Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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

pending citations

what do we put in a draft when we are waiting for a source to be verified...for "pending citations"? Sandy Montoya (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Validity?

While I was poking around articles that needed updating, I noticed one called "elasmobranch cestodes". The article itself needs a great deal of correction, but I rashly suggested on the talk page that because an "elasmobranch cestode" is simply a tapeworm (cestode) that infects a shark/skate/ray (elasmobranch), and since there are many tapeworms that do not infect sharks and those that do are not all closely related, this was more of a "category" than an article. Consequently the editors might consider deleting the page. In the cold light of morning, however, I talked to some of my parasitology colleagues, and while "elasmobranch cestology" isn't really a recognized subfield, the term does get thrown around a lot in the lit and might deserve a definition and separate discussion in a general reference work. So I guess my question is: does the fact that the phrase is used frequently by professionals but would be confusing to non-experts qualify it as an article subject, even though "elasmobranch cestodes" do not form a taxonomic group? If so, I will happily use some reliable third-party sources to improve the article. Thanks for all the help, and sorry for asking so many questions. Oceanchaos (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitting a Draft

Hi there. I created a page draft submission that was denied. I would like to keep working on it, by pressing edit and then making the changes recommended by Wikipedia. (I haven't done this yet, but will.) After I'm finished and I would like to resubmit the page, do I just click the blue "resubmit" button on the live draft page? Should I leave all of the markup intact on the formatting side of the page, (that starts with {{AFC submission...)? Thanks very much.

Ellaby12 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ellaby12: yes and yes. Keeping the previous submission notes helps the reviewer this time see what was aid previously and whether the issues identified have been addressed. Nthep (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Image location

I moved an image from the right hand side of a page to the left, and another editor has twice moved it back again to the right. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Stokes_(critic)

Why would they do that? I have sent a message to that editor but haven't had a response yet.

What are the Wikipedia conventions for the placement of images? Pdstokes (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pdstokes. To my mind, the page looks much better with the image on the right, as it then doesn't interrupt the text. Placement on the right is also the default option, as documented at MOS:IMAGESYNTAX. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Note also that your username and this edit summary suggest that you have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, Pdstokes. Please read and follow the advice at WP:COI. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to Cordless Larry for their response. I do have a COI but looking at the guidelines on image placement, this sentence 'It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text.' would seem to support my view that the image is better on the left. I don't see that the text is unduly interrupted by placing the image there.

Pdstokes (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Atomic oxygen in Saturn caused by rings to wear out.

Why rings from the Saturn eroded. I can't know why Saturn thought. Accoding to her 10 years old sister, Claire-Anne, Saturn will be eroded? Daskjhon john (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Daskjhon john. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. General knowledge questions are more likely to be met with answers if you ask them at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about speedy deletion

Hi I do not know what is wrong with the page, considering its my first time I would really appreciate some useful insight. I don't mind you pin pointing the mistakes either. I do know that the references were not uploaded, but if that's the only thing that keeping it from getting published I shall add them. The page is tittled as Umang Software Technologies.

I got a message saying it is nominated for speedy deletion. I want to know why?

Velington Afonso (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The most obvious fault with the article Umang Software Technologies is that it offers no evidence at all, in the form of references to reliable independent published sources, that its subject is notable. Without such evidence, it will certainly be deleted. That is not its only fault, but it's probably the one that will be most difficult to overcome. Maproom (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Velington Afonso, please read about what we mean by "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia. Also, if your contributions relate to a person or organisation from which you receive money, you must make a paid-contribution disclosure. This is a requirement, not an option. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I notify the community that I drafted a requested article, pending acceptance?

I happened to see an interesting topic on the "WikiProject Missing Encyclopedic articles" under the "Monthly focus: MacTutor biographies" list (Sergei Chernikov). Since so few of these articles are left on this list, I am probably not going to be the only person who takes a stab at drafting this biography in the week before the article is approved or rejected. Should I do something to indicate this article is "pending"? Thanks guys. Oceanchaos (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I was in the process of accepting this when I found that Dodger67 had beaten me to it (thanks, Dodger!). OceanChaos, that's the sort of article you could have created directly in mainspace – an obviously completely notable subject, and a number of unimpeachable references, all in all a valuable addition to the project (thank you!). Are the journal articles available online, perhaps through some major online database? If so, it'd be nice if you could link to them, and add a {{subscription required}} template to the citations if necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. I didn't want to just drop it straight into mainspace because (1) this is my first from-scratch biography and (2) while I'm reasonably confident I got the biographical details correct, I'm a biostatistician, and need someone with more expertise to help decode his contributions to group theory. I see someone already fixed several errors I made in the reference tags, including external links. In the future, should I put notable subjects straight into namespace, even if they are incomplete/possibly riddled with coding mistakes? Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oceanchaos and Justlettersandnumbers I've dropped a note about the new article at WikiProject Mathematics, so other subject specialist would probably be contributing to it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I see this has already started to happen. Crowd-sourcing is awesome! Thanks so much! Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Good work, all. Just a quick point, though. Looking at Sergei Nikolaevich Chernikov, is the list of published works necessary, or would a selected list of his most influential publications be better? At the moment, that section makes the article look a bit like a CV. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Cordless Larry, we don't usually need or want such a list. There seems to be plenty of scope and source material for those who understand the subject-matter to discuss the importance and significance of his articles in running text. I suggest removing or drastically pruning the publications list for now, Oceanchaos. By the way, I think this would make a good WP:DYK, if you're interested in that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I just grabbed all the articles in English from Web of Science that had at least one citation (there were dozens more). I don't know enough about the history of group theory to say which of these were most influential, and the number of citations in English databases is probably a poor indicator of influence of Russian publications from as early as the 1930s. I'm hoping more knowledgeable people will be able to pare this down. I tried to get a sense from the Dixon et al. article which papers were most significant, but the terminology was just too foreign.Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting the DYK tag, Justlettersandnumbers. Yes, I would definitely be interested in that. Do I draft my own hook? What about nomination? I'm way too new at this to feel comfortable nominating myself for the main page.

One more thing: the article says that Chernikov trained more than 40 PhD and 7 doctor of science students, but I don't see that statistic in the source cited. It certainly lists some of his students, but I don't see where it distinguishes between PhDs and doctors of science (if indeed there is a difference). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Ershov et al. obituary says on the last page "The academic school that Chernikov founded is widely known. He trained around 40 Ph.D.'s and 7 doctors of science...". Dixon et al. actually lists all of them, and there are more than 40. Oceanchaos (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft being declined by Kylie

Dear Teahouse,

My name is Sam and I am working in a PR firm in Hong Kong. Recently my colleague has drafted a organization profile on Wikipedia for our client, The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors.

However, we find that the review process take so much time. It has been drafted about one month ago, but it has not been published.

We try to consult some users of wikipedia and they suggest us to disclose the paid contribution on the talk page. So we have done accordingly too. According to the notification, our draft was declined by Kylie. So we would like to know what else we can do to make the organization profile publish and prevent violation of any regulation of wikipedia.

Here is the link for of our draft for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Hong_Kong_Institute_of_Surveyors

We look forward to your reply.

Best regards, Sam 203.186.212.98 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have three comments. First, thank you for making the paid contribution disclosure, but that was required, and we don't owe you thanks for it. Second, please remember to log in before editing. Third, as a paid editor, you have a right to expect civility, but you do not have a right to expect promptness from volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fourth, too many of the references are to your own web site, and are not independent. We are more interested in what others have written than in what you have written. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sam (203.186.212.98). As Robert McClenon posted, Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about a subject; They are not intended to reflect what the subject says about itself. Moreover, the subjects of articles do not own Wikipedia articles written about them and have no final say as to what information is added and what information is removed. So, you might want to let your client know about Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences.

The thing you need to do is to show how this organization satisfies WP:ORG, in particular WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is needed, and that primary sources or trivial mentions are not considered acceptable for establishing notability. Wikipedia's is not intended to be a way for subjects to promote themselves per WP:NOTPROMOTION.

