Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

Draft:Moisture Removal Efficiency

I reviewed Draft:Moisture Removal Efficiency. I didn’t accept it or decline it, but left comments, because the topic does appear to be notable, but the draft had formatting problems. User:Lew.Harriman then posted:

Thank you very much for your kind corrections of my formatting errors. I'm entirely new to the WP ecosystem, and it's been quite a challenge to learn (and often to guess) the correct way to code formatting, and to express appreciation for all your help.
I'm hoping that this is the correct venue and technique (ie: posting a "new section" on your talk page). If not, I apologize and would appreciate corrective guidance about the most acceptable, polite and respectful means and methods of communicating with editors.
Regarding specific guidance, I have another question which is no doubt very basic, but about which I remain befuddled. I read the edits you suggested, and of course they are all just fine and much appreciated. I then "saved changes". My assumption is that by "saving changes", I have accepted your edits and that the now-current version of the proposed article awaiting review has been changed accordingly.
Is that assumption correct?.. or did I need to go back to my draft submission, and make each of the changes you suggested piece-by piece?

First, he did succeed in saving changes. That assumption was correct. He didn’t succeed with respect to the See Also links, which I have fixed. Second, a reviewer’s talk page is a proper place to ask questions about a draft article. I am taking the discussion here so that other experienced editors can comment, and other inexperienced editors can learn. Third, do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mohamad Fakih

I reviewed Draft:Mohamad Fakih and declined it as reading like an advertisement. The author, User:Aliseca, then posted to my talk page:

Hi Robert, I've added more citations and changed the wordings to be more neutural. I was wondering what else I am able to change for it to be reviewed again.

I see that it has been reviewed again, and declined. I will note that I didn’t decline for notability, but for tone, and that adding citations doesn’t address tone. The second reviewer is pessimistic and doesn’t think that the businessman or their business is notable. Do other experienced editors want to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

deleting or redirecting

Hi all. I have, with help from you out there, been able to create a page that is now live on the Wikipedia mainspace. However, when I began working on the page I accidentally created an "artifact" page (for lack of better word) that I would like to make disappear. What is the easiest way to achieve this? The page to which I'm referring is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_cappos thank you, and I will pay it forward by playing my guitar in the subway...less Kgberg (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Kgberg, looks like the capitalization mistake page was deleted in September. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood, thanks. someone emailed me that it comes up still when they search. weird. Wonder if I can add a redirect to it just to make it "invisible"

Trouble with Adding Photograph Due to 'Permission Error'

Hi there,

I'm a new Wikipedia user and I was wondering if somebody could assist me as I am having trouble adding a photograph on a Wikipedia page. The photograph I was hoping to add to a particular page was of the Italian Ambassador's residence which I sourced from Wikimedia Commons. However, when I went to view it after saving, a link appeared which informed me there was a 'permission error' for some reason.

The URL for the article in question is as follows; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucan,_Dublin

If somebody could inform me what my error is I would greatly appreciate it. PucaPower (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello PucaPower and welcome to the Teahouse. Your error was adding the complete URL to the image [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sarsfield_house,_residence_of_the_Italian_Ambassador._Lucan.JPG|thumb]] when the correct way would have been to include only the file name with the File: prefix: [[File:Sarsfield house, residence of the Italian Ambassador. Lucan.JPG|thumb]]. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This had already been explained at Wikipedia:Help desk#Picture Removal due to 'Permission Error' at 17.06 - before they even posted it here.
PucaPower - please do not post the same question on different help pages - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok sorry about that Arjayay, I only realised last minute that new users questions are supposed to be directed to Teahouse, I didn't think you would reply to me on the other page so I asked again on this. Anyway, thanks for the help all the same and I'll know for the future. :)

Oh I see, thank you for your help :). I intend to add more so I hope it will work next time. Another user has told me they fixed it but did not understand my permission error message either because although I am not an admin, I am a registered user. I think this message was sent to me from Wikimedia Commons. It should not interfere with my future edits should it? PucaPower (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

PucaPower, honest mistakes should never interfere with what you do in the future. The "permission error" is nothing to do with your personal permissions: by using the wrong syntax (a URL in the double brackets used for wikilinks instead of in the single brackets used for external links) you had given the software a nonsense to cope with, and "permission error" was the best it could do. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine thank you, somebody mentioned to me I might have problems with the bots so that could very well be it. Thanks a mil, the pic looks smashing now. PucaPower (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC) ColinFine thank you

Becoming A Wikipedia Administrator

I Have another Account That Has A Bit More Seniority, Yet I'm Not An Administrator. I'm Interested In Becoming An Administrator and Continuing To Give Back To The Wiki Community! Can Anyone Help Me With This? Hacker.Collett (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Check out WP:RFA for the process. RudolfRed (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, read the guideline on multiple accounts. Why do you have another account that has more seniority? Why are you not making this request from it? Have you declared the connection between the accounts (unless you have a special exception, as listed, for the use of multiple accounts without declaring them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Asking someone to take a photograph and upload it to the commons

I would like to add an image of a particular statue (in Italy) to a wikipedia page, but there is nothing on the commons. Since I am geographically too far away from the statue to take a picture myself, is there a place to ask someone in the wikipedia community who's closer to do this then upload it for use?

Thanks for the help! TimeForLunch (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

TimeForLunch: May be good to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy, or maybe a more specific group like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rome for example, depending on where the statue is. I've made similar requests before on projects related to US cities with good results. TimothyJosephWood 16:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood, Ok I'll check out those links. Thanks!TimeForLunch (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi TimeForLunch
The (slightly cumbersome} method for making such requests is explained at Wikipedia:Requested pictures.
This will put your request into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Italy, or a subcategory of that main Category, but please do not try to add your request directly to that page. As for how successful such requests are - I am afraid I do not know - Arjayay (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

do you get paid

Can you get paid for the work you do by editing or is this strictly voluntary work?Donny65 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost all Wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers. Indeed, many (but not all) types of paid editing are forbidden in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy). Gandalf61 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Page deleted incorrectly!

