbidden if the site is a copyright violation), but that can never be used as a reference unless the site that hosts it is somewhere with a reputation for fact checking and editorial control; and it can be used as an external link only if it meets the quite tight limits on when these may be used. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. That's what I thought. I will ask the Union of Composers of Russia to legitimize it (the author was their archivist-historian) and post it on their site. Then could I refer to it? Thanks again. UberNemo (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably yes, UberNemo. Depending on the subject of the article you are working on, that may or may not count as independent, and so it may or may not contribute to establishing notability. (By the way, if you ping me in your reply, I will get notified. There are several ways to ping users, but I use the 'U' template thus: {{U|UberNemo}} displays as UberNemo, and notifies you.) --ColinFine (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. So many things to learn behind the scenes in Wikipedia. As you see you have a real newbie here but you're very kind to help. UberNemo (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

The article about a famous from Ankara was deleted though i had written a contest tge deletion , and made many new changes and improvements on the page. I know A7 rules ; i read both turkish and english version of them but no result. İ didnt learn the reason of deletion. No editors didnt reply or give any detail. It is inequality to the new writers by not giving the chance. The writings include effort,patience and endeavoring. These people thrash our creation as if a junk. Ebrumarbling (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ebrumarbling. I'm sorry that an article you have written has been deleted; but unless you tell us which article it was, it's difficult for anybody to help you. If it was deleted under criterion A7, it must have been in article space. I would always advise editors to create new articles in draft space using AFC or the article wizard: they can then work on the draft without much risk of it being deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oğuzhan_R._Güneş Ebrumarbling (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add references to the article, go to Requests for Undeletion and ask to have the article moved into your user space, and then edit it, and then resubmit it via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I will note that there are a few reasons why drafts in draft space are deleted, in particular, if they contain copyright violations, or are blatantly promotional (slightly promotional drafts will simply be declined), or are attack pages. Drafts will not be deleted for failure to establish notability, only declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ebrumarbling, I see your article has been userfied to you so you can work on it. It needs a lot of work. Sources from social media are of no use to show notability. You only have one source that isn't social media and it doesn't appear to be reliable. Reliable sources have policy and reputation of fact checking, such as books, newspapers and magazines. Unfortunately, if you cannot find multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail, you do not yet have enough for an article. John from Idegon (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ebrumarbling I have undeleted this and moved it to User:Ebrumarbling/Oğuzhan R. Güneş. I have removed the speedy deletion tag and made some other appropriate changes. i have commented out the image -- this should wait until the draft is approved. I have left a comment about some needed further changes. i hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Yoon circle1/sandbox

I reviewed User:Yoon circle1/sandbox and declined it as a duplicate of Draft: CIRCLE1 and asked the author please not to create multiple copies of the same article. User:Yoon circle1 then posted to my talk page:

Hello Robert McClenon. My name is Yoon Hee Kim, working at CIRCLE1 gallery. I made another version of text after declination from you on my first draft, because it was copied from our website. And than now you said that you will consider the second draft but it has been already more than a week. I was wondering how is it going and what should i edit more if it's not acceptable. Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing from you. Best Regards, Yoon Hee Kim

Both versions contain peacock language, and neither version contains references to independent reliable sources. Does any other experienced editor want to comment? Does anyone want to help me to explain to this inexperienced editor that creating multiple copies of drafts does not increase the likelihood of acceptance and annoys the reviewers? It appears that some editors think that all article submissions must be from user sandboxes, and therefore find it necessary to re-create their submissions once the previous submission has been moved into draft space and then declined. Is there some Wikipedia policy or guideline that needs to be tweaked to explain that articles do not need to be submitted from sandboxes and should not be re-created in sandboxes after they are moved to draft space and declined?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do on "AFCH-error" popup message?

On top righthand corner of screen I'm frequently getting a pop-up, telling " AFCH error : user not listed " . The message also contain hyperlinks (such as, to wikiproject articles for creation); but I couldn't understand from them, what it is telling to do ? what I have to do ? .