Finally one last thing, if you are by chance User:Creativegp, then you should probably consider changing your username for the reasons I gave at User talk:Creativegp#Your username. Wikipedia's username policy does not allow the use of any usernames which may be seen as representing a company, group, organization, etc. because such names are considered to be promotional. Such accounts are sometimes blocked from editing by administrators if they appear to be only editing for promotional purposes. According to this edit, this IP account also appears to be being used by someone named "Paul". If that's not you and you are not "Creativegp", then I suggest you create an account for your own individual use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sam. Since you and your colleagues at your PR firm are being paid to edit this draft article, I suggest that you offer a complete refund to your client. Your firm has not succeeded in learning the basic principles of writing a Wikipedia article, such as summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. A large percentage of your sources are not independent and are instead affiliated with the surveyor's organization. Your references are poorly formatted as bare URLs and it seems that your paid team of editors are not familiar with the basics like Referencing for beginners. Unpaid volunteers regularly and routinely write much better encyclopedia articles than this. One would think that someone being paid would do a much better job, but that is certainly not the case here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

next step after draft is ready

the draft I have been working on is about done. So, what is next in the process of getting the final version ready to be sent to an article reviewer? Do we add photos and such now or later? thanks Sandy Montoya (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Motoya. If you've created a draft article that you believe is ready for article status, then I believe there are two things you can do.

1. Simply move the draft to the article namespace yourself.
2. Submit it for review via Wikipedia:Article for creation by adding Template:AFC (more specifically {{subst:submit}}) to the top of the page.

If you a relatively new editor without much experience creating articles, then I recommend option #2. This will give AfC reviewers a chance to assess your draft and provide suggestions on how to improve it. There is no policy or guideline which states that editors cannot simply add articles to the encyclopedia without a review (i.e., option 1), but such articles tend to be highly scrutinized and often quickly deleted per WP:AFD or WP:CSD if they have serious problems which cannot be fixed. Being accepted via AfC does not guarantee that an article will never be deleted, but it does give you and others the opportunity to address serious problems, etc. and bring the draft up to Wikipedia's standards and, therefore, make it less likely to be immediately tagged/nominated for deletion.

As for your question about images, freely licensed files like the ones found on Wikipedia Commons can be added to drafts of articles. All you have to do is make sure the images you choose comply with WP:IUP. Copyrighted content, however, is considered to be non-free by Wikipedia, and may only be used under the pretty restrictive WP:NFCC. One of these conditions is WP:NFCC#9 which states that non-free content may only be used in the article namespace, which means no userpages, userboxes, drafts, templates, talk pages, etc. So, you should only add a non-free image after the draft has been upgraded to an article and only if the particular use satisfies all 10 of the non-free content criteria found at WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Motoya. I've looked at the article and every citation I looked at failed verification, i.e., the sources do not corroborate the information in the text. You seem to be using citations to verify the existence of things, rather than to corroborate the actual factual content. For example, when you write:

"Soon after, Dwight invited Nute to move to Denver from New Mexico to become the "guinea pig" intern for his ministry, Kingdom Building Ministries (KBM), an international discipleship organization."

References

The citation should verify that "Dwight invited Nute to move to Denver"; and that it occurred "soon after" the event in the preceding sentence; and that it was for the purpose of "becom[ing] the "guinea pig" intern for his ministry"; and that "Kingdom Building Ministries (KBM)" is his ministry; and that KBM is a "an international discipleship organization". That is, every single fact making up the sentence should be corroborated by the citation you provide for them. Instead, the link is to the front page of KBM's website, and verifies no part of the content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Who are "we", Sandy Montoya? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for individual, not collective, use. If there's more than one of you, you'll need an account each. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Notability, Deletion of Article?

I've come across an article where the topic/subject direly lack notability.
But I'm unsure about doing an AfD, or even if an AfD is the best way to handle it.
Any Advice?

FYI: The article in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishabh_Shanbhag
Look at its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rishabh_Shanbhag&action=history
Then look at the only 2 real editors history:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jilkoms
  

  Jilkoms: Only one month of editing, getting shut down for "Massive sockpuppetry" in 2014.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Synterest
  

  Synterest: Has only ever edited that specific article.

I have also done research outside Wikipedia to support a possible AfD, but since this teahouse editor already have managed to abort my editing twice, then ... I'll save the information for later. RQ (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, RedQuack! It looks like Maproom has done as you asked and opened an AfD discussion. Feel free to leave your input there. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I've put input there. Thank you :-) RQ (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Independent Source

I am trying to create a page for an entertainment website but i can not find any independent sources. I've used the actual site for references. How do I publish the page? The website is HanSeoul.com. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! LanaLanakina (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If there are no independent sources, the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, so there can be no article. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally we are not interested in what the company says about itself. but rather what independent reliable sources have to say about the company. Your text should summarize what independent reliable sources say, and your references should be to those sources. Without showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources you have not shown the company to be worthy of an article.Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help with formatting

Hello all. I am looking for a kind of mentor when it comes to formatting for the english wikipedia. I regulary participate in the german wikipedia - subject: contempory art - and as some of the artists, i wrote about, do also exhibit in english-speaking countries, i am translating some of the articles. But formatting on the english wikipedia is not the same as on the german wikipedia, and i really would prefer not to make mistakes here :-). Just someone, who has a look on the article before i move it, thus only occasionally i need help. Kind regards --Gyanda (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Gyanda: You seem to be a competent editor, so I am not willing to act as mentor. But your spelling and formatting can be improved – I have already removed some upper-case initial letters from Regine Schumann. If you ever want me to inspect and copy-edit your work, I will be happy to do so, just leave a message on my talk page. (Unfortunately I'm about to leave for a week's vacation with only a laptop to edit from, so I may not be able to help much until I'm home again.) Maproom (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Maproom - I am a little puzzled, but will try to interpret or restate. You decline to mentor another editor because they seem to be competent. Do you really mean that they seem to be sufficiently experienced that they don't need mentoring in the usual sense? Incompetent editors don't need mentoring; they need to acquire clue, but they often don't acquire clue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: maybe it's a matter of terminology. I see "mentoring" as being ready to say "you shouldn't have done that, it's contrary to this policy". I don't think Gyanda needs such help. But he (or she?), a German speaker, does need help with English spelling and capitalisation, as we can see from the above request. I call that "copy-editing", and am willing to provide it. Maproom (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree. I will note that there are, in my opinion, very few editors for whom mentoring about Wikipedia policies, etiquette, and culture is useful. Most editors either come here willing to learn, or come here with their minds made up in some way, such as a desire to right great wrongs or a mindset that they are being bullied, or something. There are only a few editors for whom mentoring is useful. (The ArbCom in the past would occasionally try mentoring, and has more or less given up on it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gyanda. I make the same offer as Maproom. Just hit me up on my talk page when you're ready and I'll gladly do a copyedit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you people are so kind!!! Thank you for your work, Maproom. And thank you for your offer also, Fuhgettaboutit, i will go on with translating and when i am ready, i will alert you too and will be very thankful for help - and will also notice everything i learn in my "vademecum" (i already have one for the german wikipedia, it is "how do i do this and that" info, from what i gether... i am very eager to do things properly!!! Thank you!!! --Gyanda (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

using reference multiple times

I was informed when we use a reference multiple times we add the "/" after the refname and it copies it, but, what if the reference, which is in the same book, is on a different page? Is it necessary to put the page number for each reference? If so, how do we do this using the "/" for repeat references? Sandy Montoya (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sandy Montoya. You're right about citing a reference multiple times. The process is described at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. As for the page number issue, I find this one of the most frustrating things about footnote referencing. Help:References and page numbers gives some guidance, but I don't find any of the available systems particularly satisfactory. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Montoya. Short citations is one answer to this issue. For example (look at this in edit mode to see how it was done – and note that I 'nowikied' the section headers only because they would not play nice with this page):

(excerpt from article):

The bill is lavender, slightly tinged with green, and black at the tip; the legs are a pale blue-gray and the claws are slate or black. ...

In Sumatra, the bird is found throughout the Barisan Mountains, and has been observed in the Gayo Highlands of Aceh province, the Batak Highlands of northern Sumata, and at Dempo in the south of the island.