Good Morning. I have had a message to say that i have written an autobiography and so therefore my page has been deleted. This is not the case, I have written a page about Charles and Patricia Lester, however I used their names as a username so that I would remember the login!

I would be very grateful if you could assist me to change my username so that I can publish this page.

I am new to Wikipedia so did not understand your rules. Sorry. Vikki Cartledge.CharlesPatriciaLester (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@CharlesPatriciaLester: Draft:Charles and Patricia Lester has not been deleted (at least not yet), but it is nominated for deletion as unambiguously promotional. It is also a copyright violation from http://www.charles-patricia-lester.co.uk/charles-patricia-lester-biography/ . —teb728 t c 09:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@CharlesPatriciaLester: As for your username, I would think that "Vikki Cartledge" would be an easy username for you to remember. In any case, see Wikipedia:Changing username for how to change it. Writing an autobiography is discouraged but not forbidden. Using a username that impersonates someone else in not allowed. —teb728 t c 10:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@CharlesPatriciaLester: I agree with the above but I'll add a comment. While Vikki Cartledge would be an easy username for you to remember, it is understandable and acceptable to use something other than your real name. You should change your username but feel free to change it to a pseudonym.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I get a company's Page Created

I have tried multiple times to write about a new e-commerce, but it gets deleted.

Please provide me a valuable feedback so that I can improve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wish%27nBuy Neha.duggal (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neha.duggal: Wish'nBuy was deleted because it didn't indicate why Wish'nBuy is important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. Draft:Wish'nBuy has not been deleted (at least not yet), but it was declined for being written like advertisement, and it has been nominated for deletion as unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is for subjects that are important with articles written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 10:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.duggal (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Neha.duggal. The answer is probably that you can't. If it is, as you say, a new e-commerce, then it probably has not yet been written about in depth by multiple people who have no connection with it. Since Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody or any organisation says or wants to say about themselves, but is only interested in summarising what independent people have published about a subject, if there is little such independent writing then there is literally nothing that can be put in the article, and you are not allowed to try. Please read your first article carefully, and understand that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any sort. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I need writers!!!

Hi, my name is Norbert Stachel. I'm a veteran saxophonist and woodwind player, composer, and arranger. I'm an established professional musician that has worked with many extremely famous artists during my career as what is referred to as a "sideman" in the music business. Some names to mention are Boz Scaggs, Roger Waters, Tower Of Power, Tito Puente, Celia Cruz, Dream Theater, Prince, Freddie Hubbard, Aerosmith, Zigaboo Modeliste, Sheila E, Roy Hargrove, Andrew Hill, Don Cherry, and many many more. I'm looking for writers to write articles about me (Norbert Stachel), my flutist wife Karen Stachel, and our music group LehCats.

Some links to verify what I'm talking about:

http://norbertstachel.com http://www.allmusic.com/artist/norbert-stachel-mn0001311378/credits http://lehcats.com/home https://twitter.com/nstachel https://https://www.facebook.com/LehCatsMusic/ https://https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yTUAd7OiWmlqskZmzJO-49GjTcmX_9d

I can't deal with the aggravation of trying to figure out how to write articles myself, and it goes against Wikipedia guidelines anyway. Please Help Me!!! LehCats (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi LehCats. I have two suggestions for you to try:

1. You can request assistance at Wikipedia:Request article and see if someone there is willing to write an article about you or your wife; or
2. You can post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians and ask the same thing.

Before you do either, however, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and see if either you or your wife satisfy those guidelines. If you able to show that the two of you have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then there is a good chance that somebody will write an article about you or your wife. If you are unable to satisfy those two guidelines, then there is a pretty good chance of no article ever being written. I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences for reference. Having a Wikipedia article written about you might seem like only a positive thing, but there can be a downside to it as well. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I echo that. In a nutshell, please read Wikipedia:Golden rule and WP:MUSICBIO. You, your wife, or your band must meet the criteria described in those two documents. Who you have worked with doesn't really matter because notability is not inherited. You may be well known in musicians' circles, but having a Wikipedia article requires that there exist examples of significant coverage about you in independent sources (that is, sources not associated with you). ~Anachronist (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

An old photo

This is in regards to Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School again. As the school was originally built as a replica of George Washington's Mount Vernon, I tried to track down a picture. I did. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:00027411_mtvernonschool.jpg)

I assumed this was fair use, looking at the photo and seeing the model T's. Stupid me. The school was constructed in 1925 and opened in '26. Fair use, I think, means the photo has to be from before 1923. The photo came from this site and is credited to the Los Angles Public Library: http://derangedlacrimes.com/?tag=mt-vernon-junior-high-school

Is there any other way this photo can be used on wikipedia. If not, do I simply delete it from the commons or do I need to do something more than that? HedgeHogPower (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@HedgeHogPower: on Commons, you would tag the image page with {{SD|G7}}, which is a speedy deletion request to delete your own upload. See Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My edit on the page John of God (medium)?

