Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, 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

A top 1000 user has called me "troll" in an ANI

I think I'm going to break the record for the most difficult and controversial question ever asked here, but, hey, at 60 edits so far, I'm still an unexperienced user.

Here's the thing: Three months ago I created this proposal to rename the article Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, which lists dozens of sources which are not third party at all. My proposal met very strong opposition from several users, including an editor listed in the top 1000 contributors list. These editors engaged in uncivil behaviour. I asked them in several occassions to change their behaviour, but they continued behaving in the same way.

I reported the issue in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and also received strong opposition there, including opposition from an administrator. Quite shockingly, Bubba73, the editor listed in the top 1000, said that I am a troll! Nobody complained about that, and other editor even supported his attack. If you check my proposal or the ANI report you will see that I have been very respectful in every comment I made.

When I filed the ANI report, I wrote a notification in the talk page of each user involved. One of the users removed my notification from his talk page almost immediately, saying that I am a vandal. However, when I checked his talk page today the notification was there again, and the entry in the history list showing that he had removed my notification had disappeared.

So, finally, to my questions: In general, I could use all the advice in the world in this situation. It's growing a bit too big for me, but I don't want to give up. The title of the article is completely deceiving! Also, apart from general advice, I'd like to know how to find evidence that I was called a "vandal". Even though the user removed the entry from his history, there must be a log somewhere which shows what he did.

So this is my request for advice. Piece of cake, ain't it?

Elendaíl (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My advice, for what it's worth, Elendaíl is to Drop the stick. You clearly feel that something is terribly wrong. You have argued your case, in the right place, and don't appear to me to have garnered any supporters. Wikipedia works on Consensus, not on being right. --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid i must agree with ColinFine, Elendaíl. While I wouldn't say you are trolling, as that implied malicious intent, and i think your intent here is to improve the page, I do think you have push this rather too far. The local consensus is pretty clearly against your proposal, nor have you been able to persuade any significant number of people at ANI that those who oppose your view are engaging in misconduct. If you really think that your view is still correct, your only recourse as far as i can see is to seek wider participation in hopes of a different consensus, perhaps through an RfC. But frankly, i don't think you will get a different answer through an RfC, although there is no way to be sure in advance. I have noticed the dispute before, but have not chosen to enter it. Now i have posted there, adding to those who disagree with your move. I really think that dropping the matter is your best choice at this point. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the removed-and-then-not-removed notification, Elendaíl, whose talk page was that on? I'd like to understand what could have happened there. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) with Cordless Larry: It's impossible to check out the matter of the user who you say removed your notice calling you a vandal, Elendaíl, if you don't tell us who it was. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC).

That would mean making a very serious public accusation without evidence. I'm not willing to do that. I can, however, discuss it in private. Elendaíl (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to remove notifications from their talk pages, Elendaíl, so there is no accusation here. All you would be doing is helping us understand what happened. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. Do you mean that an experienced editor who insults a newcomer in public for no reason whatsoever is backed by the community? Is that the way Wikipedia works? Elendaíl (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No they didn't say that, Elendaíl. If User:Rude insults User:Meek, and then either User:Meek or User:Uninvolved warns User:Rude not to do that again, then User:Rude is full entitled to remove the warning from his talk page, as the warning should remain in the history. Such removal is construed as user:Rude's having read the warning. Therefore saying later that "User:Rude removed a warning" is not making an accusation of any improper behavior. The warning was itself a public accusation of a violation of WP:CIVIL, but there is no extra implication from mentioning the warning, particularly when seeking help or understanding. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that comment was intended as an insult. They were explaining why they stopped replying to you, thinking that you were just trying to get a reaction. In Wikipedia parlance, this is a troll. Bradv 22:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Of the four users you sent identical or nearly identical notices to, one (Dr.K.) reverted, in this edit. The notice is not there now, and i see no evidence that it has ever been there since the reversion, nor that the reversion has been in any way hidden. Could it be that you somehow looked at a prior revision of User talk:Dr.K., Elendaíl? DES ^(talk) 22:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I should add that Dr K did NOT say that you were a vandal. The full edit summary was: "Reverted good faith edits by Elendaíl: I know that you are an inexperienced editor but please make sure your learning curve becomes a bit faster." Not the most hostile edit summary I have ever seen here. It explicitly concedes your good faith, which is exactly what a vandal lacks. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue with the entry removal has become secondary for me after the responses I have received in this thread. I will create a new entry for that topic shortly to avoid mixing up things here.

What really matters to me is the question I asked earlier. If you want to get technical Bubba73 violated about a dozen policies with just one sentence. If you don't want to get technical, he insulted me, used a pejorative term towards me and attacked me (Wikipedia definition), whatever. I don't want to discuss words. My question stands: Do experienced editor who display this kind of disgraceful behaviour towards newcomers get the support of the community? Is that the way Wikipedia works?

Elendaíl (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Put submit code in title but no review yet--how do I get an article reviewed so it can be posted?

Hello, I have edited this draft appropriately https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Figure_Championship and have put {{Submit}} at the top of the page as advised but it has not been reviewed yet (as far as I can see) and I would like to get someone to review it so it can go "live". Can someone advise if, a) I did this properly, and b) how to ensure that someone sees and reviews the submission? Thanks! Lakeplacidskater (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lakeplacidskater. I have placed <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags around {{Submit}} in your question, to stop the submission template from appearing here at the Teahouse. Ironically, you have placed these tags around the template at Draft:World Figure Championship, and as a result the draft has not actually been submitted for review (although you did manage to accidentally submit the Teahouse questions page for review!). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry , I removed the tags and see the "REVIEW WAITING" Box, so hopefully it will be reviewed soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeplacidskater (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Great - yes, that seems OK now. I thought about removing them for you, Lakeplacidskater, but I think "learning by doing" is often the best way. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In the draft you ought to change {{Submit}} to {{subst:Submit}}, then it will expand and substitute the submit template and set the appropriate parameters to make the process easier for the reviewer. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks David Biddulph. Lakeplacidskater (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Page deletions problem

Why can't crrate an artical?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainudin (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mainudin. Please see your talk page, where people have left you messages explaining what the problem is. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mainudin. You are attempting to create an autobiography which now located at User:Mainudin/sandbox. Writing an autobiography is highly discouraged as other editors have explained. In your case, you say that your are 17 years old and based on your sandbox page it is highly unlikely that you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your sandbox has been deleted for the reasons stated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How Do I know I did well/good?

I edited an article. It is on line. I am assuming at some point it will be reviewed. How do I know if I did right/wrong? Will I get feed back Careytheone (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your article is at User:Careytheone/sandbox. It looks like it's still in the early stages. Once you are ready for us to take a look, click the "Submit for review" button. Bradv 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The OP may have been talking about his/her edit to Ancient Greek novel? In general, Careytheone, you won't get feedback in response to an edit to an existing article. In this case, no news is good news, as you will normally be told if there are significant problems with your edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OH the Sand box is for rough/waiting to be approved articles? brill... that was me playing around with the tutorial subjects..... I would like expand on the Ancient Greek novel I feel it should be a much larger article. I was just going to add sections as I went along. Is that cool? Or should I redraft the whole article at once? Careytheone (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The sandbox is for test editing or for waiting to be approved articles. You used the sandbox correctly. Just don't accidentally submit it for review. If you think that an existing article needs to be expanded, it is a good idea, but not required, to discuss on the talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that probably makes more sense than what I was looking at. I don't know anything about the topic, but that looks like an excellent edit. Well done. Bradv 17:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. THX for the info. I will go ahead and do a new section to the article. I will consider it good if a week goes by, and no-one yells at me. Careytheone (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's generally the way it works around here. ;) Bradv 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Careytheone. There really isn't a "good/not good" dichotomy. You make your changes. Sombody comes along and makes their changes - which might be reversing yours, altering some of what you've done, adding more material to whatever you did, or all of the above. As long as you're not editing disruptively (for example, vandalism), nobody should be criticising you, but just doing whatever they think will improve the article most. If they disagree with you, that doesn't mean they're right or that you're right: it's up to the two of you to reach consensus. See WP:BRD. ----ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Comment to Deletion Discussion

I want to add a comment to the discussion about an entry marked for deletion. How do I do that? Amygdala17 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Which article would you like to comment on? Bradv 17:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you tell us what AfD you want to comment on, we could help you more, but here goes...

Before you comment, look at the article and do a few Google searches to see if sources are available. Then make your own decision about whether you feel the article merits being included in this encyclopedia. Go to the edit tab and add your views at the bottom of the debate. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It is also a good idea, before you add your comment, Amygdala17, to read the previous comments in the discussion. You might be persuaded by one of them, or you might want to specifically address points made in one or more of them. DES ^(talk) 22:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I switch the page display from 'Edit source' to plain 'edit'?

How do I switch the page display from 'Edit source' to plain 'edit'? Robin Mence (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you click on Preferences (at the top of your screen), then the Editing tab, you will find a dropdown menu where you can select your editor. Bradv 17:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

duplicate entries

Hello,

I recently submitted a second draft for an entry for the company Merrithew. I created a new page, as the old page was created under the username Merrithew, which I created because I wanted to differentiate my account from my colleague's account Rebecca at Merrithew. An editor informed me of my mistake that I couldn't name myself after a company, and I wanted to correct that mistake. However, the username Merrithew was rerouted to link to my colleague's account, Rebecca at Merrithew. I know that multiple users cannot use the same account, and I wanted to make sure I was complying with Wiki's rules about this, so I created the username Laura at Merrithew. Because I had a new username, I mistakenly assumed that meant that I needed to create a new page for Merrithew. Another editor informed me of my mistake. Now I'm unsure of how to proceed. I want to make sure that I am doing this correctly. I would like to take the editor's advice on editing the second draft, but I'm not sure in which space I should edit. Should I transfer the edits of the second Merrithew page to the first? Is there a way to delete one of the pages? Any advice on how to proceed would be very welcome.

Thanks in advance! Laura Laura at Merrithew (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, per WP:COI, it's probably best if you don't try to create or edit an article about the company you work for at all. If the company meets our notability guidelines, someone will do it eventually.

If you look at the notes on those pages, you'll see that the reason User:Laura at Merrithew/sandbox is rejected is because it's pretty much the same page as Draft:Merrithew. In other words, (pretending for a moment that the policy WP:COI doesn't exist), you would need to edit Draft:Merrithew instead of trying to make a new article. Looking at the notes at Draft:Merrithew, the problem is that the article is written like an advertisement, an almost guaranteed problem for anyone trying to create articles about the company they work for, and something we do not allow (see WP:NOTPROMO).

If you are going to try to write an article anyway, do this:

• Gather sources that are specifically about the company (not just mentioning them in passing), which are otherwise in no way connected to the company. No press releases, no listings for conventions that the company does business with, no announcements from other organizations who do business with -- no connections whatsoever.
• Summarize those sources in a way that even someone who absolutely hates your company would have to agree with. Don't try to "win them over," expect them to still hate it, but that they'll at least agree "ok, that's true."
• Only include that information, nothing else. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain things to me, and I appreciate your advice. It's very useful. I'll try my best to take the sales pitch out of it and pare it down to something that is acceptable to Wiki's standards.