Please also inform me , what problems would occur , if I continue work, neglecting the message ? .

Rajarshi Rit 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Rajarshi Rit 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Rajarshi Rit 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC) p.s the messages are coming till few (1 or 2 or 3) months . 17:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)~ 17:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Rajarshi Rit — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I wonder whether you have selected the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script:" option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets without having satisfied the requirements at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants? If so, just deselect that option. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rajarshi Rit 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Thank so so so much Rajarshi Rit 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

How do I ensure my edits aren't deleted?

Hi,

I have made edits to Kinross Gold page. They were deleted.

I don't believe there is anything controversial about the edits I made. The edits included update the webpage regarding the net income for 2015 and financial performance. The information is primarily from the Annual Reports issued by the company.

Kinross Gold is an interesting story. The company acquired a gold mine in Africa in 2010 and it was a spectacular failure. My edits to add information on this were also deleted.

How do I resolve this issue?

Thanks

WSDavittWSDavitt (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WSDavitt Welcome to the Teahouse! I am not sure about the POV issue, but I believe you should try to learn the use of Template:Cite to make neater citations. Please do not add unsourced info. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WSDavitt. Your edits were reverted by Kelapstick, with the comment "Reverted to revision 691635801 by Kelapstick on the Run: Once again a mass revert, much apparent POV, and attemt to make Kinross look as bad as possible". In other words, you and Kelapstick are having a disagreement about what should go into the article. This is known as a "content dispute", and is a normal part of editing Wikipedia. The two of you should have a discussion on the talk page Talk:Kinross Gold, and attempt to reach consensus; Your request for a way to "ensure your edits aren't deleted" is not a good start for a discussion; but neither is Kelapstick's "Once again", and assumption as to your motives. Wikipedia is a collaborative operation, and the two of you need to discuss it, assuming good faith on both sides. --ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell the editors to discuss on the article talk page (which has no discussion at this time). It will then list various procedures that can be followed if discussion on the talk page is inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Both I and Calistemon and I left a message on his talk page in November. While I admit I could have left a more detailed message, it was when I had just gotten to Indonesia and was short on a suitable internet connection (and the middle of the ArbCom elections). So I was rather short in my wording. There was also some discussion on my talk page. I also left another message on his talk page yesterday. It seems rather obvious to me, if you look at WSDavitt's edits, that he has some sort of grudge against Kinross Gold. I reverted basically 24,000 bytes of "this is why the company is going downhill", purely synthesized from corporate reports (i.e. not secondary sources), or dumping corporate corporate earnings under the heading "Unreliable Estimates of Proven and Probable Reserves - 6.0 Million Ounce Adjustment - 2010 to 2014" when there are no sources that say they are unreliable. In fact probably about 98% of all the user in questions edits are to Kinross, and a few to the Canada Pension Plan. I am not saying that the Kinross article should be all roses, but devoting the whole article to what WSDevitt presumes is their downward spiral (for example in a previous version he inferred that they were on the verge of insolvency, where no source said as much) is not how we write articles about companies. So no, I don't buy the whole "Kinross Gold is an interesting story" bit. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I remember the case from last November. Here is the diff from the last discussion with WSDavitt on User talk:Kelapstick back then. There was a lot of WP:WEASEL going on, with a specific example being the statement "Kinross is on the verge of insolvency" being supported by WSDavitt with this source which says nothing of that sort instead stating "Kinross has very good liquidity". In my opinion Kelapstick's deletion was entirely justified given that WSDavitt's edits are strongly POV. Calistemon (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the article talk page, thank you for your input here Sainsf, ColinFine and Robert McLenon. I don't anticipate much in the way of discussion there, as I don't think it's a very active page.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Verification on what can be accepted in a Wikipedia page

1. Is it okay to cite information from a conference web page if we provide the website url in the references? For example: ask4research.info/icsle/2016/cfp.php

2. Can we provide 'interesting links' of other webpages that could be of interest in relation to the subject of the Wikipedia page? For example, link to a blog in which researchers discuss that subject, link to an association on that subject, link to a journal with peer-reviewed articles on that subject.