Hi, I edited a few sections on the page of john of god. First of all I removed the section on the accusations of sexually assaulting members of his staff. The Wiki pagelines clearly say that tabloid media is not appropriate. With the same reasoning I moved the ABC and the Montreal Gazette articles. The montreal Gazette article was moved under criticism. I also edited the prices: these are not true. I am currently living in Abadiania, and the price for a Crystal bed session is 20R$ little less then 6 dollars. The price for a 1,5 bottle of water is 3R$, less then a dollar. Then afterwards the article is writing about all the personal posessions of joao de deus. I think that is writing from a negative persective and trying to frame him as a fraud. His personal posessions are not relevant for this article I find. The pope, and the president are both very rich... but is that mentioned in their articles? Then next to that what isn't mentioned in the english wiki, but can be found on the Portuguese wiki is that De Feria runs 3 charities in Abadiania. He has two soup kitchens, one in the casa where people can eat on soup and bread and water for free. One isn't obliged to buy water! then another one in the village where people can get a full meal, plus coffee+ dessert. And he has a bath house where people can shower for free. Yes, indeed he is prescribing passiflora, for 50RS (14.50 dollar) for a large bottle or a small bottle for 10RS. (2.7 dollar). If people cannot pay, they get the medicine for free. People who do not have money to stay in a hotel, can camp for free on the terrain next door. If you guys want I can send pictures of the prices of these things to upload as proof. So I deleted the part of the prices, because they where simply not correct.

Ok, now the personal part of the story. My husband had lymes disease and was very very ill for 11 years. he passed over twice, but fought and came back. Since we moved to abadiania, he is doing much much better, and is almost cured for 85%. My husband was a millionaire but lost almost all his money on legitemate treatments in the US. Here in Abadiania all treatments where free (ofcourse we paid for our own stay and food, but that was cheap). When I wanted to share his story in the UK lymes disease group, (because many people here actually got cured from lymes disease) my story was removed after a post with a copy paste from the current wikipedia page.

I respect that other people might have different opinions, and do not believe in this, but then leave the critics under the critics page. These critics are individuals or tabloid journalists who come for a juicy story, not people coming with an open mind, but just ready to slay and judge. Wikipedia has pride in being a neutral source, and wants to hear from people who have no interest in the topic. One if the main critics is a doctor, who of course has interest in the topic because he feels his profession is being jeopardised. Truth of the matter is that there are weekly, already since 1965 10.000 people come to visit this man. Some have miraculous curing, most improve drastically or get a clue on how to continue healing, and yes sometimes, very sometimes, people who where already very sick die. But people die in hospitals too, and people die in car accidents too.

So I truly believe, that accusations should either be removed (because its just tabloid journalism, nothing is proved) or please please moved to the bottom of the page to the criticism section.

Thank you, and I look forward to your answers. Mirjam Luijten-Kao Maerlander (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no blanket prohibition about citing "tabloid" news sources. Each source needs to be evaluated independently for qualification as a reliable source, regardless of its format. If you suspect that a cited source in the article is not reliable, the place to discuss it is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, or WP:RSN for short. If accusations, particularly with evidence, have received coverage, then they are fair game to include in the article, as long as their inclusion doesn't constitute undue weight and is representative of the proportion of what available sources say. Wikipedia, being a neutral source, must present an encyclopedic representation of information about a topic with the appropriate weight as covered in available sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maerlander: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has absolutely no interest in your anecdotes about your and your husband's experiences with this faith healer and purveyor of "psychic surgery" cures. None whatsoever. Our only purpose is to summarize what the highest quality reliable, independent sources have written about this person. No more and no less. The article is filled with external links in its body. Those should be converted to references and accurately summarized, or removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A section of my article was removed.

A section of Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School was just removed.

In essence: In the 1920s, a man went into this school, asked the registrar for a child, Marion Parker, to be released to him, and then he murdered her. This was a big headline crime. The Los Angeles would refer to this as "the most horrible crime of the 1920s."

Combined with the notoriety of the case, the Marion Parker article says "Hickman abducted Marion from Mount Vernon Junior High School", so I thought it should be briefly mentioned this as part of the school's history.

But it was deleted with the reason being "this is not about the school, it just happened to start at the school)'.

Am I wrong in how I saw this? Or am I not even supposed to ask that? Am I just supposed to revert the edit and add a comment on the talk page? But then doesn't that just become a "my opinion vs. your opinion" situation? I guess I am just looking for some guidelines as to how wikipedia works? Help. HedgeHogPower (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It might or might not belong in the article, depending on how relevant it is to the school. The best thing to do would probably be to contact the other editor on their talk page or post on the article talk page to get more opinions. From what you're saying, I would favor inclusion of that statement. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with White Arabian Filly. That incident is something the school (with its rather unfortunate history) is notable for. And I would prefer the discussion to be on the article's talk page, where there will be more eyes on it. Maproom (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate for the quick input. I reverted the deletion and started a section on the Talk page. This is all new to me. Please be patient. Thanks.HedgeHogPower (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a photo to an article

Hi. I am creating an article for a client (I am a publicist) and I want to upload his headshot. He sent me the photo himself and I am unsure as to what information to add for source, author and license. Thanks! RabbiReport (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@RabbiReport: Welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, please familiarize yourself with our mandatory policy on paid editing disclosure and also our conflict of interest policy. You should submit a draft article through the Articles for Creation process. As for the photo, you cannot just upload it since you are not the copyright holder. The copright holder, usually the photograper, must release the photo themself, in writing, under an acceptable Creative Commons license. The easiest way is for the copyright holder to set up an account at Wikimedia Commons, and then use their upload wizard, answering all of the questions truthfully and accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello RabbiReport, welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia takes copyrights very seriously, and we want to be certain that we have permission to use the images we include in our articles. One of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles is that it is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. You are more than welcome to donate your images for Wikipedia to use, but before proceeding, it is important to understand that we ask for images that are licensed under a free content license. These licenses release some, but not all, of the copyright to an image, allowing anyone – not just Wikipedia – to use and transform the image in any medium or format, both commercially and non-commercially, usually as long as the author or copyright holder is attributed (i.e. given credit).