== Citations ==

== Bibliography ==

• Harrap, Simon (1996). Christopher Helm (ed.). Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers. Illustrated by David Quinn. ISBN 978-0-7136-3964-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Another method is to use {{Rp}}, though it really only should be used in situations where one book is used a vast number of times for many different page numbers. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help for editing my company's page.

Hello and thank you very much for your help. I would like to know if someone can help me for editing my company's page. The encyclopedia does not accept my page and I don't know how to manage it. Thank you very much. Derrionsebastien (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Derrionsebastien. The draft is Draft:The Leading Salons of the World, which is filled with advertising and promotional language. The draft must be re-written to eliminate any such language, in accordance with the neutral point of view. It is not your company's page but rather a draft encyclopedia article about the company. Read and study Your first article for some good advice. You also need to make a mandatory paid editing disclosure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Want to change the name of my company's page

Hi there, I have been asked to update the page name for our company's wikipedia page, but i'm struggling to understand how to do this and what information I need to provide in order to make the change? Please let me know if you can help, thank you! JEvans26 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your company (is it John Crane Group?) doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia doesn't have company pages, but articles about companies. You should not be editing the article at all, let alone changing its name. Post your request to the article talk page, or go to Requested moves. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@JEvans26:: The reason for Robert McClenon's response is because you have a conflict of interest and are possibly being paid for your edits. It appears you've someone has made the appropriate conflict of interest declaration on the article's talk page. It's best if you confirm this. If you are being paid for your edits, please see this page and make the appropriate declaration on the article talk page and your user page. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to say that it was Theroadislong who noted the potential COI on the article talk page, not JEvans26. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Page Notification Issues

Hey guys, so I'm new to Wiki and I wanted to create a small article about a filmmaker. So I did (Lulu Wang, Filmmaker). After having it be verified a about a week and 1/2 ago, I received a notification saying that it was an "orphan page" and that there are no links leading to other pages. That's not true, just look at the page there are multiple links to other articles. Also, I have plenty of reliable, uncontested, verifiable sources. And so, I'm also a little annoyed that someone said that the page doesn't have sources. Can these remarks be removed? If so, how?

(Mcarby (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mcarby, welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for writing an article about Lulu Wang (filmmaker). I think it has sufficient references and the categories look fine, so I took the liberty to remove those tags. The "ophan article" tag means that no other article has a link to this article. So although you refer to lots of other articles, no other article has links to Lulu Wang (filmmaker). The tag is mainly there to encourage others to help create these links. There are people who review these tags and someone might come along and help create more links. Such links can help get readers to your article and help those people find the information about Lulu Wang they need. You can ofcourse also add such links yourself to other articles when appropriate. I hope this helps. All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

ohh! I didn't know that the orphan was for her not being referenced- I will see if there are other articles that I can reference back to her. Thank you for the info.

Mcarby (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Try using this search for Wikipedia entries that contain the name Lulu Wang. Some of them refer to a different Lulu Wang, so you will have to be selective. For those that are appropriate, you can add a link to the article about the filmmaker. You will need to use a piping symbol in the link so that it won't point to the article about the other Lulu Wang. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There is some confusion about the word "referenced" here, Mcarby. What the article is lacking is links to it from other articles. Those aren't references. What we call references are details in the article about its sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mcarby, try using the {{about}} template on some of those pages mentioned in the linked search above. It's the thing that makes pages say "This article is about X. For the about about Y, see Z." (You can see an example of that template here.) -- Gestrid (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Updating "Destination Hotels & Resorts" Wikipedia Page Name to New Brand Name - "Destination Hotels"

Hi Teahouse,

Destination Hotels & Resorts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_Hotels_%26_Resorts) has been rebranded to simply "Destination Hotels" for about a year now. I have been able to update the name in the description, however running into issues with updating the page name itself.

Is this something your could help me update? Not sure if this is a edit-level access issue or something else. For confirmation/verification you can refer to their website - https://www.destinationhotels.com

Please let me know if you are able to assist, or if you need anthing else

Thank You!

Nick H

Nickthopkins (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nickthopkins: I have moved the article to Destination Hotels for you. Maproom (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thank you SO much Maproom!

Nickthopkins (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How to add images to a wikipedia page

Dear Teahouse,

Required some assistance with my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Asha_Mandapa

How do i add images to this page?

Warm Regards Reflectionsdesignhub (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To use an image that's already available at Wikimedia Commons, you add [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|caption goes here]] to the article, replacing "filename.jpg" by the name the file has there. To use an image not on Wikimedia Commons, but free from copyright restrictions, you start by uploading it there. If the image is restricted by copyright, you generally won't be able to use it. Maproom (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

However, Reflectionsdesignhub, it will be advisable to concentrate on the referencing of Draft:Asha_Mandapa, before you spend time on adding images. None of the references now at the foot of the draft helps to establish that she is notable, in the sense in which that word is used in Wikipedia. Unless the draft shows that she is notable, it will never be accepted as an article, and the time you spend on the images will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Listing of reference links

Dear Teahouse,

Warm Greetings to all of you.

Required some assistance with my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Asha_Mandapa

The error message received was as follows... "Citations are all grouped together in a single ref, making it impossible to tell what information comes from which

source. Please review our requirements for inline citations and adjust the references accordingly. Thank you."

Please kindly advise me on how to proceed.

I do not have inline citations. I just want to mention the references in a list at the end of the article.

Warm Regards, Design Hub Team Reflectionsdesignhub (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Without inline citations the reader doesn't know which reference (if any) supports which of the text in the article, so it would be extremely unlikely that your draft would be approved for publication. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners has appropriate advice and guidance for you here, Reflectionsdesignhub. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am having issues posting images on the wiki

I am having issues posting images on the wiki with the images being deleted. does anyone know why this happens or how to prevent them from happening? nerosmokeNerosmoke (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nerosmoke. The first thing that you should know is that all the projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, including Wikipedia, are very strict about copyright, much more so than most other websites. That is because our content can be freely shared and reused by anyone without permission, and so it must comply with the law. It seems that you have uploaded copyrighted images to Wikimedia Commons, though you are not the copyright holder. That site is only for images that are freely licensed for reuse by anyone for any purpose without permission, or for images in the public domain without copyright restrictions. If you upload images restricted by copyright, they will be deleted. Very limited use of non-free images is allowed here on English Wikipedia, as described in our policy on use of non-free images. You must be scrupulous in complying with these image upload policies, because they are enforced to the letter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You will find a number of warnings and explanations at commons:User talk:Nerosmoke. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing about this explains how to keep the bot from automaticly deleating images. Nerosmoke (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nerosmoke. A bot is not deleting the images. What the bot is doing is removing the syntax of a deleted images from the Wikipedia articles. Let's take a closer look at the edit sum for this edit: It states, "Bot: Removing Commons:File:Diskordiahardcover(1).jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Magog the Ogre (Copyright violation, see Commons:Commons:Licensing)". What Filedelinkerbot did was remove a wikilink to an image file that was deleted from Wikimedia Commons. The name of the bot is "File-Delinker-bot", so it "delinks" links to files which no longer exist. The actual image itself was deleted by an administrator on Wikimedia Commons named c:User:Magog the Ogre. You can see that here. The file was deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. Notifications about various file's you've inappropriately uploaded to Wikimedia Commons have been posted at c:User talk:Nerosmoke. If you're going to be regularly uploading images to Wikimedia Commons, you should regularly check that talk page for these types of notifications. If you further clarification as to a certain file was deleted from Wikimedia Commons, you can post a message on the user talk page of the Commons administrator who deleted the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to correct typos, etc. -- 01:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)]

Thank you. I was wondering about this hopfuly I can get back to the page. Nerosmoke (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Birthday Girl

I reviewed Draft:Birthday Girl and declined it as reading like an advertisement. User: Jones22n then posted to my talk page:

Hi, what exactly about this page reads like an advertisement? Is it the facebook mention?

Do other editors think that the draft has a promotional tone, or that it doesn’t establish notability? I think that the focus on corporate philanthropy, which is nearly half of the article, establishes a promotional tone. Do other editors have other opinions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A promotional tone in such a brief draft article can be corrected by a few minutes of editing by someone uninvolved. My concern about your draft, Jones22n, is that the references in the article fail to establish that the venture is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. None of the references are independent, which means sources completely unaffiliated with the topic. We require evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources which are completely independent of the topic. It seems unlikely that a company that recently raised $17,000 through Kickstarter would qualify. I own a small business that has generated millions of dollars in revenue and which has actually received some independent coverage, but would never try to write a Wikipedia article about my own business. I have a conflict of interest regarding my business, and so do you if you are affiliated with this company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

template requesting inclusion of material from foreign Wikipedia article?