Laura at Merrithew (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems with pictures

Hi, I was trying to create my article and I was wondering how to get a picture onto the unfinished article. The article is still in my sandbox, but does that affect it? And how do I find a uncopyrighted picture? Also, for the references, can I cite an online source such as the person's webpage? [[User:Elsa Enchanted|Elsa Enchanted (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)]] (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Elsa Enchanted, and welcome to the Teahouse. To use an image there are two steps needed. First it must be uploaded, either to Wikimedia commons (for images with free licenses, or in the public domain) or to en.Wikipedia (for images to be used under a claim of Fair use. Both can be done starting at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard.

One an image has been uploaded, it is displayed by linking to it in the article or page. See Help:Menu/Images and media, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, and Help:Viewing media for more on how to do this.

Please note that fair use images may only be linked from actual articles, and so may not be used while a future article is in a sandbox or other user page, or in draft.

Finding an uncopyrighted picture can be very hard, often impossible. When possible, the best way is often to take a new picture yourself. Then you can license it freely. Sometimes you can ask the copyright holder to release an image, or a low-res copy of an image. See Donating copyrighted materials and linked pages. Sometimes an image will qualify for fair use, see WP:NFCC for details of the strict rules to follow. Sometimes there is no way to find a usable image. DES ^(talk) 16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elsa Enchanted - There are two ways for an editor to add a picture: first is to simply add a pic which already exists on Wikimedia Commons; second is to upload a new image yourself. Here's a good resource regarding adding pictures: Wikipedia:Adding images improves the encyclopedia, while Wikipedia:Uploading images is a good explanation of uploading. Regarding uploading, even experienced editors can make errors regarding whether or not an image has a license which enables it to be used, so read that section carefully. When you use Google or Bing to search for images, there are filters which help somewhat, but they aren't 100% effective by any means. And no, it makes no difference if the page you are working on is in userspace, draftspace or the mainspace. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A minor corrections, Onel5969. A fair use/WP:NFCC image may not be used in userspace or draft space. Otherwise it makes no difference. I hope that helps, Elsa Enchanted. DES ^(talk) 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

( Edit conflict )  :Elsa Enchanted Actually, it's impossible to find a non-copyrighted picture as the creator of that picture is considered the copyright holder the moment he or she creates the picture. The image would have to be licensed as CC-by-SA in order for Wikipedia to be able to accept it , however, there are exceptions to this per WP:NFCC but be careful NFCC is a slippery slope! So read it carefully and understand it first before you attempt to use it to bring in pictures. Also, a person's webpage could be acceptable but it strongly depends on what you're sourcing. If you source something that they believe or have said, your okay, as long as this website can be proven to be their website, not a fan-site, so that too is tricky. Wikipedia uses reliable sources , meaning, if I write an article and say some type of car has a defect with their airbag and I source it to a forum, a fan site or someone's comment that they posted on a RELIABLE website, it's unacceptable, because it would fail reliable sources. It would be best to get that information directly from a reliable source, i.e : That company's website, a reliable news source (not tabloids however)...etc.. Check out WP:RS for a guide on what's considered a reliable source. As far as putting a picture into a draft article, if the picture is licensed CC-by-SA OR the picture's old enough to be public domain, or IS already public domain, that's ok, but if it isn't, don't put it in a sandbox article, as only free images are allowed in the sandbox. KoshVorlon 16:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Another minor correction, KoshVorlon. Images that are in the public domain because their copyright has expired, for example pics published in the US before 1923, are non-copyrighted. So are pics that are works of the US Federal government, such as many NASA photos. There are other cases. But I admit that in my response above I was using "non-copyrighted" as a shorthand for "PD or released under a free license acceptable to Wikipedia". The best way to be sure that an image is free is for the uploader to use an image that he or she took personally. Then there are many fewer issues to deal with. Elsa Enchanted, I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay..... a lot to process, but I think I got it! Thank you so much! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Info box person position on page

How do you position the Info box on the right side of the page? I copied and pasted from my Sandbox and it turned up on the left side and took the place of the Contents box, so I removed it. I am working on the article Theodore PitcairnRae 3328 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You have used a table to create an infobox. If you use Template:Infobox person instead, it will appear correctly.Mduvekot (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not able to add images to my Profile - I get a message that says my Profile needs to be confirmed. Kindly advise.

I am not able to add images to my Profile - I get a message that says my Profile needs to be confirmed. Kindly adviseShaalin4u (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article Shaalin Zoya, it is not your profile -- see WP:OWN. It is the community's article.

If you are Shaalin Zoya, you should not edit the article -- see WP:COI. Instead, you can make suggestions on the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Many new editors think that Wikipedia, like social media, has profiles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has articles on notable topics including notable people. The closest thing to profiles that Wikipedia has are user pages. Articles, including articles about Wikipedia editors who are notable, belong to Wikipedia and its readers, not to their subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The message probably says that the editor must be autoconfirmed by having been active for four days and making ten edits before they can upload an image. See Autoconfirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference

Is it allow to give references from blogs? please answer. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In general, no. see WP:BLOGS. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok but Please how to add pictures ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And please, tell me how to add pictures to an article, i want to add two pictures in two different articles. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You received an answer to that question below, ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft

Hi!I made a draft article and i want to put my article to common article space,my article is Draft:list of jatt clans. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~, are you aware that there is a Category Category:Jat clans? That it seems to me is a better way to handle the subject than a list. —teb728 t c 08:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I visited Draft:list of jatt clans and clicked on a few links. Agni appears to be a deity, Abusaria a surname, Achara redirects to Adjara, a republic of Georgia, Aujla is a jat clan, Atri is a scholar, etc. I think the list needs some work! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added a box with a submit button and some links. The current version will probably be declined if it's submitted. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on an article

I have created my first article in wikipedia about a school here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Public_School,_Greater_Noida

I want to submit it for peer review, and understand that it can be done at teahouse.

Senior editors and admins, please share your views.

Mridubhattacharya (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mridubhattacharya. As far as I am aware, the Teahouse is not the place to request peer review (though you can ask questions and get advice about editing Wikipedia here, so we can help to some extent). The peer-review process is explained at Wikipedia:Peer review, but there is currently a backlog there, so any request is likely to take a while to complete. I've taken a quick look at the article myself and the main problems with it are that it is written in an overly promotional style and that it is insufficiently sourced. Wording such as "The school sprawls over 15 acres of land in lush green surroundings" and "A 400 m Athletic track and an impressive lawn tennis court are the school's pride" are not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, especially when expressed in Wikipedia's voice. Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on this point. As for the referencing, you have cited some sources, but our policy Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that any material likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I also ask whether you have a personal connection with the school? If you, you need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow the instructions there on declaring any conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Larry, I'm not associated with this school in any manner, but I live in the neighborhood. I don't think that would fall under the "Conflict of Interest". I'm trying to improve the article by updating its sentence structures and by removing promotional type words. Thanks for your feedback. Mridubhattacharya (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Where can I find my draft?

Hello teahouse, I've created a draft and sent it for verification since last week, but did not get any responses. I also would like to access my draft which area I can find my draft? Thank you! --Poeijung (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your draft is at Draft:Ruttikorn Vuttikorn. It has not been reviewed yet. Bradv 04:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've declined it. See my comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How can we show a real notability for a person?

How can we show a real notability for an actor, songwriter, singer and dancer that he has some articles in some newspapers such as: 1, Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas, USA) 2. Los Angeles Times (California, USA) 3. Revista Carrusel Periodico El Tiempo (National), Bogota, Colombia 4. Semana News, Houston, Texas, USA 5. The Seattle Times, Washington, USA 6. Las2orillas (National), Bogota, Colombia 7. Vanguardia Liberal, Santander State, Colombia and other comments in magazines and interviews at TV shows. Our draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:JC_Gonzalez Thanks Olivety (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Olivety:, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The best person to discuss your question with is the reviewer, SwisterTwister. However, I took a quick look at some of the reference links and they redirected me to other pages which did not even mention the subject, J.C. Gonzalez. Wikipedia needs reliable, independent references that discuss the topic in depth to establish notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

RfA

Okay, I've read WP:NOTNOW, so I know better than to go and run for RfA right away. But my ultimate goal is to become an administrator. Why? I've gotten addicted to vandal fighting (ironic I suppose, for someone whose first two edits were vandalism), and more than once I've come across someone who needed to be blocked, and I notice sometimes there's quite a backlog at WP:UAA. What steps should I be taking now to put myself in the right position for an WP:RFA in the future? ♥ Kailey 2001 ♥ ^{You just got reverted by a high school cheerleader. ♥} 03:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kailey 2001. I had a search about and found Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, which might be helpful (especially the part of the page on "Preparing yourself for adminship"). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick question...

I'm Matthias Mattheus, and I'm the communication supervisor of JVDG (A new small political party on school level) and we we would love to have a small "article" to be whritten about us. As I said we are a young party, founded by 2 students from SKI Ghent (Belgium) and we want to create a better school environment in Ghent(Belgium). We have a Facebook page, a website, an email and a Twitter account. Please not that we are a Dutch group, so our pages are in whritten in Dutch. Link to our facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JongeVrijeDemocratenGent/ where you can find the links to our other sites.

Thanks, Matthias Mattheus -JVDG (Jonge Vrije Democraten Gent) MatthiasMattheus (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MatthiasMattheus. Wikipedia includes articles about topics which are notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. That means that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Have major Belgian or Dutch language newspapers and magazines published in-depth articles about this party? Facebook pages, websites and Twitter accounts are of no value here, since they are controlled by the group. We summarize what independent sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OTRS permissions

Is there an admin that works with the otrs permissions? I would appreciate advice, I sure do not wish to spend another 10 months on this issue. Ths. T Heart (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi T Heart. You might have a better chance of finding such an admin at WP:OTRSN or by checking meta:OTRS#Administrators or meta:OTRS/Personnel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you T Heart (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Declaring conflict of interest

Hi Teahouse convenor, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. In fact it was because of a task assignment through a course on Wed Media I'm doing through Curtin University that I put my hand to trying to edit to the Evangelical Members of the Uniting Church page, and then consequently (not part of the assignment) forming a new page on the Assembly of Confessing Congregations (ACC) which has since been merged. I didn't really understand about conflict of interest in me doing that but since I am part of the national executive of the ACC I wanted to ask how I can declare a conflict of interest now. I appreciate very much that Wikipedia has this stance on neutrality because there is something inherently good in this and I encourage all Wikipedia leaders etc in your endeavours to continue to protect neutrality. I don't know whether the Wikipedia page on the ACC (merged from EMU page) that has emerged through joint collaboration with Paul should now be deleted or not or conflict of interest declared, or perhaps everything should revert back to what it was. I won't continue to work on this site as I see that it has problems. Thanks for your help to a newbie.

Annehibbard (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Anne Annehibbard (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Annehibbard, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are instructions on how to declare a conflict of interest at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. This involves placing the code {{Connected contributor|User1=Annehibbard|U1-declared=yes}} at the top of the relevant article's talk page. You should also explain your conflict of interest on your user page, User:Annehibbard. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your help Larry. I think I did it correctly as you described. If you had a few moments to check I'd be grateful. kind regards Annehibbard (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)AnneAnnehibbard (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How to update content for accuracy on Wikipedia pages on behalf of professional organization

I am writing to inquire about 2 issues on behalf of my professional organization regarding information on Wikipedia. The two issues are:

1 - updating content on the Wikipedia page for "intellectual disability" to increase accuracy of information presented. 2 - providing support for the requests to combine the pages "adaptive behavior" and "adaptive behaviors" while also updating and combining content to increase accuracy of information presented.