70.30.171.149 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

70.30.171.149 Welcome to the Teahouse! The main aim should be to use sources which have some credibility. In the example you give I see no issues; let us know for which article you need it. Remember to use the proper cite templates when you use them. For your second question, I would say that you can add them as "External links", or if they are credible enough and can be directly used in the article you can cite them directly. Blogs may not be reliable always, but reputable associations and journals can serve as sources. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what you intend to cite from the conference, 70.30.171.149. Is it information about the conference itself, or are you intending to cite a paper presented at it? Remember that conference papers often aren't subject to peer review, so they are likely to be regarded as less reliable than published academic papers. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the second question: WP:External links sets some quite stringent limitations on what external links should appear. "This might be interesting" is not, I believe, a strong enough reason. --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, there's actually no obligation for anyone to use {{Cite}} templates if they don't want to, though many people do; nor is there anything particularly "proper" about them. In most cases, and for new users in particular, it may actually be a lot easier to format references manually – it really doesn't matter too much if they aren't perfectly formatted, and there won't be any alarming red messages if a syntax mistake is made. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I agree. I just referred to a good practice that he/she could try to learn. Sometimes such manually written citations may look ugly or improper to some, and they may remove the good faith edits. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian image not functioning on English wiki

I'm trying to add the following image 1

to the article and specific section of Khojaly massacre memorials#Germany

as [ [File:Памятник_жертвам_Ходжалинской_резни_в_Берлине.jpg|left|thumbnail|blah blah description here] ]

(placed below the infobox in the source).

I had success just before with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khojaly_Massacre_Memorial_(Berlin)_Reading_garden.jpg

which I also found there, but apparently it was uploaded to English Wikipedia first, so it's not exactly the same.

How do I solve this? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Magoo - As you have discovered, you cannot use an image from Russian Wikipedia on the English Wikipedia - The file you succeeded with is on the English Wikipedia.
I do not know why the photo was uploaded to Russian Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia Commons, where it could be used by all of our projects. I do not know under what copyright the Russian picture has been uploaded, but as it has EXIF information, it appears to be an original not a copyvio.
I note that User:Interfase has an account and userpage on English Wikipedia and states "This user can contribute with an advanced level of English." May I suggest you contact him/her at User talk:Interfase and ask if there is a reason it is not on Commons? - Arjayay (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

He seems to be pretty active. I think we'll be able to solve this in no time. Thanks for the help. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Declined Article - Draft:Anthony Charles Robinson

Hi,

Myself and an experienced copywriter have put together this article Draft:Anthony Charles Robinson, and now edited it three times. We are at a loss what more we can edit to get this accepted. The second reviewer was helpful and added a comment about some of the words we had used that sounded advertorial. But now, we don't know what else we need to edit.

I have successfully had one article approved in the past, and I am confident that I've done as much as possible to get this new one approved, we have some good references. It's frustrating having no extra comments added by the reviewers, because we don't know which sections have the issues.

Thanks JoHarris0n (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

On a quick skim over, I agree that this doesn't look appropriate for Wikipedia as it stands; this looks like somebody's CV, and appears to lack substantive sources (that is, reliable and independent sources that discuss him, rather than just listing him as one of a group), as well as any indication as to why he's significant (OBE is a meaningless award when it comes to establishing notability; the British government hands them out like mardi gras beads). It also completely lacks any critical commentary; if he hasn't received any critical commentary, that's generally a fairly good sign that someone isn't notable by Wikipedia's definition, since if no media source has discussed him at length that's generally a sign that the sources aren't going to exist.