Please talk with the copyright holder of the image (normally, it's the person who produced the image) and have them agree to release the image under a free license – I recommend one of the Creative Commons licenses, as they are the most common. The author of the image is the person or entity who took the photograph. For the source, write where you obtained the image – in this case, from the subject of the photo. Finally, if the image has been previously published elsewhere (e.g. on a website other than Wikipedia), we will need additional evidence of permission to use the work: this is most easily satisfied by directly stating on the original website, "This image is available under the following license [...]", but you may also opt to try our Interactive Release Generator, which is a form that will verify through email with us that an image is available under a free license. If you need any clarification or help with the process, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse again. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, on your user talk page, I have linked some important information about managing a potential conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a policy of writing articles from a neutral point of view, and since you have a business relationship with your client, you may find it difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. For example, you might unconsciously embellish your client or omit relevant encyclopedic information that might be negative. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask at this Teahouse. Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses!

@Cullen: I have added the conflict of interest disclaimer to the talk page for the draft article. Are you able to take a look at it and see if I did it correctly? This is a pretty basic page for a rather non-controvercial subject, but I've been a journalist for 20 years and am extremely sensitive to any perceived conflict of interest. I am happy to be as up-front about my involvement as possible.

@Mz7: Thank you! I have emailed my client's daughter with instructions on how to give the appropriate permissions via Wikimedia Commons.

Please let me know if you see any other problems or errors in my post. It's a work in progress and I wouldn't dream of submitting it for approval until all rules and best practices have been covered! Thanks! RabbiReport (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi RabbiReport. I noticed a few important issues with your draft. The most important issue is the notability of the subject. Generally, if a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then that subject is presumed notable for a standalone Wikipedia article. The sources you provide should be secondary sources, such as news/magazine articles or a review that analyzes Nelson's work or life. Sources like the Treehouse Masters official website and Nelson Treehouse and Supply do not contribute to showing notability because they are affiliated with the subject matter. Focus on adding sources like the Outside Magazine article. The San Fransisco News source is the kind of source that we are looking for, but it should provide in-depth discussion on Nelson himself in order to show notability. I would focus most of your efforts on finding quality sources before anything else. I am especially worried about this part because Treehouse Masters – Nelson's most obvious claim to notability since he's the host of it – doesn't seem to have a standalone article. If the show isn't notable, I'm not sure if the host is either too.

Another issue is the tone of the article. Wikipedia articles should be written in a formal, disinterested tone. Use the surname "Nelson" to refer to the subject, rather than "Pete". Avoid writing a narrative and stick closer to the facts. Sentences like "Now, he can’t imagine living anywhere else." just don't feel formal or disinterested. Finally, you should add additional citations within the body of the article so that the content can be verified. A guide I sometimes recommend is the amnesia test:

1. Forget everything that you may already know about the subject you want to write about—act as if you know nothing.
2. Go online and do research on the subject, focusing more closely on secondary sources and less on sources affiliated with the subject; be sure to check the reliability of the sources
3. From your research, and your research only, write an article
4. If you find that there is little published information available on which to write, that's an indication that the subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Feel free to follow up here if you have any further questions. Best, Mz7 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7:

Thanks! Yes, some of that was cut/pasted from his site and interviews he did for us. I am going to absolutely clean it up before submitting it. As for the show not having a page, it's a super successful show (and there are loads more citations to add) but Discovery Networks doesn't, as a rule, make their own Wikipedia pages for their shows. Only about 1/2 of the shows on Animal Planet have pages. They're leaving it up to me, but are being very slow in providing the info I need (number of episodes, ratings info, etc.).

Over the next day or two I will put considerable more effort into this and if you're up for another looksee, will let you know when I do.

Thanks so much for your help! RabbiReport (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RabbiReport. You say "Descovery Networks doesn't, as a rule, make their own Wikipedia pages for their shows". This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Ideally, nobody in the entire world makes a Wikipedia page for themselves or their concerns. Nobody. Wikipedia articles should be written by disinterested people, working entirely from reliable independent published sources, and people unconnected with the subject make the decision whether a subject is notable enough for an article and what material is suitable for the article. Consequently, editors are discouraged from working on articles where they have a conflict of interest; and many editors regard paid editors like yourself with suspicion. If the show is notable in Wikipedia's special sense (which doesn't mean popular, or famous, or important, or influential, or significant: it just means that several people unconnected with it have seen fit to publish in-depth writing about it) then there can be a Wikipedia article, and will be if somebody decided to write it. If such writing does not exist, then there cannot be an article about it: what the Network wishes or doesn't wish is immaterial. --ColinFine (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, ColinFine. You are absolutely right and I stand chastised. It's hard serving two masters and while I 100% understand and agree with Wikipedia's mission, guidelines and principals, I also work for a client who may not understand said rules and rather than try to convince them that this is generally not how Wikipedia works, I try to work within the guidelines and I hope I have done so. I posted the disclaimer on the talk page of my draft entry, which I understand is the correct place. Happy to post elsewhere, if need be. I am also going to clean up the entry and post more reputable 3rd party sources, later today. Re: the show, understood and thanks for keeping me on my toes!

Also, for the record, I am not being paid specifically to write this article. It's simply part of my duties as a publicist. I don't know if that matters or if it's splitting hairs, but I am not a professional Wikipedia article writer (I assume there are people like that).RabbiReport (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Side bit with picture

Hello everyone

I was wondering how you add the side bit were it's has a picture and description because I'm new and I'm making a page I need help please.