I have looked at the information provided on the Help pages regarding making edits to Wikipedia, but we still have a couple questions.

Related to issue 1 above: I have seen the level of protection on the "intellectual disability" page as well as the procedure for becoming a confirmed editor. However, as we are an organization, we were not sure the best way to go about making edits or communicating these edits as well as becoming a confirmed user by making edits to other Wikipedia pages or content (as this may be outside the scope of our organization to edit other content). Is there another way to communicate the changes that we would propose to this page for consideration? Or is the traditional procedure of figuring out a way to become confirmed the best way for us to make edits? Or is there any other procedure for becoming confirmed that we should pursue?

Related to issue 2 above: several users have proposed and agreed that the two pages mentioned above should be merged or combined. We agree. Do we need to create an account to express our agreement on the Talk page (or somewhere else)? Or is there a way in which this proposal can be accepted and these pages combined/merged? Also, since the content will likely need to be adjusted, this may be another page that our organization would have suggestions for the content to improve accuracy. If the pages are ever merged, would the traditional editing procedure be the best for this or would this page have some level of protection as well?

Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated as our organization considers how best to address the 2 issues mentioned above through the content presented in Wikipedia. I am happy to provide additional information or clarification if needed. 70.62.84.86 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 70.62, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First of all, any account(s) should be strictly for individuals, and not for any organization, nor should the be shared by more than one individual.

You may post to the talk page (Talk:Intellectual disability in this case) of any article to suggest or request changes to the article. There are several current requests on that page, some of which are not as well formed they might be. Do place {{edit semi-protected}} on the page in the same section as any edit request. An experienced editor should respoins and evaluate and act on the request. Note that the action may be to reject it. It helps to provide a link or a citation to a reliable source that support the request.

The merge discussion you mention is taking place at Talk:Adaptive_behavior#Merge. You need not register an account to comment, but some editors take comments from registered users more seriously, althoguh they are not supposed to do so. If you do register, you need not be autoconfirmed to comment. If the pages are merged, you could again make suggestions on the talk page if the resulting page is semi-protected, or edit it directly if it is not. Please disclose any conflict of interest that you may have clearly on the relevant article talk pages, and, if you register an account, on your own user page. Feel free to ask additional questions here. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Two articles got declined

Hi teahouse!

I'm trying to publish two articles that have now have both been rejected. They're reputable as one is an up in coming artist that I like who is touring, and the other is the label that represents them where I've found a lot of other artist I love! Some even already have a wiki page. So how do I make it stick?104.162.218.49 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. It would help if you told us the names of the articles that you tried to create, as there is no record of them in your contributions history or of their deletion on your talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Probably you don't (make it stick): Up and coming artists do not usually meet the criteria of notability, which is not fame or popularity or repute but simply whether people unconnected with them have so far chosen to write in depth about them in a reliably published place. --ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"peacock lang"?

Can somebody please help me with regarding this page: Draft:Sophie_Villy After 4/5 edits, I simply cannot see where there are peacock phrases. Please take a look at the comments yesterday + I'll be happy to cut/paste here the comments I left yesterday's reviewer 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmacfady (talk • contribs)

Hi, Dmacfady. I've changed your external link to a Wikilink above: it was to the mobile version, which made the article look very strange on a computer. I don't think it has huge problems with peacock language now, but there are some dubious cases. For example "She also became the first artist from either Georgia or Ukraine to play at the SXSW festival in Texas", where the reference does support that she played at that festival, but says nothing about her being the first artist from Georgia or Ukraine to play at it. Whether this counts as Peacock language, or as original research, I'm not sure, but I am sure that it doesn't belong in an article: it is a promotional claim that is not supported by a reference. I haven't looked for any other examples. I similarly went to check whether 'Civic themes soon became evident in a politically charged single, entitled “Position” and dedicated to “all people striving for freedom and independence.”' is supported by the reference, but that Ukrainian reference doesn't seem to work.

By the way, don't put links to other-language Wikipedia articles on the subject in the External Links section: they'll get handled as interwiki links via Wikidata, once the article has been accepted and moved into main article space. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, very much. I have fixed a couple of dead links you noted, altered the SWSX statement to a fact (not a claim), and amended the quotation regarding the song "Position." That should cover the issues you kindly mentioned. Hopefully that's enough to send this small text on its way. I have no professional connection to the artist, but am a scholar of the region––hence my interest. If anybody happens to mention notability (who knows?! :), then we need to be culturally specific.

In other words––I forgot to mention that in the post-Soviet context, centralized or state-run media sources, which––say, in the UK––would be a source of *objective* journalism/notability, are in fact the opposite, i.e, dubious in their bias. Russia would be a fine example: objective information regarding a cultural phenomenon would not come from major press outlets, which are fiscally bound to their governmental sponsors. Truth instead is more likely to be found in minor, peripheral publications. Those same lesser outlets are obliged to fund themselves, of course, and will have more ad copy surrounding them (as banners, pre-roll video, etc), giving the *visual* impression of ephemeral and less trustworthy information! Sadly, the juxtaposition in Eastern Europe between state-run and "underground"journalism, for want of a less dramatic phrase, has not changed much.

The singers and songwriters on state TV/radio are only aired because they pay for their airtime. They are, therefore, not actually famous in the true sense, but merely able to bankroll their primetime presence and therefore cultivate an air of artistic impact and/or import. Hence the need to document, explain, and foreground other performers. Thanks again!! Dmacfady (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dmacfady, you have changed the SXSW sentence to "Also in 2015, she played at the SXSW festival in Texas, representing both Georgia and Ukraine". However, as far as I know, musicians do not "represent" countries at SXSW (it's not the Eurovision Song Contest!). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dmacfady (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks,Cordless Larry. I can fix that. I meant it in the sense that most artists from that part of the world come with some government subsidy, and those governments do limit their support to one or two artists. Those same performers are spoken of at home in terms of national representatives, since they (hopefully) will drive commerce back to the home nation. I agree, however, that the verb was ambiguous and will change it now! Thanks.

If she was funded by one or both governments, that might be worth mentioning, Dmacfady, but the source cited doesn't support that claim so you'd need to find one that does. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Cordless Larry - that was an unproductive confusion, and I've now chopped the sentence in half, in the name of clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmacfady (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

PROBLEM IN ARTICLE.

HI, I JUST WANT TO CREATE ARTICLE IMCB I-10/1COLLEGE. BUT WHEN I CLICK SAVE BUTTON NOTHING HAPPEN. PLEASE HELP. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC).

Hello, ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~. I have moved your question to the top of the page, because that is where new questions are supposed to be posted here at the Teahouse (unlike other discussion pages on Wikipedia, for some reason). Lots of people are confused by this, so don't worry about it, but your question will get noticed quicker at the top. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As a new user, not autoconfirmed, you can't create a new article in mainspace. What you can do is use the AFC process to create a draft for review. You need to read WP:Your first article before trying to create an article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All registered users can actually create articles in mainspace but it's usually better for new users to use the AFC process and get feedback. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok now my article was created, problem is only in reference but Now I have more better reference. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Protecting editors

What exactly are the measures being taken by Wikipedia to protect the IP Address of editors, I currently beleive there are little or almost no protective measures being taken by the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WindWalk55555 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WindWalk55555, and welcome to the Teahouse. When you are editing using an account, your IP address is not disclosed publicly, so I am not sure what your concern is. What are you concerned about protection from? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As I understand, one has to be a checkuser to see someone's IP address, and there's only about 25 of them. So I wouldn't be too worried. ♥ Kailey 2001 ♥ ^{You just got reverted by a high school cheerleader. ♥} 03:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In short, it is very inaccurate to say that there are "little or almost no protective measures being taken by the website", if indeed you mean by Wikipedia. We go to great lengths to protect your IP address by giving access only to trusted Checkusers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, unregistered editors or editors who are not logged in are identified by their IP address. No protective measures are taken for them. Mduvekot (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Simple question

How to add pictures to article.? ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's instructions on how to do that: Wikipedia:Adding images improves the encyclopedia#Adding an image to an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help.

I have a small question. I want to change my username from ~~(…MA.TAY.CA…)~~, to ~M~, because it,s soo difficult for me, so please tell me how to change? OK :-) ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ is quite an unwieldy username. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Posting on wiki

Dear Wiki Friends

Am just not able to post a simple article about my company Amsa Renal Care. Can anyone help.

Thanks,

Salauddin Salauddin.shaik (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Salauddin.shaik and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, if you work for or own the company you have a clear Conflict of interest, and you are probably considered a paid contributor. Under those circumstance it is best if you don't start the article at all. Secondly, for anyone to start an article about a company (or other topic) here, one must be sure that the topic is notable, a term which Wikipedia uses in a special sense. Basically, we consider a topic "notable" when multiple independent published reliable sources have covered the article in some detail (say at least 2-3 paragraphs each). This does not include directory entries or other passing mentions, it does not include press releases or news stories largely based on press releases, it does not include most blogs, fan-sites, or one-person sites. This does not include anything on the site of the company or its affiliates. This means mainstream news or magazine coverage, or other coverage of comparable reliability. Coverage may be online or offline.

Then, even if a company is considered notable, any article must be neutral. This means it must be factual, not promotional. Any opinions must be explicitly attributed to some specific person or entity, and backed up with a citation. This is what often proves particularly hard for a person with a COI.

So your best bet is to wait until someone else, someone uninvolved, considers the company notable and starts an article. If you still want to try, please use the Article wizard, and submit your draft to the articles for creation project. Don't forget to declare your conflict of interest as explained on the WP:PAID page. DES ^(talk) 14:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Contributing information about innovative technology to USB page with low notability and strong COI.

Dear Wikipedians,

I am an old reader of Wikipedia, but I opened an account to start editing yesterday.

The reason: I need to publish information about the company I work in and its patented technology.

The problem: After learning the policies, I realised following issues: 1/ The company I work for is not notable enough. There are no references on reliable sources and the company is still young. 2/ There is a clear COI. My job is International Marketing, so this should be also considered as a paid-editing and the article I write probably will have many COI biases.

So, I assume it is too early for the company to have its own Wikipedia page.

But besides that, we have a unique technology that is patented by us. It's a kind of a double-sided USB port which is insertable either ways. The technology is worth noting. I am planning to contribute the information about this technology into USB article of Wikipedia [1] About the references, there are photos of the USB product and official web-site of the company, but no reliable 3rd-party references, yet. So, do you think it is approvable to contribute that new piece of information into existing article about USB? The USB article is quite complex, important and sensitive. So I think, I should be cautious about where to put that information, how to put it and be neutral in description.

Any help and advice will be very appreciated. Thank you. Shoh 10:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shohruhjon (talk • contribs)

Hi Shohruhjon - WP is very sensitive to COI editing, especially paid COI. First, until there is independent discussion of your company's product, it probably shouldn't be inserted, as it would amount to advertising. Second, if and when that independent referencing becomes available, if I were you I would post it on the article's talk page, and ask a not-involved editor to insert the information into the article. That way, your verbiage can be checked for neutrality. Good luck and welcome to WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969, thank you very much for your explanation. I see, OK.