I'd like to make a section of one en.wikipedia article (enabling a better redirect target) regarding a subtopic which appears to be covered in more depth in another separate article in de.wikipedia. I also seem to recall seeing, in yet another article, an introductory template that said something more-or-less like "more material available in this foreign-language wikipedia article, please consider translating that material and adding to this article." Am I hallucinating? If not, which template should I use? (And, FWIW, my German is not so good that I can do the translation myself and just add the available material to the section I want to make.)

TIA, Tlroche (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tlroche and welcome to the Teahouse. To suggest a translation of an article from German language Wikipedia, you can use Template:Expand German. In general, to request translation from any language to English, you can use Template:Expand language. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph2302 for your prompt assistance. That template is now in use @ new redirect/section=CommonMark. Tlroche (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing dispute

Is there a way to resolve an editing dispute when someone adds a "notability" tag on the Wikipedia page and doesn't provide a reasonable explanation? Can there be a third party to resolve the issue? This is very frustrating! Please look at recent history on New Heights Educational Group. Some editor has added a notability tag, when I ask for explanation and they can't defend their actions, they point me to this forum. Someone please help!! Atchopra (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Note this user appears to have a conflict of interest with the article, as does the article creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to act as a third party, Atchopra. I agree with the editor who has expressed concerns about notability. The sources cited in the article don't amount to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Routine listings such as this and this don't help to establish notability. What you need is a few detailed newspaper or web articles about the company, or something similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry I wish the other editor was as courteous as you are. Thanks for your help! Atchopra (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Atchopra. Wikipedia's myriad of policies and guidelines can be confusing, even for experienced editors; moreover, they occasionally do change so what is considered OK today might not be OK tomorrow or vice versa. A subject has to be shown to be Wikipedia notable for it to have an article written about it. This basically means that it has to have received significant coverage, positive or negative, in independent reliable sources. Subjects unable to clear that hurdle are not considered suitable for a stand-alone article. Now, these subjects may possibly be mentioned in other articles if supported by a reliable source in proper context.

I have looked at your discussion with Theroadislong and don't feel he was rude to you at all. He tried to explain why he added the tag and provide further clarification upon request in good faith, but you seem unsatisfied with his responses. So, he advised you to come here to seek further clarification. Experienced editors are encouraged to try and help new editors out as much as possible, but please try and remember that all editors are volunteers who are mostly here to have a little fun and try to help build an encyclopedia. There are only so many ways to try and explain the same thing to the same person, so there's nothing wrong with suggesting they ask others for advice after a certain point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly I think it was his attitude and the fact that he said that just because an article I referenced is subscription only, it doesn't count. And he was using Capital letters to show his authority/anger. And then threatening me that my account will be deleted. This was my first Wikipedia experience and pretty frustrating one. I had resolved some issues a week ago and that user was fine with the edits. A week later Theroadislong comes in and tags it with a notability tag just because he can't access the subscription only link. Anyhow, I am going to be deleting this page since I am volunteer for this organization and that is supposedly a conflict of interest. I just wish the editors in general should explain more before they decide to tag a page especially if they notice a beginner editing. Otherwise, they are discouraging all beginner editors. My 2 cents Atchopra (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Atchopra, please try not to misrepresent what other editors have told you. In that discussion, Theroadislong says that they are unable to comment on the source that requires a subscription, not that it "doesn't count", and they don't threaten that your account will be deleted (which is not possible, anyway). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not mis-representing anything. I was asked to take the discussion to teahouse which I did. The message that my account could be deleted was left on my talk page, you can check for yourself. This whole experience has been highly frustrating. The only user who actually tried to help was Cullen Others were only interested in slapping tags. I don't need help on this page anymore. I am talking about lessons learned! I learnt that if I am a volunteer for an organization, I am not supposed to edit their Wikipedia page. What some of the experienced editors should learn is - don't just slap tags - explain & resolve! Don't frustrate beginner editors, - help & motivate! Wikipedia is run by people, then it becomes the responsibility of these people to make it a healthy & supportive environment! Atchopra (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically, the original poster was warned that their account could be blocked, not that it could be deleted. Accounts cannot be deleted, but they can be blocked. On the one hand, it isn't really fair to criticize a new editor for misunderstanding a warning. On the other hand, it isn't fair for a new editor to criticize other editors in mass saying that they were only interested in slapping tags. More generally, new editors don't get a lot of sympathy by criticizing other editors, especially not if they have conflict of interest. The warning that removing tags without addressing them could lead to a block was a fair warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea that me being a volunteer was a conflict of interest, otherwise I wouldn't have even attempted it and I certainly am not looking for sympathy. I am just raising some valid points. If people can learn from it, great! If not, it doesn't affect me. Atchopra (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to start an argument, Atchopra, or be unwelcoming, but Theroadislong did not tell you that "because an article [you] referenced is subscription only, it doesn't count". What Theroadislong wrote was that they couldn't comment on it because it required a subscription. If you are complaining about the conduct of other users, these distinctions matter. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, better off not starting an argument on this. I am sure Theroadislong can defend themselves. Atchopra (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Added a source to the page -Wittyfeed

I added a source from Factor Daily to the page WittyFeed but a template was put on it, citing it as a unreliable source. Why so? Narender Charan (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Narender Charan. Have you discussed the matter with the editor who placed the tag? If not, I suggest you begin by doing that. The best place to discuss the reliability of a source is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Do you by chance have any connection with this company? If so, you have a conflict of interest and should comply with that policy carefully. If you are an employee or subcontractor of that company, please make the mandatory paid editing disclosure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

hitting a formatting/coding wall for one link

Hi folks,

I'm trying to add an external reference to my draft page and cannot get it to show up right.

In this external links section the last link, to The Open Mind, is not coming out right, but the first two are ok and their links are working fine. The last one is showing the whole ugly web address and brackets.

Here's how it is written. I've followed the same convention for all three, but the third one is not working.

External Links

• Official Berkeley Law Faculty Profile of Alexa Koenig
• Berkeley Law CV of Alexa Koenig
• [http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/civil-rights/genocide-with-impunity/5473/%7C The Open Mind Alexa Koenig:

Genocide with Impunity, July 2, 2016]

What is wrong with this third link?? Many thanks for any input!InnerOstrich (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, InnerOstrich. I think the line break between "Koenig:" and "Genocide" is breaking the formatting. Try deleting it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the line break and the pipes in the draft.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

it worked! Thanks so much guys! InnerOstrich (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

My page, which is primarily an autobiography, got deleted for not having references.

My page got deleted and I'd really like to get it back. Boo Hoo.

How do I reference an autobiography?

William Elt "Bill" ThorntonMayorsat (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mayorsat, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is the article concerned William E. "Bill" Thornton? If so, it hasn't been deleted. Instructions on referencing are at Help:Referencing for beginners, but you also need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I suggest following the instructions there on declaring your conflict of interest and requesting changes to the article on its talk page, rather than editing it directly yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am confused and lost!

I cannot find my page.

I cannot converse on my User talk:Mayorsat page.

I'm not the smartest man in the world but I'm also not the dumbest.

I feel completely helpless and unable to get my page corrected and back up.

William Elt "Bill" Thornton

MayorsatMayorsat (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I provided a link to the page above, Mayorsat. Just click on that to navigate to it. Your user talk page is at User talk:Mayorsat. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Amazon external link

One of my recent edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Heights_Educational_Group was removed stating that amazon.com link cannot be referenced as external link. I believe that I have seen books being linked as external link in other Wikipedia pages. I am confused as to what are the restrictions for including external links. please help. Atchopra (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Atchopra. As the article isn't about a book, I'm not sure why you would want to include an external link to a book. If you meant to include it as a reference or as a further reading suggestion, then just list the details of the book (see Help:Referencing for beginners), including its ISBN. There's no need to link to Amazon. 18:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Atchopra (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are some additional thoughts, Atchopra. Amazon is in the business of selling books (and many other things), and an Amazon book listing is overtly an advertisement for that book. Accordingly, linking to Amazon is seen by many editors as promotional spam. Google Book listings, on the other hand, provide more neutral bibliographic information about a given book. Book citation templates include a URL field, so if you want to include a link, I suggest Google Books instead of Amazon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Cullen328 Makes sense. Atchopra (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Can notable page be deleted by saying that page created by paid editor?