Thanks Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padders8 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Pat. It's called an infobox. But really, it's the icing on the cake. The important part of an article is getting the high-quality independent published sources, and writing text based on what they say. If you don't get these, the article is likely to be deleted (as you have just seen at Rip Dawgs). Please read your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Where to make page for a person who is a founder of some company

where to make page for a person who is founder of some companyVaibhavJha (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, VaibhavJha. The first thing to realise is that creating a new article is hard: I always advise new editors to spend at least a few weeks improving existing articles, and getting an idea of how Wikipedia works, before they try creating a new article. The second thing to realise is that Wikipedia does not contain "pages for" people, or "profiles": it contains "articles about" people and other subjects, which are written in a neutral tone, and summarise what reliable sources, independent of the subject, have published about the subject. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a subjects says or wants to say about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. If there are such high-quality indepedent sources, then there may be an article; but if these do not exist, then there is literally nothing that can go into the article. The Wikipedia jargon for this is whether or not they are notable: a company founder might be notable, but might not: it depends entirely on whether independent sources have written about him. Finally, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiography.

If you wish to take this further, please read your first article carefully, and use the article wizard to create a draft in Draft space. --ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized Government of Estonia

Some people have put names of random people in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Estonia someone please revert the change. What can we do?

Monkke (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the changes, Monkke. If this happens often, the page can be semi-protected; but that will not normally be done unless there is repeated vandalism. What you could do which would provide some protection against vandalism is to add some citations to the article: at the moment it is almost unreferenced, and therefore of not much value: I can't easily tell whether your changes are more accurate than the other person's. --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

On the page "Vai Taua," people have been vandalizing the page and I was wondering how I can protect it.

Vai Taua refer to caption Taua in 2010 as a college football player at Nevada. No. 16 Tennessee Titans Position: Running back Personal information Date of birth: October 11, 1988 (age 28) Place of birth: Fountain Valley, California Height: 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m) Weight: 225 lb (102 kg) Career information College: My naan Undrafted: 2011 Career history Buffalo Bills (2011)* Seattle Seahawks (2011)*, (2012)tennessee Titans 2015 - present

* Offseason and/or practice squad member only

Roster status: Free Agent MON5T3R (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant in the content, but basing off of your title, if you are not a administrator, you can not protect pages. If you want to protect it, suggest it to Requests for Protection, while in the mean time, keep on your tippy toes and quickly undo vandalism.—JJBers|talk 17:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I see no vandalism in the edit history of Vai Taua, and no reason to want to protect it. Maproom (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Maproom, this edit looks like vandalism. But it is the only one I see. MON5T3R, adding the template {{pp-vandalism}} to the page has no effect whatever. If you want to request protection, you need to do it at WP:RPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Matthew Curtis (composer)

I reviewed Draft:Matthew Curtis (composer) and declined it as not meeting notability. The author, User:SCL1958, then posted to my talk page: Thank you for reviewing this submission. As this has been rejected by several different reviewers for differing reasons, and as I see from some of the discussion on your Talk page that you have been kind enough to help take submissions through to completion and approve in the past, I would be very grateful if you would do likewise for mine.

The issue you highlight is notability. As we are all aware, classical music is a niche, living composers of it yet more so. Unless a composer has written film music, which the subject of this draft review has not, he or she will be somewhat obscure. Still, in this world, Matthew Curtis is notable for the number of recordings and performances (radio broadcasts are the most easily verifiable and hence partially quoted), and his music has been reviewed in the industry magazine Gramophone (see various references in the draft), referenced in a book (ref 14), reviewed in "The Spectator" (ref 16) which is absolutely not an industry publication, and has even been performed in the presence of HM the Queen (ref 12). There is also a reference to him in an existing Wikipedia article (English Music Festival).
If we can agree that this is sufficient to establish notability, the issue may be that I have done a poor job of ensuring this is clear to the reader, and I would welcome any suggestions you have to ensure I get this right.

Kind regards UserSCL 1958 I would like the comments of other experienced editors. Was I, as the last declining reviewer, too harsh? Does anyone have advice to User:UserSCL1958? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Clicking through the provided sources, trivial coverage seems to be a theme in all of them. The ones I looked at ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) all mention Curtis in the most passing way possible, and many are simply track listings. While it is important to have citations for claims about what work the artist has done, and where these have been played, these do not constitute nontrivial coverage per WP:MUSBIO, and do not contribute to notability for the purposes of Wikipedia.

The challenge here is not to demonstrate that the individual, as a composer, has composed works and that those works have been performed. Professional composers, do these things by definition, and being a professional composer in and of itself is not qualifying for an article. Rather, the challenge is to demonstrate that, among composers, this individual in particular is somehow exceptional and important such that they warrant their own article. This requires in depth coverage and not merely track listings or passing single sentence mentions in sources otherwise centrally about a different topic all together. TimothyJosephWood 17:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:With respect, you seem to have omitted to look at all at such reviews (refs 17 through 20 in the Gramophone, 2 and 21/22 in MusicWeb International) that are devoted to or have a significant section devoted to the composer. And while I grant that several references merely substantiate the claim of performances on radio made in the submission, several others that mention rather than centre on Curtis would rather tend to support the contention that he is notable - why mention him in a book about Coates if he is not notable (ref 14)? Why describe listening to his CD in an article starting with inspirational English teaching (ref 16)? Why mention him as having been performed at the English Music Festival in the article on your site? This is not a composer of atonal music, where there are awards say, or of film music, where you can quote box office, or of popular music, where you can point to charts. This is light classical music, which while much played on radio and much loved by many, is not exactly mainstream, and most listeners of my generation hardly haunt the internet.UserSCL1958 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@UserSCL1958:, as far as trivial mentions go, the community consensus that formed WP:MUSBIO was to exclude them for the purposes of establishing notability. That's pretty much a settled matter as far as you and I are concerned, because WP-wide policy consensus is difficult to achieve and as much or more so to change.