Hello, Shohruhjon. Thank you for coming here and being open about your situation: that stands you in good stead in the community of editors. I'd just like to comment on one thing you said: when you say "I need to publish information about the company I work in and its patented technology", you are necessarily talking about promotion and not about improving Wikipedia. Except in the case of removing errors, attack pages and copyright violations, there is nothing which "needs" to be changed in Wikipedia: I cannot think of any cases where some information "needs" to be added to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine, thank you for your response. You are right, in that sentence I emphasized the need only. About the information that is needed to be added to Wikipedia, why not? There is a new innovative technology of something that has been created, why not to mention it in the related article, but the technology only, not the brand. I realized, our product has a brand and unique technology. If approved by the WP community, only the information about the technology can be contributed to WP, adding the brand would be a clear promotion. Then, first I need to focus on online marketing on the appropriate web-sites until the products become trusted and the brand familiar. I feel a bit ashamed to start editing on WP from this intention, it's my personal account, so hopefully I will be able to make appropriate contributions in the future without any COI :-) Thanks for support.

Shohruhjon, welcome aboard!

• First, allow me to also compliment you on your openness and forthrightness by asking for help and carefully listening to the responses. Well done, keep up the good work.
• Next, I whole-heartedly agree with Onel5969's suggestions above, you would be very wise to follow them. To those suggestions I would also add that you might want to find a topic which you are knowledgeable about -- but that is not related to your company or the specific technology you are involved with -- and "get your feet wet" making some helpful edits in that area for practice. Pick something that you enjoy like a hobby or a favorite author/entertainer/historical figure/etc. Do the work in your off-hours away from work so you can keep it separate from your job responsibilities. In this way you will learn more about how WP works both technically and socially/politically (yes, like all organizations we have our internal politics that must be navigated). Take your time, there is no rush.
• Finally, as you are a marketing person may I suggest you spend your off-Wikipedia job time getting well-respected consumer-electronics journalists to examine and review your company's technology. Look at what magazines are being used in computer tech articles here to see who might be good to try and ask for a review. Be VERY sure these are not "compensated" or "paid-for" reviews (other than a free sample of the tech to review, which is normal in most industries). After two or three of these articles are published then you will probably (but no promises) have some good sources to help create a section under USB for this new tech (keeping in mind the suggestions to avoid COI). The more in-depth the review the better ... at WP we only write about what others have already written so the more details that are written the more you and others can write about the technology.

Good luck and happy editing. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 05:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Koala Tea Of Mercy,

• Thank you! Glad to hear that.
• I see, OK, sounds interesting. Then I will start to get my feet wet :-) About WP Politics, yes, it was quite surprising to see the enormuous articles about editing rules and others that have been developed throughout years.
• Nice suggestion, thank you. Totally agreed, for work, I will start form this then. "At WP we only write about what others have already written..." - nicely said!

Thank you all for your attention and support. As being an Internet caveman who nevered joined any online community; after these attention, help and appreciation, it creates an interesting feeling inside that motivates to participate and contribute more.

Shoh 06:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shohruhjon (talk • contribs)

@Shohruhjon: What a nice thing to say! Many of us try to help new users but seldom is the appreciation said so warmly. Thank you! Enjoy your time at Wikipedia and keep today in mind when you run across difficulties. Sadly we have a whole range of editors and inevitably you will find conflicts. Always remember that there are many good and helpful people here despite the occasional pain-in-the-butts. Follow the rules and keep your cool and most important of all have fun. If it stops being fun take a break.

PS: I leave you with one last request... When you can, when you feel you have acquired the experience and skills to do so, help others who are new to Wikipedia. I happen to think it is the most rewarding thing a Wikipedian can do. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Differences between style sheets when logged in and logged out?

Hi! I just have a small question. I've noticed that when I'm logged into Wikipedia - which I am permanently these days because of edits - the font settings change and the page I'm looking at no longer looks the way it does when a normal user looks at it. Being an old web developer from way back, I find it irritating that I can't see a page from the user's viewpoint without either constantly logging in and out or getting my hands dirty trying to customise stylesheets, which have changed a lot since my day. So my question is this: why, oh why, I ask with tears in my baby blue eyes, do the stylesheets automatically change because I'm logged in? And is there an answer to it that doesn't involve one of the two solutions I've mentioned? Thanks! Cadar (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cadar. The situation you describe isn't typical, and I suspect that it has something to do with your account's appearance settings, which you can access at Special:Preferences. Others might have more specific suggestions for what setting it might be that is causing this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Cadar. I suspect that what you're seeing is different skins: one that you have (deliberately or not) selected for your account, and the other the default. I remember a couple of years ago, Wikipedia changed the default skin, and it may be that you kept the old one for your account.

The existence of skins indicates that you cannot and should not try to micromanage the appearance of Wikipedia pages, because the reader may have a different skin again. See WP:Skins. --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses.

I've made no changes to the appearance at all, or picked skins - don't believe in them, and this is exactly why - so perhaps it's due to site changes since I joined WP. I've had an editor account for almost 12 years, so there's bound to have been changes in that time. The thing is, given that there likely has been changes, why would my account not have migrated to the new version automatically, since I didn't even know I could make any changes and certainly haven't messed around with the settings? A look at my Appearance tab under Preferences shows my skin is set to something called "MonoBook", with no indication of what the default is. Any ideas? Cadar (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The default setting is Vector, Cadar. Give that a go. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction! Seems "Vector" is the default. That seems to have fixed the issue. Thanks for the input!

Cadar (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Vector was introduced in 2009 and took over from MonoBook as default in 2010. Accounts were automatically changed to Vector but many users chose to go back to MonoBook. I guess you did that many years ago and forgot about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Would a new approach help?

Good day expert writer, I've been on a long quest to publish an article on Maia Chung, a Jamaican woman who has given most of her adult life to the autism cause. She is the founder of the Maia Chung Autism and Disabilities Foundation. A stub has been approved for the foundation but I have failed in achieving similar result for the woman due to a number of challenges cited by expert wiki reviewers. Draft:Maia Chung Would it make sense to try to highlight both in one wiki article, that is the foundation and the founder? Most of the newspaper articles that could be used as reference highlight the work of the foundation and references the founder, Maia Chung. Would an attempt of this sort bring greater success in documenting her and her foundations achievements? The foundation wiki stub: Maia Chung Autism and Disabilities Foundation. I gather reviewers are required to mention only the most egregious errors, if possible I would also appreciate a list of all the weaknesses a reviewer may identify just in case I missed something else. KDT73 (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Rather than using URLs for Wikipedia, it is better to use wikilinks, such as Draft:Maia Chung and Maia Chung Autism and Disabilities Foundation. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, KDT73. While the founder could and perhaps should be mentioned in the article about the foundation, i do not advise trying to create a single combined article about both. The major problem with Draft:Maia Chung seems to be the issue of notability. I have only briefly reviews the draft, but there seems to be no cited significant coverage of her in her role with the Foundation, but the article makes this the central aspect of her life. The formerly badly promotional language seems to have been removed or rewritten, which is good. I will try to review this at a greater depth over the next few days. DES ^(talk) 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Why an article was deleted

Hello, I was hoping you could help me understand why an article I helped edit was deleted. The article was about a Korean singer named Im Jae-Bum or JB (singer). I had thought that the article was similarly written like any other Korean singers' articles I had searched up, so why was his deleted? JiSky (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JiSky. That article was redirected as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JB (South Korean musician). Perhaps Drmies, who nominated the article for deletion, can add more information. I also suggest that you read our notability guideline for musical performers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen. Typically, individual singers in a group don't get to have their own articles if they are not notable outside of that group. I suppose that knowledgeable K-pop editors and hardcore fans like Random86 and Dr.K. can tell you more. I think I saw K at a Babymetal showcase last week. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Subpage

How do I get a subpage ?Lucy (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have moved this question from the bottom of the page, where Lucy naturally put it, to here, as required by the weird rules of this and only this page. Maproom (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lucy, and welcome to the Teahouse. A subpage of your user page (which is the most common meaning of the term here on Wikipedia) is any page starting with your user name and a slash. For example, i have created a page User:DESiegel/Tools. You could create a page called User:Lucy idegwu/Test or User:Lucy idegwu/New topic. Each of these would be subpages. A subpage is a common place to put a userspace draft, where you can work on an article until you are ready to request review by an experienced editor. You request review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the page. To mark a page as a userspace draft, add {{Userspace draft}} to the top of the page. This will also add a button that you can use to submit a draft for review when you are ready. Not all subpages are for drafts. Some, as my page linked above, are for lists of links, others are for notes. They can be fore anything relevant to working on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How to fix this article

Hello, I need to get the conflict of interest disclosure statement corrected for this article (I am the inventor and CEO):

Also, the reviewers suggested I come here to get help with it.

thanks! Longfamily417 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You have been given feedback in the 9 review responses on the draft page (with 6 additional comments there), and in similar responses on your user talk page. Many of those responses have useful links. You need to read those and respond to the points raised. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Longfamily417 To declare your conflict of interest properly, you should copy something similar to your above disclosure to your userpage, User:Longfamily417.

Something along the lines of "I have a conflict of interest with Draft:SageTea because I am the inventor & CEO" would suffice. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I noted that, and also contacted someone else to write the article. Its clear I cannot do this myself, although I can offer comment if asked. I spoke with the realtime chat support and this is what they said I needed to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you didn't, I said you should put it on your userpage, User:Longfamily417, whereas you added it to the draft, Draft:SageTea. Also, as explained at the MfD discussion, Wikipedia doesn't want another COI/paid editor to update it for you, so you hiring someone else won't help.

Also, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I am still learning the interface (I am on day #2 here and learning as fast as I can). I will repost that note. Just to reconfirm, the new none COI author I asked is not being paid by me. He worked at SageTea a long time ago, but doesn't now. He knows the topic, although to a lesser extent and is free to put it in his own view. He may need some help as he is also new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, Longfamily417, he is not a paid contributor; but if he used to work there, and is editing at your request, he probaly still has a COI. This does not forbit him from working on the Draft, but he needs to be aware of our guidelines on COI. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Page removed

I am writing about EasyShiksha, it has been removed three and four times. There are many pages with same content and subject on Wikipedia why only my page is removed??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priya2255 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Priya2255, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reasons EasyShiksha was previously deleted are outlined in the messages left for you on your user talk page, User talk:Priya2255. The current deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyShiksha, where the nomination rationale is set out. If you want to respond to this nomination and argue for the article to be kept, you should do so there. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Priya2255. This is happening largely because no independent published relaible sources that discuss EasyShiksha in morfe than a brief passing manner have been found. All cited sources are to the EasyShiksha site itself, or very closely associated sites. If you can cite independent reliable sources that discuss EasyShiksha in some depth, please add them to the article and list them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyShiksha. DES ^(talk) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Abdulbaqi Jari (2) and a new editor

I reviewed Draft:Abdulbaqi Jari (2) (more than once) and declined it for various reasons, including not having a properly formed lede sentence and being very badly overlinked to common English words. Another reviewer declined it as not showing notability. The author referred in one version to IHAME as a source of notability of its subject, but without clarifying what that was. In the current draft, IHAME appears to be an orthographic movement concerning the Hausa language. I don’t understand any more than that, probably because the author’s English, while better than my non-existent Hausa, is not good. I advised the author to ask for help with English at WP:WikiProject Nigeria, but the author says that it is not active.