Hi,

I am new to editing Wikipedia and also questing here first time about an article.

There is an author's page on wiki which is currently nominated for deletion. The page is notable as it has received significant coverage in multiple published and making him pass GNG. The page is being deleting the only reason is because it is created by undisclosed paid editor.

My question is, Can the page be deleted for this reason? What are the wiki guidelines about it?

Thanks in advance43.241.117.171 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Paid editing is permitted on Wikipedia, as long as it is disclosed, per Wikimedia's Terms of Use. Even if the user did not properly disclose, this isn't a reason in itself to delete an article, although it may be symptomatic of other issues with the article, most likely promotional tone. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not the page that needs to be notable, it's the subject of the page; at least, I assume that is what you mean. It's hard to say more without knowing what article you refer to. I wondered if it was Jenn Vix; but she's not an author and not a him. Maproom (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Found it! It's John Lincoln (telecommunications). I see you are making threats of vandalism unless you get your way. I wonder if your client knows about that? Maproom (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I am talking about John Lincoln. He authored a book named Connect the Dots, published by AuthorHouse in 2012. ISBN 978-1-47728-616-6. 43.241.117.171 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You are getting it wrong. I am new to Wikipedia. I am here to learn wiki guidelines about notability of the article. 43.241.117.171 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're here to learn I'd advise you to do so on a different article. The author of this article has a history of abusively using multiple user accounts. As a new user joining in that discussion you run the risk of other users assuming you are another sockpuppet of that user. In fact, I do assume so. for (;;) (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello person editing from 43.241.117.171. The article is being considered for deletion, on the merits, as non-notable. The issue of paid editing is a significant side note, indicating the scrutiny it should receive and how high the bar should be, but is not the basis for deletion. You have asserted at the discussion that the topic obviously meets the general notability guideline. Others have disagreed with you on that deletion basis, and not one person has said it should be deleted primarily because it's the result of paid editing – so your question's premise is false. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The vast majority of self-published books contribute nothing to notability of their authors, and there is no evidence at all that this is an exception to the general rule. If you are a paid editor, then the Paid editor disclosure is mandatory. There are no exceptions. If you are a blocked editor commenting while logged out, then you are breaking your editing restriction and should say no more. Thank you.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep. I believe the last page was flagged and taken down out of a personal bias'/incentive of a previous editor. Do you mind helping me cite articles about this individual or taking anything you believe to be unbiased? There are many reputable articles about him. I'd really like to begin contributing to the wiki community & believe I would learn a lot if I had someone edit an article that I personally wrote from scratch.

Thank you sir.

Scorpionking4lyfe (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

I wrote a bio about someone named Justin Mateen and it is being considered for deletion. I have cited sources and tried to write from an unbiased perspective, can you help me figure out if it up to par with wiki's standards? Also, I'd like to remove the notification that it is being reviewed for deletion ASAP so do you know which issues I have to clear up before I can do that? Scorpionking4lyfe (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Scorpionking4lyfe: the concern is that the sources used aren't sufficient in number and/or reliable enough to establish his notability Either you find more or you make the case at the deletion discussion that the ones present are reliable and that he is notable. It doesn't become any easier when you consider that an article about Mateen has previously been deleted. In answer to your last point, do NOT remove the notification from the page, that is a mandatory notice so that anyone who sees the article is aware of the deletion discussion. If the article is kept then the closing admin will remove the tag. Nthep (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Geetashree Rajkhowa

I reviewed Draft:Geetashree Rajkhowa and declined it, primarily on notability grounds, and also because of issues with the tone of some portions. User:Mizee.singer then posted:

The reference I have taken, is from a news paper and a magazine website. And the rest are media websites. I think I have fulfilled Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if you are looking for anything specific. I have a few certificates and a few paper cuttings which might help.

Do other experienced editors think that the notability has been established and that the tone issues have been addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyrighted fair use photo not in use in published article

File:Thomas Russell is a copyrighted fair use photo that I uploaded about a week ago. It was immediately tagged for deletion as not being used in a published article. I gave an short explanation in the file section describing it was being used in an article under construction. I gave a detailed explanation of it’s history and use on the talk page. Despite this the file was deleted. I requested a undelete yesterday and it was granted. I now see the file is again scheduled for deletion on 7/11 with the instructions “use it or lose it”. Additionally the talk page was not undeleted and is missing.

I understand I can wait until my article is published to upload this file for inclusion post publishing. I would prefer if someone was to explain what the issue is. Perhaps this automated system of deletion is…….well…….too automated? Craig (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria requires that the image be used in at least one article, so you need to wait until the article exists before you upload a non-free image. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Craig.cgc: I have commented it out in your sandbox.[2] Fair use images are only allowed in mainspace by WP:NFCCP point 9. I am a volunteer editor and not a lawyer but I guess the Wikimedia Foundation is more at risk of being sued for copyright violations if they don't make and enforce policies against it. They do get takedown requests per the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. I have also removed the incorrect claim that the image is used in Thomas Russell.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You PrimeHunter Craig (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese entry in English Wiki

Hello,

I've submitted an article in portuguese into english Wiki, by mistake. I want to know how can I move this to Portuguese Wiki or how can I have both languages?

Ajoaomartins (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ajoaomartins and welcome to the Teahouse. I have translated your article (Marisa Ferreira) into English. If you want to create an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, you need to do that directly there. We can't move articles between one Wikipedia and the other. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ajoaomartins, this is one case where copy-and-paste might be appropriate. If you go to Marisa Ferreira, and pick "History", you can find your Portuguese version in the history, "Edit" it, and copy all the source, with its WikiMarkup, to your clipboard. Then you can go to pt:Marisa Ferreira and paste it there. Note that if you do so, you must attribute it (see WP:Copying within Wikipedia): even though you wrote it, you automatically licensed it to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA when you Saved your edit in the English Wikipedia, so under the terms of that licence you must attribute any copy of it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

how to avoid advertising language?

Hi, Teahouse. I sent my article for submition review and got a comment that an article might seem as promoting and advertising. I rewrite it already severals time, trying to remain it in a neutral manner, but failed again evidently. Could you please help me spot some "non-neutral" words or phrases so to avoid them in future? I read a lot of literature pertaining this topic already, but still cant single out my mistakes. Looking forward for an advice. Thanks in advance. Palefacer456 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the Privacy and Security section is clearly meant to be promotional. There is nothing encyclopedic about: 'By using Roundme Service, a user agrees to "Term and Conditions" in full. These "Terms and Conditions" govern the use of the Roundme Service or any applications made available by Roundme and include description of user`s content, account as well as limitations and exclusions.' It is entirely addressed to customers and not to the reading public. That is my first comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I get the following draft Wikipedia page published?

How do I get the following draft Wikipedia page published?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vessels_%28Be'lakor_album%29

Ghostpatrol86 (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. When you are ready to submit the draft for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Note that when you want to refer to a Wikipedia page, a wikilink like Draft:Vessels (Be'lakor album) is more readable than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vessels_%28Be'lakor_album%29 . --David Biddulph (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Refill and reflinks

Which is better and how to use them?