(adding) He also clearly didn't attend Middlesex University in 1971, as claimed in the article, since that institution was founded in 1992; even its predecessor institution, Middlesex Polytechnic, was only founded in 1973. ‑ Iridescent 11:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

JoHarris0n, in order to establish Robinson's notability, you need to find and reference sources that discuss him in much more depth than the ones currently cited in the draft. A profile in a national newspaper, for example, would go a long way to establishing his notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi LazyLilac As for promotionalism: It is easier to list sections that do not have issues: namely Life, Education, and Freedom from Bosses Forever. It is not a matter of removing a few advertorial words; most of the article needs to be removed or rewritten. If I am correct in guessing that Tony Robinson is your employer, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; people in such a position have find it nearly impossible to recognise how promotional their writing is. —teb728 t c 11:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have hacked a lot of promotional puffery out, there is very little of any substance left though, doubtful if he passes the WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

LazyLilac, you say that have edited the draft together with an "experienced copywriter". What username did that copywriter use? I ask because the only edits I can see (apart from the two declining reviewers and the clean-up by Theroadislong) are from your account. You are aware that Wikipedia accounts are for individual, not for shared, use, I hope? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability Question

Hi,

I wish to document a historical article local to the area I live. The substance of the proposed article is as follows:

The source of the proposed article was released under the Creative Commons Waiver for the purpose of historical documentation and ties into the historical perspective of Fountaingrove Lake and the Fountain Grove colony. The lake, colony, and course history all tie together and are of significant interest to people living in the area. I only wish to document history. If the Fountaingrove club should dissolve, the history would be lost without a Wikipedia page.

Is the notability valid?

Jhmpub (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jhmpub. When I do a Google Books search for "fountain grove colony", I see significant coverage of that Santa Rosa, California colony in quite a few books about historic utopian settlements. Accordingly, it seems clear to me that the colony is notable and is deserving of a Wikipedia article. As for the lake, significant geographic features are usually considered notable. So, do not worry about notability per se. Instead, remove the weaker sources from the article about the colony, add higher quality reliable sources, and try to do a more thorough job of summarizing what the best sources say. My assessment is that the article about the lake is of somewhat lower priority, and can easily be improved by routine editing as time goes by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:California Association of Community Managers

I reviewed Draft:California Association of Community Managers and declined it as not providing references to establish corporate notability.. User:Brady Blair then added external links, but not references, and resubmitted it. I declined it again. I admit that I didn’t notice the addition of the external links, and as a result, may have been harsh with a new user who may not know the difference. User:Brady Blair then posted to my talk page:

I added references and want to come back and create this article over the course of a day or so. I am surprised at how fast these are being reviewed and denied despite my efforts to provide information requested. How an association that directly impacts over 8.9 million people is irrelevant is beyond me - and since I included the links I cannot understand how I didn't meet the one requirement that was asked of me. I understand I am an inexperienced user but I would appreciate some guidance aside from a canned message of denial.

My guidance at this point is to add independent reliable sources, such as newspapers or magazines, not associated with the organization. As to how an association that affects 8.9 million people is “irrelevant”, I didn’t say that. The decline template only says that the author hasn’t established notability in the specialized Wikipedia sense, because it is up to the submitter to establish notability. Maybe other experienced editors can give some additional requested guidance, such as to explain the difference between external links and references. As to waiting a day or two to improve the article, that is fine. As to how fast the draft was re-reviewed, the review process often adds the draft to a reviewer’s watchlist. Tendentious resubmission of drafts is common. In this case, it was not a tendentious resubmission, because the author in good faith probably did not understand the difference between references and external links.

The best place for an inexperienced user to ask for guidance is here at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I took a look at the external links that might possibly be used as references, and did not find anything solid. The Folsom newspaper article mentions the group in passing. The real estate trade publication article is an interview of a leader of the group, which is not an independent source. And so on. So, I see no solid evidence that CACM is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But perhaps better sources exist.