The author, User: Dantunkuran, has now asked me on my talk page for help, writing:

Hello Robert. Please guide me so that i can finish creating the article i am currently creating. Please point the errors so that i can know where to specifically correct. The Wiki Nigeria project has only 53 people, which mostly have not been around for some time. I intend to create many articles to help enrich searches from Nigeria. This is my first one, i will definitely improve after succeeding on this one. . Sometimes the advice to an author whose English is poor is to contribute to the Wikipedia in their native language. Unfortunately, the Hausa encyclopedia has only 1362 articles and 5490 editors, few of them active. I have a question. Would the author still do well to compose his article in Hausa and add it to the Hausa Wikipedia and then request its translation into English (rather than trying with difficulty to write it in English)? If the IHAME movement is not included in the Hausa encyclopedia, it probably should be, and maybe should also be translated into English. I see that the author has removed the excessive overlinking. I see that the author is enthusiastic about improving the coverage of the English Wikipedia about Nigeria. However, enthusiasm is no substitute for fluency with respect to the English Wikipedia, and he will need help. Enthusiasm is also not a substitute for formal neutrality of tone. Can anyone help the author, either with advice in general, advice about the article, or improvement to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Question?

Is there any permission to edit our own page badly? ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every one is expected to edit every page as well as he or she can manage. Good faith efforts should normally be accepted with good will, and help and corrections should be offered politely. Who is "we" in this context? Wikipedia accounts should be for single individuals. Note also that as per WP:OWN, no own "owns" any particular page, in the sense of controlling it. Can you be more specific about what you wnat to do and where? DES ^(talk) 16:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

HELP: Publishing my first article in Wikipedia

Hi,

I am trying to submit a new article (name: "LeonRaper"). This is the first time I have done this. My page is located at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeonRaper/About_you

I would also like to finish it up such that it acceptable to be added to Wikipedia. I could add my page to a Wikipedia Template, but I don't know how.

I would be happy to hear any suggestions you may have.

I have created many web sites that you can see starting at http://www.Raper.com

Thanks,

Hubert Leon Raper <contact info redacted>

Hubert Leon Raper 14:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

Hello LeonRaper, and welcome to the teahouse. What you have there isn't an article, I'm afraid, and it is not very likely to become one, I'm afraid. Autobiographies are discouraged here. Real articles must be written from the neutral point of view. They must be supported by citations to relaible sources. Above all, they must be about notable topics, topics that multiple independent published sources have covered in some detail. Please mread Your first article and Wikipedia's golden Rule. DES ^(talk) 14:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi DES HELP: I'm really confused, I can remove some family information, but why do you say to remove biographical information. Most of Wikipedia pages for sports people, actors, writers and directors contain some biographical information. I am trying to create a Wikipedia page that lets them know why someone should become a dancer. Go to any doctor and they will tell you that dancing is one of the best types of exercise. I was one of the first on the internet providing dancers with information. HELP: Please tell me how to correct my attempted web page: LeonRaper —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that bibliographical detail should be deleted, LeonRaper. If there is to be a page about you such detail would be wanted. What I am saying is that an AUTObiography, a page about you and by you, is discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO. I am saying that uncited articles are not a good idea, and this looks like an attempt at an article. I am saying that unless it can be established that you are notable, there should not be an article about you on Wikipedia at all. And that even if there was one, it should be neutral and factual, not a promotional piece.

Also, please sign your posts on discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). The software will convert them into a link to your user page and a timestamnp when you save your comment. That will also make pings in your comment work, pings only work in comments signed in the same edit.

Also, please do not include your off-wiki contact info. Any respoinses will be made here on the wiki, in this page or on your user talk page, or you will be pinged to notify you of them. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

LeonRaper, in general Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a person (or a band, or a company or ...) wants to say about themselves. It is only interested in what other people, who have no connection with the subject, have published about them. If other independent people have published in-depth material about them, then we say they are "notable" (in Wikipedia's special jargon), and there may be an article about them, based almost entirely on what these unconnect people have published. If there is hardly any such material, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article, and attempts to do so get stopped. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ashtanga vinyasa yoga page: Wikipedia re translation of India English

I edited >>>Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga<<< page and have a question which revolves around an Indian Guru's use of the word "take" in advise re bandha - near the end of the article. He used the word take which may be confused as employ - regarding two bandha. I practise yoga and feel he means to "take one's attention" to the two bandha mentioned, mulbandha and the 2 inches below the naval one, which I don't recall. Activating those locks is different than "taking" ones attention to the areas where they are applied. Currently I have edited using the term "apply" (the bandha) while walking etc but wish to get an opinion so I may revert the quote to take and just add that little more, so readers do not get the wrong advise which for beginner yoga students may push them over the edge. I will adjust the quote meanwhile to keep it more as it was. Sudaama90 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sudaama90. I'm afraid I have no idea what your paragraph above means, and I suspect that few of the people who read this page will understand it. In general we say that this is not the place to discuss the content of particular articles; but where it is something as specialised as that, there really is no point. The place to discuss it is on the talk page Talk:Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga; if you don't think there are enough people who look at that, WT:WikiProject Yoga would be a good place to discuss it. Alternatively, if your first thought was that you were improving the article with your edit, you could very well leave your edit there and see if anybody disagrees. This is the fundamental way that Wikipedia works: see WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

First time creator of an article in Wikipedia

Hi, I am trying to submit a new article (name: "Areopa"). This is the first time I have done this.

The process to do this seems very complicated - one of those cases where you need to be familiar with the approach to understand all the advice.

Can I speak to someone on the phone or Skype by any chance?

Thanks, Paul Warspite987 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Warspite987, you can get "chat" help from experienced editors at WP:IRCHELP. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Warspite987. To submit it, just add {{subst:submit}} at the top and click save page. However, the content of Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable sources and the notability of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are secondary in nature, which are independent of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"). It is therefore certain to be rejected on the basis of lack of sources (if not on others, such as that it contains promotional language like "Areopa is a global leader...") Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Paul. I sometimes wonder why it is that new editors so often plunge straight into one of the hardest tasks there is on Wikipedia, creating a new article, rather than learning the ropes by working on existing articles for a bit.

But I wanted to address your comments on notability: please understand that notability means something a bit different on Wikipedia from its usual meaning. It is not whether the subject is significant (which is what your claim amounts to) or popular, or famous, or influential, or respected: it is solely on whether people unconnected with it have published in-depth writing about it; and it is those independent discussions of the subject which should form the basis for nearly the whole article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Warspite987. According to your comments at Draft:Areopa, the organisation has been recognised in some sense by the European Commission. If you could cite some Commission publications in the draft, that might help contribute to establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

picture deleted

Hello, the picture I uploaded to illustrate my article about CS Pacific has been deleted. Not sure what type of licence to use as a tag. The b/w photograph was taken in the early 20th century by a member of the crew and now his son has given permission to use it in wikipedia. Can you help to restore the pic in the infobox? Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0KLB (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The owner of the copyright needs to go through the processes described at WP:donating copyrighted material. Note that it isn't enough to say that it can be used in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia's processes allow material to be used elsewhere (with the relevant attribution). --David Biddulph (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse @M0KLB:. Actually the image in question might no longer be under copyright, depending on the year and country in which it was copyrighted. If it was taken in Denmark, or elsewhere in the EU, then the copyright on expires 70 years after the death of the copyright owner.

If it the picture is still under copyright, then you would need to get the crew members' son to donate the picture, although as stated above, he would need to release it under a copyright licence that allows it to be used elsewhere as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

M0KLB, unless the father has been dead for more than 70 years, I think you have two options here, depending on what the son wants to allow:

• If he is happy to allow the picture to be used by anyone, for any purpose including commercial use, irrevocably and for ever, then he should upload it to Commons, add an {{OTRS pending}} template to the image page, and e-mail a statement similar to the one here to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (this will only work if he is the heir to his father's estate, as is likely)
• If he does not want to do that, you could still upload the image to Wikipedia under our provisions for fair use of non-free content, and would then have to construct a fair use rationale to justify the use of the image in that one article; if you already have the image, this can be done without bothering the son again.

Of course, in either case the owner can partially protect his commercial interests (if he wants to) by uploading the image at a resolution good enough for it to be useful, but not high enough for commercial reproduction.

Unfortunately, neither of the two options is totally straightforward. I'm happy to try to help if help is needed, or direct you to someone with real expertise in this area. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction: if you decide to go for the fair use option, you wouldn't need to upload it again, you can just ask the deleting admin to restore it. You can see who that was here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Justlettersandnumbers. The fair use of non-free content sounds a happy option. Not sure How to ask the administrator to restore it... M0KLB (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The deleting administrator was BethNaught, who you can contact at User talk:BethNaught, M0KLB. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Heads up for regulars or anyone

As you know, we get many questions about maintenance template removal – people not knowing they are not automatically removed and related issues. I've proposed a new process to address this. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Implementing Help:Maintenance template removal. (Please excuse the indulgence of posting this here – I've found the talk page relatively ineffective to reach the eyes of many in the past.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for a great idea, Fuhghettaboutit. Lots of people think bots do it, when this is almost always a task for intelligent human beings. Maybe a bot could remove stub tags on articles that have tripled or quadrupled in length since being tagged. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Cullen328. Thanks for looking and commenting here and there! It really does seem to come up here and elsewhere a lot and boy do we need help with the gazillion tagged articles out there. Even removing stub tags might be rejected for automation since the stub guideline states that relatively long articles may still at times remain stubs. Apparently, though, "AutoWikiBrowser is frequently set to automatically remove stub tags from any article with more than 500 words".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Using templates and what does " draft " mean?

Trying to use a template for a chart in my articles titled "Jennifer Gates " and "Amanda Gates" . I feel I have followed the template but can not produce the same chart( only part of it). One of my articles is listed as a "draft" the other is not. Wondering why. My "Jennifer Gates " article has a list of Transclusions at the end of it. Trying to understand what that means. All help appreciated. Thank you.Suegates (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Suegates, and welcome back to the Teahouse. The pages you are referring to are Draft:Amanda Gates and Jennifer Gates. A "draft" on wikipedia is a would-be article that is not yet ready for our main article spaces. Many such pages have names that start with "Draft:", and are said to be in "draftspace". Some instead have names that start with "User:" and are said to be is userspace. The rules that apply to drafts are somewhat different from the rules that apply to pages already published as articles. In particular, drafts are less subject to speedy deletion. Many (but not all) drafts are under the auspices pof the Articles for Creation project. These carry a box that says "Review waiting" (as Draft:Amanda Gates does) or "not currently submitted for review". Once a draft is "submitted", and after some delay because there are many drafts, an experienced editor will review it. The editor may accept the draft, and move it to the main article space, sometimes called "publishing" it. Or the reviewer may decline the draft. In this case the reviewer will give a reason for the decline, and may well give additional comments about what the draft needs to be accepted. After this the draft can be edited to correct the problems that the reviewer found, and perhaps to otherwise improve it. It can then be resubmitted for another review. The hope is that eventually it will be accepted. DES ^(talk) 00:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh I think I asked you before, are you in fact related to the people you are writing about, Amanda Gates and Jennifer Gates? If you are you have a conflict of interest. You should declare it, and edit particularly carefully, if you do. DES ^(talk) 00:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure, Suegates, what you mean by a template to produce a chart. Do you refer to the infobox produced by {{Infobox curler}}?. That will produce a formatted list of facts. What facts it lists depends entirely on what parameters are specified (from the list that the template supports). It should only list facts that are supported by reliable sources, or could easily be so supported. It should also only list facts that are relevant to the particular article. What would you like listed that is not currently listed? DES ^(talk) 00:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your help. This is much more difficult than I thought it would be so your input is much appreciated. I have just submitted the article entitled "Jennifer Gates" so I am hoping it will also get a "draft" designation. Is this what I should look for? I did declare the conflict of interest on my user page using the designation you mentioned and then was contacted by a fellow contributor who suggested I use a different designation. Not sure which one is best. Wasn't sure if I needed to declare this somewhere in the article itself. I have made some edits to my first article, trying to include only facts and I hope that I did a better job in my second article. Navigating in here is certainly challenging. Yes, I do mean the infobox. I was trying to include a few more facts ( current team name, team members and positions, medals won representing Canada ) and for some reason this middle section did not reproduce. Facts I listed at the end did appear as you can see. I continue to work through this. Also still having trouble with referencing but will go through the help sections again ( referencing a newspaper article, duplicate references, etc.) A work in progress and learning a lot. Thanks again. Suegates (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Suegates, I must have been unclear, and I apologize. A "draft" is the early, unfinished, not-ready-for-prime-time version, it is sort of like playing in a junior league. Not as much is demanded. when the "draft:" prefix is removed from the page name, it is being moved to the major leagues.