John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

how do I submit a draft which I hope is ready for inclusion in your encyclopedia?

how do I submit a draft which I hope is ready for inclusion in your encyclopedia? In particular: Draft:Michale Boganim. Drdreycup (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drdreycup. You can submit drafts via Wikipedia:Articles for creation if you like. Experienced editors will review your draft and make suggestions on how to improve it so that it is suitable for article status. All you have to do is click on the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button located in the template at the top of the draft. My suggestion, however, is that you take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and possibly do the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure to learn a little more about writing articles first because Draft:Michale Boganim does not look ready for an upgrade to article status just yet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi from me too, Drdreycup and welcome to the Teahouse! I see that almost all of your draft had to be removed because it was copyright violation. So you need to begin again, gradually building it up. This is a notable director. I have added several articles to the external links section which will allow you to expand the article in your own words and to reference it adequately. Take your time to ensure that your new draft does not copy or closely paraphrase the sources, is neutrally written, and referenced to inline citations. I've added an Articles for Creation template to the top. When your draft is complete, press the blue bar that says "Submit your draft for review!". But, as Marchjuly has pointed out, there's quite a way to go still. Hope that helps. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for a civil response Voceditenore. Frankly, this is the first knowledgeable response I have received since venturing into the wikipedia tidepool. The initial text, which I tried to post on Wikipedia in June or July of 2015 (FIFTEEN) was based on a translation of Boganim's french wikipedia page, written two years ago!(2014) I received a machine translation, the language of which I improved on. I have since forgotten the password and don't know how to track that down, it was reviewed by someone and deleted due to lack of references The "so called" copyright infringement is based on an upload of that english text to her agent's site (http://www.agence-adequat.com/fiche.cfm/190-0_625895/michale_boganim.html). I believe that the agent's site was updated with that text in the past 30-60 days! I am not sure how to proceed. I believe that text, the french wikipedia page is an excellent article and would like to use it.Drdreycup (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, thank you very much for adding to the page as is. I'm not sure why Wikipedia editors would delete the list of films and festivals that were in the original entry as there is no other way to word those. Will I be allowed to list them in a future entry? Or why they would delete all the references which have been added simply to verify the facts of Boganim's career and are not found on the agent's site.Drdreycup (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drdreycup. I can't see the versions of the draft that were deleted, but I think some of the deletions was perhaps overzealous, e.g. the lists of films and awards. Such basic lists are not copyrightable. The editors involved did leave two references. Were there more? You should not have trouble simply listing the films in the filmography again. However any prose descriptions of them, such as the former section "Key Dates" will need to be rewritten and is best incorporated into the biography itself. Rewriting would be a good idea anyway, because the machine translated text needs to be put into idiomatic English. For now, I would avoid the long list of awards unless each one can be verified. I'll work on the draft with you over the next week and see if we can get it into decent shape. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

COI questions

I am updating information that is currently public knowledge and I received a conflict of interest flag. Please advise TimGordon2016 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TimGordon2016. The advice depends on whether you have a potential conflict of interest with the Black Reel Awards, so can I ask whether you have any relationship with them? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I do, but I'm not adding any narrative information other that that which has already been previously reported. TimGordon2016 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello TimGordon2016. You have created a series of new articles related to various years of the Black Reel Awards. Assuming that you are the Tim Gordon who founded these awards, you have a clear conflict of interest and should not be creating new content about the awards without going through the Articles for creation process. Please read about the mandatory paid editing disclosure and comply if it is applicable in your case. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the paid editing disclosure and still don't understand the confusion. The information that I "created," already existed on Wikipedia under a different name. I simply changed the format/presentation to link all the pages under the 17 years of our awards, simply using the pre-existing information.

Once again, everything that I "created" already currently exists on Wikipedia. TimGordon2016 (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@TimGordon2016: You removed Sabrina McNeal from "The Black Reel Awards were founded by Tim Gordon and Sabrina McNeal in 2000".[4] She is called co-founder in [5] and your partner in [6]. I don't know her precise role but you certainly have a conflict of interest when you remove her without discussion and declare yourself (I guess from your username) the only founder. You copied 17 articles to new titles and added infoboxes like [7]. We don't make two nearly identical articles about the same subject. The existing articles should have been edited instead, and possibly moved to another name. Your copies also omitted attribution of the source of the copied text as required by Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I will redirect your copies to the old articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have redirected 16 copies and moved 17th Annual Black Reel Awards to Black Reel Awards of 2017 to follow the existing naming system. The infoboxes you added can be found in the page histories of the redirects: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Click the time stamp of your revision and then the "Edit" tab to reach the code. You are allowed to copy the infobox code to the existing articles but please try to make correct links. A red link indicates the linked title does not exist but the subject may have an article with another name. A blue link indicates the title does exist but in many cases it is about something else and the link should be corrected. For example, Pariah is not about a film. The link should say ''[[Pariah (2011 film)|Pariah]]'' to produce Pariah which links to Pariah (2011 film). The apostrophes make italics as Wikipedia uses for film titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You are creating new articles with a conflict of interest when you have not gone through the Articles for Creation process, TimGordon2016. I am in complete agreement with PrimeHunter who has clearly studied your edits carefully. In my opinion, this is a very bad idea and I encourage you to stop. Comments by other experienced editors are welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if the material already exists on Wikipedia, as TimGordon2016 states, then creating new articles with it might be seen as promotional. I'm not sure why these articles were being created through copy-pasting from existing articles. Was this an attempt to move them to new titles? On a related note, there are rather a lot of articles about these awards (see Category:Black Reel Awards). I don't know them, so I am perhaps underestimating their importance, but I wonder if this is justified. Many of the articles rely on single sources (such an IMDB, which is not generally considered reliable). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors above have mentioned several reasons why TimGordon2016 should not copy existing articles to create new articles. Another reason is copyright infringement: those existing articles are credited (in their edit histories) to their creators and contributors, and TimGordon2016 has been copying their work without giving them due credit. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me attempt to clear up the confusion, I am simply attempting to clean up the existing structure of "Black Reel Awards of X year," by changing it to say "1st Annual, 2nd Annual," etc. I am the copyright holder and awards creator, so in essence I would be the person. This is not a "promotional stunt," just an effort to bring more clarity to the work that we have done and are currently performing. I will add Sabrina McNeal's name back as co-creator and let me know if I am not allowed to participate in editing the brand that bears my business stamp.. TimGordon2016 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition, could you please change the heading back to "1st Annual," etc., instead of the Black Reel Awards of X year. That would be my stated preference. TimGordon2016 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Instructions on how to move a page are given at Wikipedia:Moving a page, TimGordon2016, but since you have a close connection with the subject, you need to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing strongly discouraged and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TimGordon2016. Thank you for agreeing to restore McNeal; but the fact that you removed her in the first place points up the problem with editing with a COI. As various people have indicated, you are discouraged from editing any page in which you have a COI, but not forbidden; but you are strongly advised (and if you are in any way paid in connection with the award, required) to declare this fact, and so far I do not see such a declaration on either your user page or the talk pages of the articles.

The only right that you have in respect of the articles about your brand is the same right that everybody else has: that the articles be accurate according to reliably published sources, and conform to Wikipedia policies. (You do not control either the content or the title of the articles.) One of those policies is that the title of an article should be that most often used in reliable published sources about the subject, whether that is the "official" name or not. If I look at all 17 articles about the individual years, I find precisely three references which use the "xxth Annual" format - the USA today reference in 2006, and the Black Reel references in 2015 and 2016. I also don't find that form of words on http://blackreelawards.com/about/ itself. In my view, this does not add up to enough information that would allow an uninvolved editor to conclude that that is what the articles should be called, certainly not before 2014.

This also points up another problem with those articles: in the entire 17 articles, I find precisely one source that appears to be both reliable and independent: that USA Today article. All the rest are either IMDB (which is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated) or not independent (Black Reel's own sites, or, in one case, a piece by one of the voters on the award - and some of the Black Reel sources are blogs, which are not usually regarded as reliable). This means that only one of the articles (Black Reel Awards of 2006) makes any attempt to establish notability of its subject, and they should probably all be deleted (and part of their content folded back into the main article), unless independent reliable sources can be found for each one, establishing its notability.