More broadly, I think it is best to be slow and cautious in accusing editors of being tendentious, and discussing deletion of their draft. To me, a charge of tendentious editing requires a long and consistent pattern of disruption, and drafts with any reasonable hope of being accepted should be left alone for a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I was too quick to state that the resubmission was tendentious. The editor was trying to address the reviewer comments, but didn't know the difference between references and external links. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability of sports articles

Many articles about Football clubs, basketball clubs, swimming clubs, baseball team, racing tournaments, skating clubs, football tournaments, don't have enough references. Most don't have any news in google news search. Is Wikipedia notability not strict about sports clubs and teams? Greek Legend (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Teams are generally covered by the WP:ORG guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Athletes and coaches are covered by sports notability guidelines, which provides automatic notability to athletes and coaches at certain elite levels. If they don't meet those guidelines, they may sometimes have general notability due to extensive coverage in the press. Teams are organizations. A team that is at a sports notability elite level will probably qualify under sports notability. If you see an article on a team that isn't at the defined sports notability elite level and doesn't meet organizational notability, you may nominate it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: In this article Kal & Ada volleycup, there is no reliable source. And there is no news about the tournament even in Swedish (it claims to be the biggest volleyball tornament). I nominated it for AFD and as I expected users will try to keep the article.Greek Legend (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why articles about sports teams or clubs should be held to an easier standard. In this specific case, I !voted to userfy the page, to move it from article space into user space so that its author can add sources and resubmit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

new article questions

Hi,

I'd like some advice on whether a request to create a new article will have merit.

May (should?) I create or request pages for two albums belonging to the recording artist 'Ngaiire'? If so, how can I do this in a way that avoids some of the passion and hurt feelings that I've noticed from fans of other up-and-coming artists?

thanks Werafa (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Werafa, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sure you will receive advice from other editors but I just want to recommend that you work on building articles in User:Werafa/sandbox which you have already set up. When you think your article is well-written and has adequate sourcing, I encourage you to submit it to Articles for Creation where it will receive a review by experienced editors. Articles that go through AFC are more likely to not get deleted than putting an article directly into Wikipedia main space. That would be my recommendation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Liz - I'll give it a go

Werafa (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Werafa. Before you spend time working on drafts of articles, be sure that you have sources to establish that the subjects are Notable. This means that there should be multiple published independent reliable sources. See Your First article and Wikipedia's golden rule. For an album, there should be several reviews or other discussions in reliable sources. This means not directory entries or just track lists or mentions, but something that devotes several paragraphs at least to the album. This means not blogs or fan sites or one-person web sites or self-published books. This also means nothing from the creator, or the publisher, or anyone affiliated or associated with either the creator or publisher. Newspaper or magazine articles can work, or reviews on significant music sites. If notability can't be established with this kind of sourcing, a draft will not be approved, no matter how well it is written or formatted. See our guideline for notability of music topics for more information. DES ^(talk) 23:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Very helpful, Fuhgettaboutit! Thank you very much. -Erin2602:306:3893:900:A814:9E0C:7350:4B40 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Des,

there are multiple reviews from australian music industry websites - where journalists are employed, and the occasional regional newspaper that has reviewed her first album and who have begun to comment on the second album. It will all hinge on whether the review sites are considered by wiki regulars to be significant.

---

another question if I may, JJJ radio is a national Icon for Australian music. how does one (and may one) reference radio interviews as an information source?

thanks once again Werafa (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How to restore deleted article