I will be happy to help you with any specific issues you are having a problem with, and so will others here I am sure. Just let us know what the problems are. I fixed some header formatting on the "Jennifer Gates" article in this edit.

You have declared that you are a long-time fan of curling. But your user name "suegates" suggests that you family name is "Gates" which in turn suggests that Jennifer Gates and Amanda Gates might be actual relations of yours, in which case three is a larger conflict of interest than just being a fan of curling would create. You have not answered this, or if you have I have not seen it. You don't have to disclose your real name, but please indicate if you have a strong conflict of interest over these two articles or not. DES ^(talk) 01:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Suegates: One further point to bear in mind is that there were many links from curling articles to Jen Gates, which showed as redlinks because an article with that title did not exist. I have created a redirect from Jen Gates to Jennifer Gates. I do notice that the referencing in Jennifer Gates leaves a lot to be desired. Many of the refs are presumably intended to point to websites, but aren't formatted as links; many look as if they point to the top page of a website, rather than a specific page which provides the relevant information about the subject to support the statements you have made in the article. You ought to read WP:Referencing for beginners, among other pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding Wiki's Citation Form

I got Too Excited to Contribute my First Edit to Wikipedia, having just watched an Interview broadcast on ABC Television with a Sports Legend, and discovering that much of what I had just taken notes, was Missing from the Wikipedia article. However, I discovered my attempt to properly cite my first entry, was woefully inadequate, due to obviously misunderstanding Wiki's Citation Form... Although I included on the form the name of the Interviewer and his Weekly Sports Interview Program, and the date it was broadcast (today)... The Published Citation contained No Name of interviewer or his TV Sports Show on which the interview was conducted, hence, No Actual Source shown ... And I've been Unable to figure out how to again open the citation to try again. The interview Subject was Troy Brown (not the basketball player), Football Wide-Receiver for 15 years (and 3 Super Bowl Rings) with Only one team, the New England Patriots. Although the aforementioned Uncommon Sports Status was already mentioned in your article, much fascinating info which I had taken notes upon, was missing. Since I just heard such come from Troy Brown's Own Mouth, and can re-check the interview online, I thought I Really Had Something to Contribute. But I Realize Now that I Should have Studied all your Editing Ins-&-Outs BEFORE ever attempting to do so. Meanwhile, the One entry I attempted, #3 citation in his Early Years, is Mortifyingly-Inadequately-Cited. . . Laughably So. So Such is My Question: How do I Complete said citation. So Sorry that I got myself (and the article) in this mess. . . Thank You for wading thru this -- (I'm suddenly being urgently summoned, and will just have to let this Fly. . . Daniel Clay Kirby74.51.82.78 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can see previous edits to this page by using the "View history" tab at the top of this page. You can see your own contributions by using the "Contributions" link at the top of any page. One further piece of advice is that other editors will be more likely to read your question if it isn't littered with randomly-scattered capital letters. The convention in English is that the first word of a sentence starts with a capital, as do proper nouns, but other words in general don't. Properly capitalised text is easier to read, and diificult-to-read text may well be ignored by busy editors. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel. You didn't do badly on your edit to Troy Brown. You got the format of the "access-date" parameter wrong, but Keith D fixed it up after you. However, the citation does not really have enough information that a reader could go and check it. In fact, I'm not sure where we stand with citing broadcast interviews: if the broadcaster then archives the segment on YouTube or their own website, that would be fine, but I'm not sure if all sport interviews, for example, get archived. But if it can be used, you need more information than you have given. In particular the title of the show. (You've given it as the name of the reference, but that is only used internally, for referring to the same source more than once: it needs to go into the citation template, probably as the title= parameter, and the broadcast date. I've fixed it up a bit - copied the show title to the title= parameter, and changed accessdate to date (accessdate is for URL's, to show when the URL was checked: it wasn't displaying because there's no URL in your citation. Citing sources which are not online is fine, as long as the reader can in principle get hold of them). --ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How to use Wikipedia

Hi, my name is Shakiah and I use Wikipedia for study and sometimes social purposes and I was wondering how to use it. I am 12 years old and am Homeschooled. I am doing a research project on the Emancipation Proclamation and I saw something that I needed to edit. I didn't know how to so I had to make a profile to have this question answered. Can you help me? Kiah6060 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kiah6060, and welcome to the Teahouse. We have some younger editors who are very helpful, so you can be if you want to. I suggest you start by reading advice for younger editors for your own safety; then try The Wikipedia Adventure which will introduce you to editing.

If you see something that needs improvement on an article, usually you can just go in and edit it. Make sure you leave a sensible "edit summary" describing what you've done, so that nobody will think that your change was an accident or vandalism. To correct mis-spellings or something like that, just do it. If you want to change the information, you need to be more careful: generally we require that all information in a Wikipedia article is from a reliable published source: don't just add things that you know, unless you can find a book or a newspaper or a reliable website (not just social media, or somebody's blog) that says the information. If you think you have an improvement to an article, but you're not confident, the best thing is to make a suggestion on the article's Talk page.

Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct way to format reference

Hello, I'm curious as to the proper way to format a reference, as whenever I add one, I usually end up leaving another wikipedian to properly format it.

Here is an example of a reference which I use:

{{sfn|*name of book*|*author of book*|*year published*|*page number*}}

Any help would be appreciated.

St.HocusPocus (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@St.HocusPocus: I'm a real fan of sfn and sfnp as a way of referencing but there's two things here:

1. {{sfn}} only takes three parameters; last name(s) of author(s), year, page number(s) or location so you need to stick to those.
2. it only works properly when the full reference of the book is given using {{cite book}} and the special parameter |ref=harv is used.

So you have to have something like

Markup	Renders as
here is my text.{{sfn|Author|2015|p=200}} ;Source {{cite book|last=Author |title= Name of book |year=2015 |publisher=Wiki Press |ref=harv}} ;Notes {{reflist}}	here is my text. Source Author (2015). Name of book. Wiki Press. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) Notes

Nthep (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sarovaram11/sandbox

I reviewed User:Sarovaram11/sandbox and declined it. I said that the draft read promotionally, and said to focus on independent reliable sources that had written about the company. I also asked whether its name, and therefore that of the article, should be LabelLife.com or Label Corp?

User: Sarovaram11 then asked for my help: Hi Robert! This is with reference to my article The Label Life, that was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarovaram11/sandbox). I'm attempting to edit it and I wanted to clarify the reasons for rejection so I know I'm on the right track while making the changes. 1) The language - needs to be more neutral and objective (does this mean not using phrases like 'celebrity stylists' and so on) 2) Sources - I've tried to restrict them to articles from magazines and newspapers (Indiatoday, vogue and open, the magazine - among others) could you guide me on what other sources I should be looking for? Apologies if these questions sound silly, it's my first time and I thought it was ready as I put it on the New Contributor's Help chat before submitting for review. But I clearly missed a lot, anyway, it's all a process right? Thanks very much

As to point 1, yes. That is the problem. Phrases such as “The website aims to provide consumers with a celebrity guided shopping experience.[“” are known as peacock language and will result in rejection. (This is hard for many contributors to understand, because these phrases are precisely what one uses in advertising, but advertising is not permitted in Wikipedia.) As to point 2, it now appears that the draft is well sourced. There doesn’t appear (to me) to be a notability issue. There are still serious tone issues.

I have a question for the author. Are you affiliated (as an employee, an agent, or in some other way) with the company? If so, you must make the conflict of interest disclosure, and possibly the paid editing disclosure.

If you have any more questions, we will try to answer them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

hi!

Thanks for reviewing my article, I did know of course that a Wikipedia article cannot endorse the subject of the article in any way. I thought I had made it objective. I was clearly wrong, will take several more looks at it for this before attempting to re-submit it.

Second, no I am not associated with the Lable Life in any way I work in a completely different field. The three figures actresses that are associated with the company are very popular in here, which is how I came to hear of it.

If you have anything more to point out, I would value the feedback.

Thanks Sarovaram11 (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I transform my article from "like a journal article" to "an encyclopaedia entry"?

I have written an article on the problems faced by patients with severe anorexia nervosa when they get admitted to medical wards. They sometimes do badly because the staff aren't familiar with the condition. My article has been rejected because it read "more like a journal article than an encyclopaedia entry" I need help to make the transition from journal article to encyclopedia article.

Paul2322 Paul2322 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

When asking here about a draft or article, it would help to provide the title. In your case, it is Draft:MARSIPAN: MAnagement of Really SIck Patients with Anorexia Nervosa. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear to me, as a scientifically educated non-physician, whether the subject is an appropriate article for Wikipedia for two reasons. First, has your paper already been published? If not, it isn't a verifiable source for Wikipedia. Go ahead and submit it to a medical journal for peer review and publication. After it is published, you can cite it as a reference. Second, it isn't clear that this detailed precise topic needs an article in an encyclopedia, as opposed to being in an article such as Anorexia Nervosa or some sub-topic. Not every topic that deserves to be discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association deserves to be in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Paul2322, A Wikipedia article should be substantially based on independent published sources. Have there been articles published by people not in the MARSIPAN group which discuss it in some depth? (Not just citing it, but discussing or reviewing it). If so, there can be an article on it, which should be mostly based on those articles. If not, then Wikipedia will not accept an article on it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

need help re: speedy deletion of things I submitted

Please can you help! I worked SUPER hard to create a couple of entries and they were speedy deleted :(

I have edited entries until now, and these are my first two pages created.

People will turn to Wikipedia to understand more about the two organisations in question, and they are in all ways similar to hundreds of thousands of entries on Wikipedia (one is a professional network and one is a company). What can I do? I don't understand!!!! Alexandragreenhill (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You say that "People will turn to Wikipedia to understand more about the two organisations in question". They will if the organisations are already notable, that is, having been covered by more than one independent reliable source. If so, you need to provide evidence in the article of that notability, or it may be deleted, possibly speedily. If the organization is not already notable, then Wikipedia is not the place to advertise it. I don't know which is the case, since the articles were already deleted. If the organization is notable, provide evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you are not familiar with Wikipedia policies, and want feedback on draft articles, create the articles in draft space and use the Articles for Creation process. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to get the articles that you worked on back to continue to improve them, you can make a request to have them restored to user space or draft space via Requests for Undeletion. Your mistake was putting them immediately in article space, also known as mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Alexandragreenhill. Welcome to the Teahouse.