Looking at the sources you point out, yes, these are the types of sources that are needed to establish notability. Digging around on the internet I also found this short online review, this review by the Federation of Recorded Music Societies and this (archive version) very in-depth review by the British Music Society. I would suggest a bit more digging to try to find more sources like this. It is difficult given his generic name. I found these by searching for the names of his works in quotations, and his last name outside quotations.

For the sources you have, I would try to incorporate as much non-promotional information as is relevant. For example, regarding the English Music Festival, instead of saying He has been commissioned to compose for the English Music Festival instead say something like Curtis was commissioned to compose for the English Music Festival in 2008, for which he wrote his Festival Overture. The piece opened the final concert of the event and was performed by Southern Sinfonia and the London Chorus, directed by Ronald Corp.

I haven't found where Curtis has been the recipient of any industry awards, but if this is so it would also be helpful.

All in all, I don't think the draft has reached the point where the simply isn't any additional information available, and I don't think anyone has argued yet that the subject isn't inherently non-notable; just that there can be some work done in readily demonstrating this. TimothyJosephWood 15:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:Thank you very much for this feedback, that is most helpful, and I will incorporate your suggestions. I am fairly sure there are no awards but will look again: as you can probably gather I am not hugely competent at ferreting stuff out of the internet. Many thanks for taking the time and for your swift response.UserSCL1958 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-Submission Of Article and How Long It Takes for Approval

Happy Monday! I have a question in regards to the length of time one has to wait after re-submitting an article due to the lack of containing appropriate sources and references. I re-sent the article back after editing it on Friday and was curious when I should be hearing back if it was approved or not. If anyone has any information on the wait time, that would be great! Thanks! Jody1121 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that you're talking about User:Jody1121/sandbox, you didn't resubmit after editing your draft. There is a blue "Resubmit" button in the box at the top of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As for how long you'll have to wait, there are currently over 900 drafts awaiting review. You can see how long they've been waiting, at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at User:Jody1121/sandbox, I would suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting, and try to fix some of the formatting problems with the article. Also, you can always click "edit" on other articles and try to follow the same type of formatting they do. This list of high quality articles by topic might be a good place to start.

I would also recommend:

• Help:Referencing for beginners, since portions of the draft are currently unreferenced,
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, since the draft seems to rely on promotional language that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and
• Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, since portions of the draft appear to be copied verbatim from online sources

Hopefully this helps. TimothyJosephWood 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You have loaded the current draft with a very large number of references to Hegna's books. Those are not independent. In order to establish notability, you need sources that are independent of Hegna and are reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all that replied. I re-submitted the article on Friday with (high!) hopes that I would have an answer today. Clearly, the line is long. As for referencing, I am a little stuck on what's reliable, notable sourcing. I have gone through the numerous articles, links, and sub-links discussing referencing and felt that my re-submission was within the means of the site. Any advice for a first-time Wiki contributor who's goal is to get her client readership and share his message would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!! Jody1121 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read what I said. You did NOT resubmit your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Er, what was that, Jody1121? "To get her client readership and share his message"? That's not what Wikipedia is for. If that's what you want to do, please quickly choose some other website to do it on. Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind, and it looks as if your purpose here may be to promote. Please note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. You are talking about a "client" Have you made an appropriate disclosure? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

David, I DID re-submit my draft, on Friday. It is in my history that it was re-submitted after I updated the document with proper references and sourcing.

Listen I am new to Wikipedia. My purpose was not to promote, but to create a bio page for a client with a strong message and background. Highlight the journey of his life, where he started and where he is now, like many other pages that are published on Wikipedia featuring industry leaders, speakers, etc. I will re-review the Terms of Use and move forward with an appropriate disclosure justlettersandnumbers. Thank you Jody1121 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I revert a 4th time within 24 hours, under certain circumstances?

A controversial page is being edited by people who don't want certain information to appear on the page. Information that is referenced using reliable sources, is deleted again and again, by users who keep editing and reverting. It even seems a user reverts more than 3 times within 24 hours, but using an IP address instead of their account, to prevent getting penalised.

My Questions:

• What is the proper step to take in such a situation?
• Am I allowed to revert a fourth time within 24h, if others people keep editing maliciously?

Some more background info: Last year a Hungarian camerawoman was recorded kicking refugees. This incident is on Wikipedia as the Petra László tripping incident. This page is mostly being watched mostly by Hungarian nationals, who tried to get the article deleted, or remove information that they did not like. On the Talk page, someone is claiming her innocence (quote " SHE COULD NOT TRIP HIM") and saying the media is biased. All while quickly reverting my edits. Any guidance is welcome.

Amin (Talk) 12:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Amin. Generally no. There are few exceptions to Wikipedia policy on edit warring, such as WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO. These are clear cases where, for legal reasons, it may actually be vitally important whether content remains while differences are discussed. Otherwise, if you have to split hairs over whether or not you are edit warring, you are probably in dangerous territory anyway.

Overall, Wikipedia takes a long view on getting things right. It is most often the case that it is more important that an article is eventually correct and stable, and usually not terribly important that an article is right this very second, although it often seems that way to those involved in a content dispute.