One of your Wikipedia's editors wrote a page on this subject WIlliam J. Kelly in conformity with Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The page has since been completed deleted. The person who deleted it should be banned. I believe it is an act of vandalism. [1] Lauraglaw (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lauraglaw, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question to ask, or were you just looking for a place to complain? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not refer to an administrative decision with which you disagree as "vandalism". That is a personal attack. Articles with that title have been deleted three times for different reasons. Discuss with the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand the basis for this deletion. A wikipedia editor wrote this entry so it would be compliant with wikipedia neutral point of view standards. Since the subject of this entry has had vandals before and that entry was deleted a few years ago due to the amount of vandalism, I assumed that this was another act of vandalism. If it was not an act of vandalism, again, I do not understand the basis for the deletion. If you can explain why it was deleted, that would be helpful because I have made a sincere effort to make sure that the entry was wikipedia compliant. Lauraglaw (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Lauraglaw, the most recent deletion (the article's third) had the rationale "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I see the note about the banned user but I don't understand it. The person who submitted the entry is a Wikipedia editor. Is the person who submitted the entry a banned user? If so, why penalize the entry? Is the subject of the entry banned? Why would that be? The original entry on this subject was submitted as a personal attack to begin with. It was a completely defamatory entry that went unchecked on wikipedia for at least a year. That is the reason the first two previous entries on this subject were deleted.This latest entry should have resolved the issue. I haven't heard back from the administrator. Is there a way for me to appeal to a supervising administrator? 208.59.143.168 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You write: "The person who submitted the entry is a Wikipedia editor." Of course they are. Only autoconfirmed editors can create articles. Since I am not an administrator, I don't have the details, but I assume that the editor who created the article was found to be a sockpuppet for a banned or blocked editor. You can ask User:Bilby, and they will probably explain that that is exactly what happened. They may have been blocked or banned due to conduct issues involved with the previously deleted versions of the article; I don't know. Ask the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You write: "If so, why penalize the entry?" Read the blocking policy and the banning policy. There is an expression "Banned means banned". Posts by sockpuppets for blocked and banned users may be deleted without regard to their content. This is done in order to discourage sockpuppetry. Also, the third deleted version of the article probably was an attempt to restore either the first deleted version of the article, deleted for being promotional, or the second deleted version of the article, deleted for being a "hatchet job". Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned above, you may ask one of the deleting administrators. However, be civil in discussing with them. You are not likely to get a friendly response by claiming that the deletion was an act of vandalism. Also, if the last deletion was of a post by a banned or blocked user, that isn't likely to be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, could you help clarify here? I'm not an administrator, so I can't see who created the third version of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm happy to clarify this. The article was created by User:Coreyeymmote, who in turn was a sock of User:LogAntiLog. LogoAntiLog has been running a sock farm for paid editing for some time, and has a lot of accounts that have been through the checkuser investigation. I deleted it as part of a general cleanup of paid (and other) articles created by the editor concerned. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As I explained here above, this subject has been vandalized many, many times before. In fact the original entry was posted by a vandal. I wasn't accusing the administrator of anything. I am just attempted to understand why there are so many problems with the subject of this entry.

Lauraglaw (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The subject person may be controversial. The first article was deleted for being promotional, and the second article was deleted for being a "hatchet job". If you want to make a neutral version of the article, submit a Request for Undeletion to have the article moved to your user space, and then try to make it neutral, and then submit it for review via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am beginning to understand. It was my belief that the Wikipedia editor who wrote the piece was legitimate and not a sock puppet. Is there a way to contact someone in the wikipedia community (who is not a sock puppet) to help make the entry compliant with Wikipedia standards? I don't know Wikipedia rules well enough to do this on my own.Lauraglaw (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lauraglaw. There isn't specifically a place to call for that - this is as good a place as any (but starting by blasting in talking about vandalism isn't a good way to get people to want to help :-) ) You could post a request at Requested articles, but there is a long backlog there. Alternatively, if there is an active WikiProject that the person would fit into, you could try and find somebody there who would work with you. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to write a draft article via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, as Robert suggests above, Lauraglaw. When you're happy with it you can then submit it for review, to get feedback on whether the proposed article meets the appropriate requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are my articles being subjected to deletion?