• You submitted the article Mybesthelper and it was deleted for being promotional. it started with the text:

Mybesthelper is an award-winning innovative company that uses tech to revolutionize how families connect to child, elder and home care options...

and continued in much the same vein. I am afraid that this is pretty clearly promotional by Wikipedia standards. It is full of opinions and evaluations ("innovative") in Wikipedia's voice, not attributed to any particular person. Wikipedia articles must neutrally describe what reliable sources have said about a topic, not themselves praise or attack it.

• you also created an article Founders network which was deleted for being a copyright infringement, as well as for being promotional. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, unless it is released under a free license so that anyone in the world can reuse or modify it, even for commercial purposes. Moreover, text copied from the website of a person, an organization, or a company is almost always too promotional to be of use, even if it is released under a free license.
• You could use the article wizard to start over, creating a draft that would be reviewed by an experienced editor as part of the articles for creation project. But first be sure that the topic is notable in the special sense used here on Wikipedia, and read Your First Article, Referencing for Beginners, and Wikipedia's Golden Rule. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

PS, while you could use the Requests for Undeletion process as suggested by Robert McClenon above, in this case I advise against doing so. On the Mybesthelper topic you would do better to start over, to avoid the promotional tone from creeping back into any new draft. The other one would not be restored due to the copyright issues. However Robert McClenon is very correct to advise you to pay close attention to notability issues, Alexandragreenhill. Those are most often the main problem with new draft articles. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

DES Robert McClenon thanks for the rapid replies! I did look for how I could submit them into the draft space but couldn't find it. I would love to undelete Founder's network as I can easily re-write their content - I thought I had to be as similar to what their actual mission was saying in the first part. The rest of it was my own language. Alexandragreenhill (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

DES Robert McClenon Where is the draft space? The one for myBestHelper I hadn't even edited or added any references for. Thanks for the help!!!Alexandragreenhill (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not recreate Mybesthelper if your business is notable someone else will do it eventually. Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the copyright policy. New editors often have difficulty understanding the Wikipedia Copyright policy. However, the Wikipedia policy is simply that we take copyright very seriously, and copyrighted material will be mercilessly deleted from Wikipedia. Our policy reflects the law. (Just because other web sites don’t enforce the law doesn’t mean that they are right and we are wrong. It means that we are right.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Any material that is copyrighted, including a mission statement, must be rewritten in the author’s own words. It should not be very similar in wording to what they posted, only similar in meaning to what they posted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

While this is largely true, Alexandragreenhill, it is possible to include quotes in articles, providing that they are put inside quote marks and properly sourced. A mission statement is the sort of thing that could acceptably be quoted, rather than paraphrased. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

However, since you are in a hurry to resubmit the deleted material, I have a question. Are you affiliated (e.g., as an employee, consultant, agent, etc.) with either of the two organizations? If so, have you completed the conflict of interest disclosure, and, if necessary, the Paid editing disclosure? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You ask where the draft space is. You can create a page in draft space just by preceding its title with 'Draft:', otherwise in the same way as you created pages in article space. However, please read the policies, guidelines, and advice before being in a hurry to re-create your deleted contributions, and please review whether you have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Alexandragreenhill. You can create a draft article in Draft space by just typing (eg) "Draft:Mybesthelper" into the search box. It will tell you that doesn't exist, and ask if you mean to create it. However, I would recommend not doing that, but using the Article wizard to create it, as that will put some useful templates in.

On the content, I think a principle to bear in mind is that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a company (or any other subject) has said about itself, or wants to say about itself, unless its statements are themselves the subject of independent writing. A Wikipedia article should be based close to 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Chronology Between Different Artist Names

I'm trying to make a neater chronology for Buddy Holly's singles, but I'm not sure how to approach on the topic of different band names. Certain singles will credit 'Buddy Holly and the Three Tunes' as opposed to just 'Buddy Holly'. Should these be part of the main chronology, or a part of their own? -Disco dude rock (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Article title

I would like to change the title of an article, is this something that i can do or must it be requested of senior editors? Greensaulberg (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving a page should tell you everything you need to know. Long story short: Make sure the move is appropriate, since you probably don't have the rights to move it yourself yet, you could request it here --Nfreaker91 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction User:Greensaulberg, you are autoconfirmed, so you should be able to use Special:MovePage (normally accessible through the "move page" option within the Page tab between More and the search bar. Please do check out Wikipedia:Moving a page though, to make sure your move is a good idea. If you cannot move a page it may be protected, in this case you should request a move using the link above --Nfreaker91 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nfreaker91.

I wish to move Phillip King(artist) to Phillip King(Sculptor) I have followed your instructions and found this note on the move page: 17:34, 18 January 2013 ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) moved page Phillip King (artist) to Philip King (sculptor) without leaving a redirect (History merge; back in a bit) (revert) ErikHaugen has tried to do this before but it didn't stick, why was this? TIA Greensaulberg (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please provide wikilinks for the pages to which you are referring, so that readers can easily click and see the pages to which you are referring. You can't move to Phillip King (sculptor) for the reasons explained at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moves where the target name has an existing page; read the instructions there as to how to do it. Technically the page could be moved to Philip King (sculptor) but as that is an incorrect spelling the move would be reverted as incorrect. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

All the change requests is changing artist to sculptor, i dont see the incorrect spelling? Greensaulberg (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

He probably means that it would be an incorrect title, rather than an incorrect spelling. As you can see Wikipedia:Article titles is very long and describes how to find the best title for an article. Category:Wikipedia naming conventions makes it even more complicated. Relevant here is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), in particular the Disambiguating section. Basically you should use (artist) as long as there is only one artist of the name. If there were two, one would become (sculptor), the other (painter) or something similar. It's not supposed to be as descriptive as possible. --Nfreaker91 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If you don't see the incorrect spelling, try counting how often the letter "l" occurs in the first name. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The correct Phillip King(artist) has 2 x L and is correctly spelt on Wikipedia entry. I am not sure i understand what David Biddulph is saying?

Thank you Nfreaker91, that makes sense.Greensaulberg (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Originally you had two questions, one about how to proceed in renaming an article, the other about an entry in the articles (move) history. I answered the first one, David noticed a detail about the second I hadn't noticed before: As it turns out, the article was moved from an incorrect spelling (Philip) to its correct place, Philllip. User:David Biddulph told you why that move didn't stick and why it shouldn't be moved back there. --Nfreaker91 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In your message of 15:28 UTC you referred to Philip King (sculptor) with a single "l", and to the move to that title which ErikHaugen made in 2013 (and which was of course subsequently corrected). That is why I mentioned that title, and said that it would be incorrect. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK Thanks to you both. My 1 x L was a misspell, thank the gods for measured volunteerism )) Greensaulberg (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Greensaulberg, I've added a {{db-move}} template to Phillip King (sculptor). Assuming the reason I gave is accepted, the deleting admin may or may not also move the page there (some do, some don't). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

another sandbox

Hello Teahouse I am working in my sandbox on one article and would like to start a second, related, article. I see that i can have sub-pages of this sandbox. Is it OK to start another article on this page? TIA Greensaulberg (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You can move User:Greensaulberg/sandbox to User:Greensaulberg/Michael Bolus, for example, and then you can either replace the resulting redirect at User:Greensaulberg/sandbox by new content, or start User:Greensaulberg/new article title or whatever. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi David, thank you for your response.

I have found an article that shows how to move a published page but not the sandbox, can you send me to correct instructions please. Greensaulberg (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The link I gave you to WP:move applies to pages in all namespaces, not just articles. Read what it says. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have 'read what it says' and there is no 'more/move' button in my sandbox. The article 'wpmove' suggests the 'the page is most likely protected from moving'?Greensaulberg (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The way the menus are presented may depend on your preferences and option settings. When I look at your sandbox I see "Move page" as an option on the "Page" menu. The tabs I see are "Read", "Edit", "View history", Watch (shown as a star), "More", "Page", "User", and "TW" (the latter because I have Twinkle enabled). What tabs do you see at the top of your sandbox page? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, now i see 'move', what did you do? Thanks for whatever it was!Greensaulberg (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Greensaulberg, I'm afraid I've had to remove a large part of User:Greensaulberg/Michaelbolus because it was apparently copied word-for-word from other websites. Please understand that that is not acceptable here, as it is against our copyright policy. I've left a message on your talk page about this, with several links to pages you should read. Please ask either here or there if you have questions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

info box picture

Hello Wikipedians. How do i add a picture on info box please? Dantunkuran (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the infobox, if you are working on this draft all the info you need shoud be here. It should look something like this: |image=example.jpg|image_size= --Nfreaker91 (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What you added in this edit was not in accordance with what Nfreaker suggested, nor in accordance with what Template:Infobox person says. I have corrected it in this further edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ward as a given name

Hi, I hope I'm in the right place to ask! You have the page Ward (surname), but Ward (given name) is a redirect to Howard. Some people seem to genuinely have Ward as their first name though, such as:

• Ward Bond - Wardell, went by Ward
• Ward Churchill - Ward
• Ward Costello - Edward, went by Ward
• Ward Cunningham - Howard, Ward is a nickname
• Ward Lernout - Ward
• Ward Swingle - Ward

I'm unsure how to proceed: Should there be a page Ward (name) similar to Paul (name) for first and given names or maybe a disambiguation page for the given names instead of a redirect? Or did i overlook something and there should be no action at all?

A german wikipedia user looking for help, thanks in advance --Nfreaker91 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Nfreaker91, the redirect is not helpful. I would expand it to a DAB page, with a cross-ref to Howard (name) and perhaps to Edward. --ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not a normal article similar to Stephen? Something like this:

Ward is a masculine first name....

==Notable people known by the name Ward:==

• Ward Churchill
• Ward Lernout
• Ward Swingle

See also Howard and Edward.

Category:Given names

Because in at least those cases it seems to not be a short form of anything but a genuine name. --Nfreaker91 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nfreaker91: Don't forget Ward Kimball. Deor (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And Ward Lascelle as a red link, he seems to be notable (exists in french, notable movies produced and directed: fr:Ward Lascelle). Should it be an article about a name or a disambigation though? User:ColinFine seems to prefer a disambiguation page but hasn't layed out his reasoning and I'm not experienced enough in the english Wikipedia to decide... --Nfreaker91 (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've no objection to your making it an article, if you can find reliable published sources that actually say something about the name (as opposed to about people who bear it). If not, then it shouldn't be an article, only a DAB. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, you have convinced me. I will proceed then. --Nfreaker91 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have turned Ward (given name) from a redirect into a disambiguation and added as many Wards as I could find. It would be nice if someone could look over my work since I'm not up to speed on conventions in the english wikipedia. --Nfreaker91 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nfreaker91 thanks for creating this DAB page. However, please do not use the form "Ward Churchill (* 1947)". Instead use "(born 1947)" or "(died 1971)" or ("active from 1956)" or whatever is appropriate, not an asterisk. If no dates are known simply omit them, do not use "(?)". Thank you. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

how to link up two articles?

Dear Teahouse Team Many thanks for your assistance in my wiki experince. I have recently created and article called CS Pacific which is qualified as orphan. Following your suggestions I have linked the article with another one called "List of ship launches in 1903". Unfortunately the article is still a orphan after this change... can you help? Thank you M0KLB (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No, M0KLB, it is no longer an orphan, and you may remove the {{orphan}} tag from the top of it. (Finding more articles than one to link to it would be good). People often assume that maintenance tags like that are automatic, but there is no way to do that. Any editor may add and remove them when they think it appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not notable candidate for local office, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.