I have commented on the article talk regarding some basic issues of sources, and will try to follow the discussion there as best I can. Otherwise, the best advice is to follow the dispute resolution process until a consensus can be reached. TimothyJosephWood 13:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for insights @Timothyjosephwood:. I agree with the long view of getting things right. My initial try to contribute to this page was weeks, if not months ago. And the same forces who removed my contributions then, are doing it again now. I am afraid that giving it another cooling period, will fail again. However, I will look into the Dispute Resolution Process if this continues. Amin (Talk) 15:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Amin: After reviewing the source in question, I have restored the original wording in the lead. As I indicated on the article talk, using pictures and youtube videos to extrapolate a conclusion not supported by reliable secondary sources is original research. For future reference, blatant violations of the Wikipedia prohibition on original research may also be reported to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, after, of course, making good faith attempts to resolve the issue on talk. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of the previous editors, but I will add a few comments. First, if, as you say, there are frequent reverts from IP addresses, you don't know that those are registered editors editing logged out, but you do know that that is edit-warring by unregistered editors, and you can request semi-protection. What will probably happen may be either semi-protection or full protection. In either case, you should discuss on the article talk page. Second, you ask whether there are exceptions to the 3RR rule for malicious editing. That would require judges to decide which editor is malicious, and we very seldom have judges. As mentioned, discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that 3RR doesn't really apply in cases of obvious vandalism or libel. I've seen an editor revert an IP-hopping vandal a dozen times in the space of a few hours before the article got protected or the IP range was blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are exceptions to the 3RR rule. However, an editor should be very sure that they are on the side of Wikipedia (not merely the side of right and truth) before relying on those exceptions, or they could face the situation of both editors being blocked for 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

why my article is subjected to deletion?

What exactly is wrong with my article; draft: Taskford? what am i advertizing or promoting? what email address or phone is written except web pages of the company the article is about? what personal interest does the article have? what social media links does the article have?

Here yourself say: "Please be specific in your question rather than general".

Could a wikipedian be more specific and not general on why my article is subjected to deletion?

Someone should answer these questions, please.

Nedemekhocam0907 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nedemekhocam0907: Are you asking about your unsubmitted draft Draft:Taskford or your usurping Social recruiting for the benefit of Taskford? The draft is not up for deletion; it is the usurpation that has been reverted. —teb728 t c 09:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Two previous incarnations of the draft have been deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the three deleted versions of the draft, because I am not an administrator and cannot read deleted material. However, when an article is on a general topic, such as Social recruiting, attempting to make it into an advertisement for a company that is one of various companies in the field is extremely improper, and you were trying to change an article from a general concept to an advertisement. I disagree with the details of the warning that you were given, because your conduct was not, in my opinion, vandalism, but it was just as serious as if it had been vandalism; it was spam. If you try to insert a mention of your company into any general articles, I would support an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nedemekhocam0907: I happened to see the third version of your draft before it was deleted. The whole draft was blatantly promotional. You ask "what am i advertizing or promoting?" You were trying to adertize something called "Taskford". Whether Taskford is a company, or a platform, or a web site, or all of these, was unclear from the draft. Maproom (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Maproom,

Thanks for your enlightment, really appreciate it. The thing is that I am new to Wikipedia articles but researched a lot before writing a piece of the article. And I got stuck at a point when I see similar articles that are not in the situation as you classified mine as a blatant promotion. The thing is Toptal article promotional or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toptal?

How about Fiverr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiverr?

In what ways is my article diff from those mentioned except the references I don't currently have?

And mind you, having no references yet is why the article is in draft.

I'd be more than excited if you could help me with this.

Nedemekhocam0907 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Nedemekhocam0907 - You don't seem to be paying attention. You seem to still be asking us how to use Wikipedia to promote Taskford. That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, and it isn't the focus of the Wikipedia volunteers here at the Teahouse. We aren't planning to help you, and any excitement on your part is misplaced. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Robert and those who have contributed to this, I'd say I'm sorry for any misunderstanding I might have caused so far.

what should i do now? could someone help me out with this?

Nedemekhocam0907 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Nedemekhocam0907 - What is your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliance scams

I have separate section for RCOM scams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgangwani35 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Pgangwani35. If you want to persuade other editors to accept your changes, discuss them at Talk:List of Reliance scams —teb728 t c 09:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

www.wilsonowners-archives.co.org/Web/Images/News/Extensions/Article/Talk: Regular expression/Links/Dl.Intl.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.241.56.227 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2016‎ (UTC)

References

Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

my tablet was stolen. any possible way to track activity on it?

My tablet was stolen. Anyway to track activity on it?Big text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.18.105 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. We can't offer advice on how to track a stolen tablet. I'm sure you can find advice on that via a Google search, but if not, consider asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Accidentally moved my talk page to mainspace

Hi, I was trying to post the content on my sandbox onto the mainspace but I think I accidentally posted my talk page instead? I'm not completely sure but once I realized and tried to go to my sandbox to try it again, it wouldn't let me move it because the name of the article was "taken" (I used the title when I unintentionally was moving my talk page). Please let me know if you can help! I currently posted the article under a different related name but I would like to stick with my first title choice if possible! Thanks Malikaih (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've moved your talk page back and am clearing up other stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploading a school seal

Hi, I'm currently creating an article about my alma mater, and I was wondering how to upload the official seal of the school. I've been reading up on the Wiki pages on uploading non-free logos and the image use policy, as well as having a look at already-uploaded school seals as a point of reference, but it still seems pretty confusing.

I'd just like a clearer and simpler explanation of the right way of uploading a school seal. Thanks!

Gkomarnicki (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Gkomarnicki. Click Upload file in the left sidebar and start the Upload Wizard. In step 3 click “This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.” and “This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.” and “This image will be shown as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.” —teb728 t c 08:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and in the textbox where it ask you to explain how the use is minimal, say something like "The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the university, without being unnecessarily high resolution." —teb728 t c 08:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

One more thing Gkomarnicki: If this is for your draft article, wait until the draft has been published. A non-free image can be used only in an article (not a draft), and it may not be uploaded unless it is used in an article. —teb728 t c 08:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

how my content will be approved and public now?

dear sir, I would like to know how can i public my content in Wikipedia. I doubted why i got message that my content has been deleted. how can i do? could you help me for approving my posting content.