Hello there i am a new user here. i have created two biographical articles with maintaining all the guidelines and providing all the reliable sources but i still cant figure out why it is being deleted. Please help me out here. Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your contribution history shows one biographical article, which is Shruti rawat, which lists three references, two of which are Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not permitted as a reference. The other reference is to her own web site, which is not an independent reliable source. The nominator thinks that you have not provided evidence of notability, and I agree. My advice would be to create the article in draft space, gradually, and submit it to review via Articles for Creation. If you have created a second draft, it may have already been deleted. Do newspapers or other independent reliable sources discuss the actress? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The other reference is a dead link, and if it existed the url implies that it would have been the website of the subject, so not an independent reliable source. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As Robert and David have pointed out, Celebjazbuz18, your referencing on Shruti rawat and Surjit saha was inadequate, Wikipedia and Facebook are not considered reliable sources. But if you like, we could restore the articles to your user space where you could continue to work on them. Let me know. I think it's a mistake in advice given to new editors to add articles directly into Wikipedia when they should be working on them as a Draft or in their sandbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice About Creating New Article Directly

Where is that advice given? New autoconfirmed editors may add articles directly to article space, but I don't see the advice to go ahead and do that. If that advice is present in a policy, guideline, or help file, I agree that it should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of the tutorials but I think Wikipedia:Your first article tells new editors to be bold and create new articles. Buried in a lot of text, it says that it can be useful to experiment in the Sandbox but it's not highlighted as the first step a brand new editor should take. It does recommend getting sources together but I think most new editors think that they can create an article and improve it gradually over time. But I've done my share of checking New Page Patrolling and if a new article doesn't claim or demonstrate significance of the subject (or make it clear that reliable sources DO exist, they just haven't been added yet), it is likely that the article will get a CSD tag. But NPP behavior varies a lot among editors and admins (more than it should) and the boundary of what is considered significant is not set in stone. At least, that has been my experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that it doesn't advise against directly creating articles. I haven't read the history of Your First Article, but it likely predates AFC and Draft Space. I think that there are two aspects of article creation that should be avoided. The first is the creation of new articles directly in article space, even by experienced editors. I think that experienced editors would do well to create articles in user space and move them into article space when they have all of the content and references. Very few editors can create a whole article in a single edit in article space without periodically saving it, and if a new article that isn't finished is saved in article space, as you said, it is likely to be tagged for speedy deletion (or for proposed deletion, or for a deletion discussion). (I disagree with those who think that New Page Patrollers need to allow time before tagging an article for speedy deletion. If the article isn’t finished, don’t put it in article space.) If one doesn’t want to go through AFC, it is better to create the article in user space and then move it to article space. The second thing that should be avoided is the creation of articles in article space, whether directly or by moving them, by inexperienced editors, who do better to use AFC. I agree that WP:Your first article may need some tweaking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and answers folks i will try to follow those guidelines and would try to create a new article in the sandbox. But i just noticed few biographical pages which have some broken links and also the words written in blue redirect you to a wikipedia page itself. I would just like to know what's the term used for the words written in blue and if that redirects you to a wiki page itself is it also subjected to deletion? Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And i would also like to know if i could use news links of that particular person which are featured on youtube by news agencies or not? Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Celebjazbuz18, and welcome to the Teahouse. Many, indeed almost all, Wikipedia articles, include "wikilinks", that is links to other Wikipedia articles through the Wikimedia software. This show up in blue by default, although you can change how you see them. These are used to link to related articles, or to articles whose subject has been mentioned, to allow and encourage readers to learn more about topics that may be of interest. The difference is that these are not used as references. References are citations to sources that verify statements made in Wikipedia articles. They should normally be to reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should NOT be used as references. There are several reasons, but one important one is that this can lead to circular referencing where article A is used as a source for article B, which is used as a source for article C, which is cited as a source for article A, leading the reader around in a circle. Most references should be to independent sources although what a person or institution says about itself can be used for some limited purposes. Use of Wikilinks is a good thing, and does not make an article subject to deletion. Use of Wikipedia articles as sources is not a good thing, but the usual cure is to edit to remove those sources, and replace them with better sources. If no better sources are provided, then deletion may be the best choice. DES ^(talk) 12:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Celebjazbuz18, articles about a subject in major or other reliable news sources are indeed good sources and can be used. If these are posted to Youtube by the original news source, they can be used, but not if some other person has captured them and reposted them in violation of copyright. Instead directly cite the original broadcast or publication. A link to an online version is helpful, but not at all required, provided enough information is given for others to find the original source. Also, be careful of press releases masquerading as news stories. These are usually not good sources to cite as references, and many of them are on Youtube. Feel free to ask any additional questions here. DES ^(talk) 12:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer but i would just like to know how to cite a newspaper article of a person which is not available on the digital media or how to cite and use a television news or if that is on youtube? how do i cite it as a reference link. Please explain the citation method. Thank you. Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Celebjazbuz18. You can use {{Cite news}} to cite any news item, including one only available offline. You can use that or {{Cite AV media}}, or {{cite web}} to cite a TV newscast, or a copy of one on youtube. Follow the directions in the template's documentation, and the more general directions at Referencing for Beginners. (or you don't have to use a template.) In any case, include the title of the story or broadcast, the date of original broadcast or publication or posting (if known), the name of the news organization that created the item, the page number for a printed document, the author or reporter if known, and a link if available. Additional information that allows a reader to find and evaluate the source is very useful. Does that help? DES ^(talk) 14:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you DES it did help but just a request if you could just send me the link of the page where i could find the citation programming like how to use the brackets or pipes and texts to be used. Please do the needful. Thank you. Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you not read the links which DES gave you to {{Cite news}}, {{Cite AV media}}, and {{cite web}}? I have removed the irrelevant link you had to the article DES. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor

Hello Sir, I wanna to be a Wikipedia editer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hira Thind (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! You already are a Wikipedia editor – you've already made some edits. For advice on getting started as a new editor, you might want to take a look at Help:Getting started. Let us know if we can help you out or if there's anything you're not sure about! —me_and 20:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hira Thind. If you are asking about becoming a paid Wikipedia editor, there is no such thing. All us editors are volunteers. —teb728 t c 11:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

translation of an article rejected. why?

I translated and updated an article from Spanish Wikipedia and submitted it to English language Wikipedia. It was rejected within the hour. It's my first attempt, bur I am mystified. What did I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:A449:300:2CE3:4E37:C525:E107 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user. We can't tell specifically, because you have given no indication that lets us find out what article you were talking about: if we knew the title, we could look at the deletion record, and see who deleted it and what grounds they gave. But my guess would be that it did not contain enough references to reliable third-party sources to establish that the subject was notable. The Spanish Wikipedia may have different criteria, or it may be that the Spanish article is not really adequate but hasn't been notices. --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

How to approve Article in Wiki?

Hello Sir,

I have submitted "Influencer digital Marketing" article in Wiki. After sometime, they give me a errors for already exits topic in here and also show duplicated contents in article. so how to find relevant topic in wiki and check my contents is origial and post in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swetadjani (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Swetadjani. If I type "influencer digital marketing" into the search box, it gives me a list of articles, including Influencer marketing and Digital marketing. --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Drop-down menus of types of changes

I used to have two drop-down menus under the comment line: one for major and one for minor. They have mysteriously disappeared and I don't know how to get them back, or even how to look the question up. deisenbe (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

At the top of the window, click "Preferences". Click the "Gadgets" tab and scroll down to the "Editing" section. The first option should be to "Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries". Check the box and save your preferences. Worldbruce (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Userbox

Hello.my name precious connel.how do I make userbox??Precious Connel (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Precious Connel. Does Wikipedia:Userboxes tell what you want? —teb728 t c 06:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Writting biograhy

Hello my name is mohammed Qasim i want to creat new biography so how i can dk it?? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeqyare23 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Deeqyare23. Please read and study Your first article, and follow its recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)