MA Razak Master, this is my page. But i can see that "Not notable candidate for local office, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN." How i can fix this issue?

I have to remove any content?Abdunnasir kdy (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. No, removing content won't solve the problem. Unless you can demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability, or specifically that at POLITICIAN, then the article will be deleted. If you can demonstrate notability, please do so at WP:Articles for deletion/MA Razak Master. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, it is not a good idea in Wikipedia to write "this is my page". Even though you probably only mean that you wrote it, some editors will think that you mean that you own it and that it belongs to you. No editor owns a Wikipedia page. So please avoid using that phrase. It annoys other editors, who may think that you mean it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Subject of notability

I am writing an article on Ron Fenton, an actor, writer and directer, documented as a Theatre Personality in South Africa, which has been rejected on the grounds of notability

He has been in a large number of professional plays, which I have referenced to online archived material. And have referenced the famous people he has worked with in those productions, such as directors etc.

I think whats against me is the place and timings. In South Africa in the 1970's not alot is documented about theatre generally, due to its political situation at the time. I do have reviews about the plays from the national newspapers of the day (In paper clippings), but i cant use those obviously. But Ron Fenton was definitely a pretty impressive person in the day, and definitely a notable person. Other than the productions he was in, he has written many plays, 2 of which were put on professionally in South Africa.

Any advice will be much appreciated.

Frazer

FrazeFento (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You can use your paper clippings if they contain the name of the newspaper and the date (and preferably the page and column numbers). There is no need for sources to be available online, but they should be cited in a way that allows them to be checked by anyone with access to a good library. Maproom (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom . Will i need to photo and upload the newspaper clipping? And will this improve the notability requirement?

FrazeFento (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

To upload a copy of the newspaper clipping would probably be a WP:copyright violation. Just give the details to which Maproom referred. {{Cite news}} is a useful way of listing the relevant parameters in your reference. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

improving content

Hello today I tried adding content to a stub-level article about Tara Hunt. Later the editor, Redune, reverted the article to the original with the message that the content I added was about the Whuffie Factor, not the living person described in the particle. Here is the link to the edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tara_Hunt&oldid=prev&diff=713703537

Redune was right of course and I thanked him/her, but am now unclear about how to improve an article about a person if I cannot refer to their work. e.g. could I add a section like 'Social Media Advisor' and then describe her application of the Whuffie concept to online reputation building?

As an aside I don't have any connection to Tara - although I did refer to her social credit-buidling ideas in one of my own books. She thanked me and I then looked at her Wikipedia article. Caboc333 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You can of course refer to her work Caboc333 (provided you summarise what independent reliable sources say about it, and don't add unsourced material or original research). The issue is about how much of the article should be about her work. I suggest you discuss it with Redune and maybe others on the article's talk page, and see if you can agree how much about the work is appropriate. Alternatively, if the book meets the criteria for notability in its own right, you could write an article about it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

How to reverse an offical article name and the redirect to it?

Hi, I just did a cleanup and expansion of a little article by the name of USA Living formerly known as USA Discounters. While doing research I discovered the company's "name change" was in fact only a branding change and the company's official legal name is still "USA Discounters, LTD". In addition the company also runs another store brand Fletcher's Jewelers. I think the article should officially be named with the legal name of the company and the USA Living name should be the redirect, along with a new redirect for Fletcher's Jewelers to make the package complete. I know how to do a simple move/redirect but I am not sure how to safely do a switch between the existing two pages. Help? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In most cases, moving a page over a redirect requires administrator attention. But before you consider that, please look at WP:MOSNAME. Wikipedia does not necessarily use legal names of entities: it uses the name that is found in the majority of independent reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. It seems that the vast majority of the sources for the article also use the "Discounters" name as well so per MOSNAME that makes another reason the article should be renamed. Where on WP should I contact an admin for this? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need an admin if (as in this case) the target name is merely a redirect to the current name and there have been no further edits, see WP:MOR. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes that guideline seems to cover exactly this situation. Thank you. I will move the page soon. Currently dealing with someone who considers the article non-notable and I would like to get that dealt with before I confuse the issue with a move. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

sexist and nationalist chinese text

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty is problematic for its use of sexist and nationalistic claims about the "intermarriage" of various types of women with Han Chinese men. First, this is mischaracterization of history since Han Chinese men and women were the majority of slaves and servants of the Mongol dynasty which is absent and frequently edited out of this text and mischaracterizes other Asian ethnicities as slaves, especially women of other Asian ethnicities. Just because the "authors" cite a few texts out of context does not make these passages legitimate.

For instance, this is a typical text that shows Han chauvinistic tendencies.. "Shi Tianze was a Han Chinese who lived in the Jin dynasty. Interethnic marriage between Han and Jurchen became common at this time. His father was Shi Bingzhi (史秉直, Shih Ping-chih). Shi Bingzhi was married to a Jurchen woman (surname Na-ho) and a Han Chinese woman (surname Chang); it is unknown which of them was Shi Tianze's mother.[39] Shi Tianze was married to two Jurchen women..."

If the editors of this page are Han Chinese-Americans or Chinese, they will be likely politically biased that lead to this abuse of privilege. Can we make sure there is neutrality on this historical and political issue and revamp this problematic page?65.78.18.158 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to Teahouse hosts: please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 469#Chinese nationalistic, sexist trolling on Yuan Dynasty page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, as I told you in the previous discussion linked above, the best place to discuss this is on the article's talk page, but you don't appear to have taken that advice. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia, not to discuss article content. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, regardless of whether you are here or on an article talk page, making comments that imply ethnic or sexual bias on the part of other editors is not a good way to get started editing collaboratively or to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

communicating with the page creator

How can I communicate directly with a page creator who has responded to my tagging of a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Oh) to speedy deletion? Thanks. WFtrax (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That page was originally created by Fixing Things 42824282, WFtrax. You could leave a message on User talk:Fixing Things 42824282, or ping that user to some other appropriate page, particularly if a discussion of the issue is already in progress. Where and how did the user respond to you? DES ^(talk) 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Having issues placing a free picture

I have a picture of a person as a young child and I'm trying to place it in the "Early life" section but no matter how hard I try it always ends up being placed underneath it or creating a big white space next to it.*Treker (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In this edit I left-aligned the image. Not the most elegant solution, I know, but does it look satisfactory to you? Deor (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, god. thank you so much. I was going insane trying to figure out how to do it. Thanks a lot. You're great.*Treker (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

references

Hi, can someone please check my Andy J. McNamara wiki page and see if the references provided meet the criteria now? I do not want his page deleted.

Thanks,

MaxShipMaxShep81 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MaxShep81, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Andy J. McNamara article does not have any references. I can see that you added a couple of external links to the references section, but another editor moved them to the external links section. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners on how references should work here, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources on what is considered reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Over reliance on primary sources: Tag Issue

Hi there - I'm currently editing and reviewing the Charities Aid Foundation page, which has a note on the top that it is over-reliant on primary sources. I'm re-referencing many parts of the page with third-party links, but I wondered how often that note is reviewed? It is date stamped back to 2013 - is there a way I can request that is reviewed, or would it happen automatically when there are enough third-party sources added in? Thanks Martinloves (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no rule as to when tags are reviewed. Some editors think that a bot reviews them and sometimes pulls them, but that isn't feasible. (The tagging logic isn't such as can be coded, so that the untagging logic can't be coded either.) A human can apply the tags, and a human can remove the tags. If you think that the tag should be removed, you may remove it via bold revert discuss, or you may request on the talk page that it be removed, and be prepared to discuss the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic editor

I have come across an editor who I feel genuinely is trying to do good work but they just keep adding in fancruft and unsourced material in DC comics articles. I als have a strong susspection that a lot of the text is coppied from somewhere.

This is the ip adress 37.46.47.138

I have left a message on their talkpage but what should I do if they keep doing what they are doing?*Treker (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you should take this to ANI Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Try to interact with them more on their talk page before you take it to ANI or anywhere, and give them the anon welcome. If they ask questions, answer them. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Do revisions to a resubmitted article meet stated specifications

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am an American hired by a Korean law firm to help them adjust to the opening of the Korean legal market after FTA-mandated liberalization. It never occurred to me to use Wikipedia as advertising. After reviewing your policy on conflict of interest disclosure and subject notability, I set out to show the firm deserved a page because of the numerous high-profile cases it has been involved with. Three subjects or people involved in cases covered by the firm already have English-language Wikipedia pages. Two of the firm's consultants also have Wikipedia pages already. A current case involving a worldwide sporting organization will also generate considerable publicity when settled.

I understand why Wikipedia needs to block out advertising and bias. The point of this page is to provide a neutral source of information so non-Korean students or reporters covering cases the firm has been involved with, can get the same type of quick reference links they can find among the Wikipedia pages of the Western law firms that this firm has worked with or opposed or will be working with or opposing. After making revisions based upon suggestions made by the editor who rejected the first draft, I would like to ask more feedback about what could be done to make this article comply fully with your expectations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LegalKorea/sandbox/DR_%26_AJU Thank you for your consideration. LegalKorea (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that the draft is now at Draft:DR & AJU (as you were notified more than a month ago). You have still not made the declaration of paid editing in the form required by WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

David Biddulph Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry for not using the proper Draft:DR & AJU designation. While I have been aware for more than a month that the page was moved to the draft section, I simply pasted the old URL link that I have always used to access the page. I also declared my connection to the firm at the top of the Talk page as required even before I started work on the page. I did not, however, use the official template because at the time I researched the policies, they stated that one (of about four options) for complying with disclosure requirements was to state any connection at the top of the Talk page. Now that it specifies to use the template provided, I have complied accordingly. My aim has been and always will be to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate all the assistance and advice received from you and everyone along the way. LegalKorea (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have tried to use {{Connected contributor}} on your user talk page, but if you look at the page for that template it says: "This template should be placed on article talk pages." Similarly {{Connected contributor (paid)}} (which is the relevant one for paid editors) says "This template should be placed on article talk pages and on drafts."

Note that WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY also says: "In addition, make the disclosure on your main user page in a clearly visible list of your paid contributions." You haven't yet created your main user page, but you can do so at User:LegalKorea.

The page for each of the templates explains what to put in which of the parameters. For example for U1-otherlinks= it says that this is the place to supply relevant links. By "links" it means WP:wikilinks. David Biddulph (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for getting me closer to (if not completely at)full compliance. I put the template on my User page, User page Talk, Draft page, Draft page Talk. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. I sincerely appreciate your help.LegalKorea (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

what would this be considered

i wrote some info about Zentangles. Could I put Zentangle on the doodle article? Clairem05 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clairem05. If you complete your sandbox draft, and it is accepted as an encyclopedia article, then you could add a link to it in the "See also" section of Doodle. Please wait until then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether Clairem05 intended it to be a standalone article, though, or rather a section of the article on doodles? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328 and Cordless Larry - I have been working with Clairem05 on her zentangle text. We originally intended to submit it as a separate article, but later wondered if it would be more appropriate as a section on the doodles article. I wasn't sure whether it merited its own article. Thoughts? extabulis (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it's a very short article, which perhaps suggests that it should instead be a section of Doodle, but then again, no other type of doodle has such a section, so it might appear a bit strange there. I'm not sure what would be best, extabulis and Clairem05. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)