The fact that you hold the copyright in the awards is of no relevance to Wikipedia. What people are talking about is the licence under which all text added to Wikipedia is automatically licensed, which allows it to be reused by anybody for any purpose but requires it to be attributed. Copying within Wikipedia is rarely appropriate (to change the title of an article, it should be moved), but if it is done, the origin must be attributed. If you have copied text without attributing it, even within Wikipedia, you have violated Wikipedia's copyright. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have two comments at this point. First, the original poster, User:TimGordon2016, has added a large number of redlinks to the article in question, Black Reel Awards. The redlinks are distracting. If they are planning to create the articles, they should be aware that conflict of interest will be a problem for many of the non-existent articles. If they are not planning to create the articles, I would suggest that they discuss on the article talk page whether there is community consensus to keep the redlinks as a request that the articles be created. Second, other editors here have tried to point out that conflict of interest is a critical policy and that they are disregarding it with excuses. My observation here is that they just didn't hear that. Try listening to the other editors who are cautioning you. You are setting yourself up for a block. Pause and reconsider. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Grosvenor Trophy

Maproom wasn't able to find a website for this trophy and this is true; we have a page on our website, which is being developed ( 3Rs ). I'll do what I can to improve its searchability

Petechilcott (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

For those not in the know, this appears to be a follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 499#Adding data without verifiable sources, which is about Grosvenor Cup. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and the user that you attempted to ping is Maproom, Petechilcott. Usernames are case sensitive, so [[USer:MAproom|Maproom]] won't have worked. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, it didn't. :-) Maproom (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, chums. This Wikipedia lark needs a careful touch! Petechilcott (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Just another thing, Petechilcott: you probably won't get a response if you post a follow-up message to an archived help page, as you did here. You're better off posting a new message on the active version of the page along with a link to the original discussion in the archive, as I did above. Alternatively, you could cut and paste the relevant section out of the archive and on to the current active version of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Thank you for the guidance. If only my other issues were so easy to resolve. Petechilcott (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Petechilcott: you have given a link above to a web site for the Grosvenor Trophy. This is, I think, a reliable published source, but is not independent of its subject. It therefore cannot be cited in support of the subject's notability, but can be cited for statements about recent winners of the Trophy. (We at Wikipedia aren't bothered about its searchability – it is accessible to the public, and therefore qualifies as "published".) Maproom (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Maproom: That's very helpful and I'm grateful for your advice. Petechilcott (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Remote Ischemic Conditioning

I reviewed Draft:Remote Ischemic Conditioning and declined it on context grounds that I didn’t understand what the importance of remote ischemic conditions was. User:Moose139 then posted to my talk page:

Hello Robert, you kindly reviewed my draft article Remote Ischemic Conditioning and made a good suggestion with which I agreed. I edited and reposted but you have not responded. I don't know if your intent was for me to post it to the Teahouse? I am very new to this so please help me navigate the process. I don't even know if this the proper spot to respond to you.

First, my talk page is an appropriate place to ask questions, but the Teahouse is even better for general questions because it has other editors also. Second, I should have also said that a lede sentence was needed. Without one, I still don’t entirely understand the purpose of remote ischemic conditioning. Third, are there any other comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added an opening sentence to the draft, which explains the purpose of the technique. I have also reduced the excessive capitalisation. Maproom (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Moose139. Maproom (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Fabacus

I reviewed Draft:Fabacus and declined it on corporate notability grounds. User:Sushi Rider then posted to my talk page:

thank you for swiftly reviewing my recent draft submission. Though the company is trying to create innovative software solutions - they are a young company and therefore have not received many citations to indicate their notability. How would you, please, recommend to improve the article? Sushi rider (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

First, don’t write about innovative solutions. See the solutions essay, which points out that mention of solutions is usually marketing gibberish. Second, young companies that have not been reviewed may not be notable. Third, do you have an association with the company? Fourth, what do other editors say? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about "Film IMDb refimprove" template

I found the Template:Film IMDb refimprove page that explains use of the template and shows four examples. I am puzzled, however, because the first and third templates produced identical results when I tried them in my sandbox. Since the third template has the additional "only=yes" parameter, shouldn't that add something to the resulting display, showing that IMDB is the only source? Eddie Blick (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Teblick: It adds a hidden category like Category:Articles sourced only by IMDb from June 2016 when it's used in articles. It uses namespace detection and doesn't do it in userspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That's good to know. Thanks! Eddie Blick (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

upload a image

Dear Sir, i want to know about uploading images on wikipedia.. pls guide.i want to upload images from my PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudip8822 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sudip8822, welcome to The Teahouse. You can upload images from File Upload Wizard, but first please read WP:Copyright and WP:image use policy. — TOG 16:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, I just created my first article and I'm waiting for it to be revised by "someone else other than its creator". How long does that process usually take? Thank you!Atimothy89 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC) AT

Hi Atimothy89. I'm not sure what you mean by revised. Maybe patrolled? Or if it's a draft, reviewed? In either case, it should be done within a couple of weeks at the latest. Articles don't have to be edited or revised by people other than the creator, though. If an article is complete and correct, it may not need additional editing for a while.

Later: I took a look at the article and it needs more sources, as well as some editing to remove external links in the text. However, it's a good start. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The article had a template at the top saying that it was a new unreviewed article, needing review by someone other than its creator. Drikulaeri removed that template, so presumably they reviewed its content. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Question About Dates of Publication of New Articles (including Draft: John L Furth)

User:Aroger0821 wrote, concerning Draft: John L Furth ,to my talk page: I relieze that you have high standards for Wikipedia and I am trying really hard to add the footnotes but i have no idea how and i have gone to every resource you sent me and youtube as well. This article is a tribute to my grandfather John Furth who helped me pay for schooling so i could improve on some personal things. I would really appreciate it if you could post it so that at the Forth Of July celebration I can surprise him. I am totaly fine if you edit it on your own but I have no idea how to do it on my own. Thank you so much for reviewing my past two submissions. Alexander R

I would like to know if other experienced editors will comment on the idea that some new editors have of scheduling the publication of a Wikipedia article on a particular day as a tribute to the subject. I have never heard of that being done ,although I have often seen requests for it, and am aware that In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. (The idea of timed tributes both would seem to imply more organization that we have, and would might create too much competition for dates.) In this case, the references still are general references only and not in line. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Aroger0821. I'm sure you meant the best by wanting to create a tribute to your grandfather, but that's not what we do here: our purpose here is to create an encyclopaedia, and all other purposes are subservient to that. If you had started early enough, and had enough experience, to create an article that was well enough referenced and neutrally written to be acceptable on its own terms, and had done it by July 4th, well and good. But writing a good Wikipedia article is difficult, and the fact that you have a conflict of interest makes it harder still. We cannot let our policies and standards slip for reasons unconnected with the encyclopaedia. And "date of publication" is not really a concept that means anything in Wikipedia: no article is ever finished. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphan Question

User:Bronka2016 posted the following to my talk page:

Hello, "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. " Being an 'orphan' article does this imply that there are no other links or connections to any other articles relating to Z.A. Wnek? If that is the assertion please refer to http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Aleksander_Wnęk which is the result of untold man-hours in research and effort to achieve its current status. Mr. McClenon, if indeed the assertion that Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk is still an 'orphan' article please advise how best to introduce the link/connections you cite. As stated previously, I am a complete novice and am finding it difficult in negotiating the 'Find Link tool' which is not that helpful. Thanks for your time! (Bronka2016 (talk)

This had to do with Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk. My first question is whether the orphan tag, which is a tedious mechanical determination, is added and removed by a bot. The second question is whether someone can give advice to Bronka2016 as to what, if anything, to do about the tag. My advice is not to worry much about the tag, which will never result in deletion (certainly since the subject is ipso facto notable), but that the place where links would be appropriate would be articles in Polish participation in the Second World War, especially in France. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My understanding is that Template:Orphan can be added by both a bot or an editor. They can, however, be removed by any editor who de-orphans an article as explained in WP:DE-ORPHAN. Based upon Special:WhatLinksHere/Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk, however, it looks as if this article is still an orphan so that tag should not be removed. There are various ways to de-prphan an article as explained in WP:O#Various ways to de-orphan. Since the article says that Wnęk was born in Kolomyia, one possible way to de-orphan the article might be to add his name to Kolomyia#Notable people. Another possibility might be to add is name to Polish Legions in World War I#Notable officers who served in the Polish Legions. I say possible because each of the two article may have an agreed upon common selection criteria for adding names to the embedded lists, so you should check the article talk page first to see if any such discussion has taken place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Elizabeth Anderson

I reviewed Draft:Elizabeth Anderson and declined it as having inadequate sources User:Electrocdwiki then posted:

Hello. To better establish notoriety I have added a couple of sentences in the "bio" with a few external references. The list of works has also been improved. Whuld this updated version now be publishable? Thanks for your time, Jean-François Denis

Well, first, notoriety isn’t the same as Wikipedia notability. Two of the references are trying to publicize electro-acoustic techniques and are lists of performers. Are they independent and reliable. Two of them are by Anderson. Are there multiple independent reliable sources?

Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jean-François. Please understand that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject of an article, or their friends, relatives, or associates, say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them, in reliable places. So an article on Elizabeth Anderson should be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with her have published about her. It's not clear to me whether the electrodoc.music-recherches biography is independent of her: as it doesn't have an author named, I suspect that it is substantially written by her. The same is true of electrodc reference, but in addition, that is your site, and you are her distributor, so even if it were written by somebody else it would not be accepted as independent. There's nothing wrong with citing such materials for uncontroversial factual information, but they do not contribute to the notability that Wikipedia requires, which depends on independent sources. You need to find independent reviews or articles (which talk about her, not just about her works). In addition, since you are the founder and director of her record label, you have a Conflict of interest in contributing to an article about her, which you should declare explicitly. --ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

New article without publishing

Hello I want to create a new page without publishing it first. I want to edit it some times before publishing it. Please help.WegenerCenter (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by creating an article without publishing it first? What do you mean by publishing it? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This is your only edit to Wikipedia. If you have general questions about using Wikipedia, read the welcome message that I am about to post, and ask us any questions. If you want practice in using Wikipedia, play WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. What is your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WegenerCenter, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like you want to create a draft. You can do that via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As well as that, you can create a sandbox page in your user profile for editing. I'd recommend creating a draft for your first few new pages though to allow experienced editors to have a look over it. KieranTribe 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You can create an article as a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC). It will be "published" in the sense that it will be publicly viewable as soon as you save the page, but doing it that way does give you a measure of leeway to edit before it goes truly live in the article mainspace and is considered on the merits for, e.g., deletion, as not meeting our requirements for encyclopedia articles. You should determine first whether the topic meets notability standards, before using your time to work on an article topic that might not be appropriate. I also suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article and then taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial before starting. Keep in mind that you must not copy and paste any copyrighted material into a page, even as a draft. If you do create a page through AfC, there will be a button on the page to submit it for review once you are ready to "go live". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My First Article on David Iornem

Hello, I have been editing and re-submitting my article named "David Iornem". I have been effecting all the suggested corrections. However, I need your help on getting the article approved. Kind regards, Isaac.IsaacAdom (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IsaacAdom. If the draft is the one at Draft:David Iornem, then you don't seem to have edited it since it was declined, so I am confused by your comment here. Your draft needs better referencing. References aren't intended to serve as links to the homepages of organisations mentioned in articles, but raather to provide details of sources that support material in the article. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The content is very informal and breezy and has peacock language such as: "David is seen to have a wide network of friends and business associates cutting across international boundaries, cultures and age groups whom he invites around the world to participate in training workshops and seminars through his open-university system" in the voice of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the page as a blatant copyright violation. IsaacAdom, you cannot copy and paste previously written copyrighted content as the text of an article (even with surface modification). But for short, cited quotes, marked as such in quotation marks, articles are written in our own words, cited to reliable sources to verify the information but not the sentences.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

inserting image in infobox

I am drafting an article on the artist Ed Herring. The article is under his name. I have used the infobox template for artists and all has gone well except for the photo portrait of the artist concerned, which does not appear in the infobox even though it has been uploaded (as a thumb). The instructions are clear about not using brackets and I thought I had followed this. Does anyone know what I have to do to make the jpg file appear in the infobox? GosheronGaucheron (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done please see this diff for what I did
Basically, I removed all the brackets and used the correct file name - you were trying to insert File:Ed Herring portrait impr.jpg instad of File:Ed Herring portrait.jpg - file names have to be exact - they are case, space and punctuation sensitive - Arjayay (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I suspected it was some omission on my part.GosheronGaucheron (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations

I need help adding a citation to the wiki page tsewang Gyaltson if not this page will be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeyfollower (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that before adding references you need to find them first. Have you found any? Ruslik_Zero 16:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hockeyfollower. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners, which describes how to add citations to articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

PROD tag removing

If the author of an article removes a PROD tag on his article without discussing it at all, is that OK? Can the page be tagged again? NikolaiHo 02:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nikolaiho. As it says at the shortcut WP:PROD, "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with an AfD, and it may only be placed on an article a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Accordingly, if any editor still believes that the article should be deleted, it should be taken to Articles for Deletion for a complete debate among interested editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikolaiho. Just to add to the information that Cullen328 posted. WP:DEPROD also states that even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith it should not be re-added. The section further states that removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users can be reverted, but I believe that in such cases the burden falls upon the editor wishing to re-add the tag to explain their reasons for doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dialects and units

If an article uses American English, should it also use Imperial units (and put metrics in parentheses)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dunkleosteus77. There is no general rule. Many articles written in American English are not about American topics per se, but rather that is the variety of English used when the article was begun. In those cases, I believe that metric units of measurement should be used, since they are most widely used worldwide. If the topic itself is clearly American, such as biographies of Americans and articles about American highways, geography or sports, then use United States customary units first. On the other hand, articles about medicine, chemistry, physics, space exploration and the like should use metric units of measurement. Please see the shortcuts WP:ENGVAR and WP:MEASUREMENTS for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Imperial units should not be used in an article about an American topic. Imperial units are a specific form of English customary units that were formerly much used, and are still sometimes used, in the United Kingdom, but never in the United States. (They were adopted at the beginning of the Second British Empire, and the American colonies were part of the First British Empire.) The United States, as noted, used United States customary units, which are not Imperial. That is a minor point. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

New user may benefit from mentoring

Hi y'all,

I came across a new user, Hermes7979 (first edit ~ 2016-06-12), who may benefit from some skilled attention. I personally have not been particularly active on Wikipedia lately and am disinclined to explore such further. However I thought someone here might be inclined to take interest. Their pattern of edits seems a bit 'out of the ordinary' to me—at least for a new user; they've jumped-right-in to modifying and creating categories, largely related to war, military, and violence. To-each-there-own, but after glancing through a bit of their edit history—and the history of how those edits sometimes have been received—their way of going about it seems at times perhaps naively overzealous, out of context, or some such. Also, when they have made textual contributions they may be awkward and/or ungrammatical in their use of English—an example of their work.

I've presented of course my own observations and opinions; I encourage someone with a greater interest in mentoring to take a bit of time to go through a sampling of Hermes7979's edits and related page histories so as to form their own opinions and observations and perhaps then offer guidance.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kevjonesin. The Wikipedia community encourages us all to be bold and go forth and edit, which means that we are all going to make mistakes every now and then. Pretty much all Wikipedia articles are imperfect, so part of editing is finding the mistakes and helping to correct them. At the same time, the community also expects editors to be here to help build Wikipedia and have the competence to do so. All of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, etc. can be really confusing to new editors, so they often make mistakes in good faith simply because they do not know better. If you feel this other editor could benefit from some guidance, then you can let them know about Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area, but I think whether they want to be mentored is completely up to them. All you can really do is try to encourage them and point out why certain edits they are making might be problematic. If you've already tried this and they just have continued on as before, then you can try templates in varying degrees. If they still continue on despite being warned/notified about a problem, then you might have to bring things up at the relevant noticeboard to get other members of the community involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

copyright images uploaded to Wikipedia

as far as I know all images uploaded to Wikipedia must be copyright-free but in articles: Winx Club, The Loud House, Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom, Dora and Friends: Into the City! all these images they include are copyrighted. which really confused me especially this one File:Winx Club Logo.png because this site http://www.karusel-tv.ru/announce/14729 which is the source this image was obtained from clearly has the copyright sign at the bottom

anyways does that mean that I can upload copyright images to Wikipedia if it is a logo?

shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Super ninja2. Wikipedia has a strong preference for copyright-free images. But there is a limited scope for non-free images, as long as their use meets all the conditions in the Non-free content criteria. Logos are often used in this way, as are album and book covers. --ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)