Thanks and Regards. Natpn (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The words in blue on your user talk page are wikilinks to pages which you need to read. Promotional meterial wil not be published on Wikipedia. If you have factual material supported by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject, read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:35, Today (UTC+0)

@Natpn: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your article called "A wonderful place Mokoju peak" has been deleted three times by three different administrators in a period of about five hours. They all agree that your article was unambiguous advertising or promotion. The title of your article is problematic, since we do not call things "wonderful" here, but instead describe things neutrally. So, the first thing that I should say is that you must stop trying to use Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. Please read an essay called Your first article and comply with all of its recommendations. I suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process for future attempts. Your draft article will be reviewed by an experienced editor, greatly increasing the likelihood that it will stay on Wikipedia if it is accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I need help with tables.

Hello editors, I am editing Eye of the Storm (2015 film) and i wanted to make a table of the awards people won in the movie. I can't make a table where one column is the height of three rows. Could you please help me with an example please? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello GrecoRomanNut. You need to use the rowspan statement:

col 1, row 1	col 2, rows 1 and 2	col 3, row 1
col 1, row 2		col 3, row 2

The wiki markup for the above follows – in your case set the rowspan to "3", this example uses "2" for simplicity:

{| class = "wikitable"
| col 1, row 1
| rowspan = "2" | col 2, rows 1 and 2
| col 3, row 1
|-
| col 1, row 2
| col 3, row 2
|}

I derived this example from Help:Table, although that page does not have a dedicated section on the topic. See also Wikipedia:Advanced table formatting. Hope this helps. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey. Thank you, but I don't understand. If I post some links, could you maybe make it for me? If you don't want to that's okay. GrecoRomanNut (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

search using intitle

To search for all page titles containing a certain string, use the code intitle:ology. But that would only search for pages containing Ology with an uppercase. How would I search for all pages with ology? NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nikolaiho. As you suggest, the first of these two templates is close to what you want:

• Template:In title — creates a link to search for page titles which contain given words
• Template:Look from — creates link to list all pages beginning with given words

But the action is to search for entire words, meaning "ology" and "Ology" but not "*ology". For more flexible searches, using regular expressions (or regexes), you need to invoke an external tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/grep/index.php Enter the following regex in the Pattern dialog: .*ology.*. My test gave 13173 hits, including "Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation" as an example (and a disambiguation page as it happens). For a more restrictive search, try .*ology$, which limits the search to titles ending with "ology". This tool is, of course, not a template like {{In title}}. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Signature

How can I make a cool signature and make it official? Royals402 (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CUSTOMSIG – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Boxes

What are the boxes called that are things that you like? Royals402 (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Royals402, they are called "userboxes". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of gray literature

I am drafting an article on open (source) energy system models, a class of computer model primarily used to simulate and optimize national energy systems. I am becoming increasingly confused as to what constitutes a "reliable, published source" (quote from WP:VERIFY), particularly in relation to what might be regarded as gray literature. I have a concrete example:

Daly, Hannah E; Fais, Birgit (November 2014). UK TIMES model: overview. London, United Kingdom: UCL Energy Institute. Retrieved 2016-11-13.

This document is written by researchers at UCL, London. It is well-structured, well written, and contains 7 references. It has been published insofar as it is downloadable from an academic (.ac.uk) website. It would be perfectly acceptable as a citation in a scientific publication. Yet while it is clearly not a secondary source, nor independent, does it class as a reliable source for Wikipedia? Can and should it be used? My next question involves software documentation:

Pfenninger, Stefan (10 March 2016). Calliope documentation — Release 0.3.7 (PDF). Retrieved 2016-11-13.

This example of gray literature does not list a publisher and is not associated with an academic domain name. It would also be acceptable as an academic citation in the right circumstances. What is its status then, given it has fewer credentials than the first example (even though Calliope is a research project at ETH Zurich)? Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that both of these are primary sources, and so can be cited, but only in the limited way that primary sources can be. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Reliability and independence are separate attributes of sources. A source may be reliable but not independent, while another source may be independent but not reliable. When a given topic has received significant coverage in published sources that are both reliable and independent, then the topic is considered notable, and is probably eligible for a Wikipedia article. Once notability has been established, then basic non-controversial details can be filled in using primary (non-independent) sources. In the case of an article about a corporation, for example, their founding date, headquarters location and CEO's name might be referenced to their website. But their website or other primary source cannot be used for evaluative statements. A Wikipedia article should be written from the neutral point of view, and should bear no resemblance to a company website or marketing brochure, though many editors try to write articles that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine and Cullen328. Thanks for your replies. Your explanations make things much clearer. I looked at some length at the Wikipedia policies on this matter, but they were scattered over several pages and difficult to interpret. In addition, it seems that the use of existing articles as a prototype may not work, given that editorial standards are steadily rising. This seems particularly true for articles covering software. Indeed I see many that would clearly fail the current articles for creation process, particularly in terms of substantiation. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Category Creation Did Not Go Well

Reference this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_archives

Instead of creating the Category under the letter "I" for "List of archives in Italy" it placed the category at the top of the page where it does not belong. How do I fix this? Zcarstvnz (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The other pages in Category:Lists of archives are list articles, but Category:List of archives in Italy is a category, and hence a sub-category of the parent category. Your new category is, however, empty. Did you perhaps intend to create a list article analogous to those for other countries? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to create the listing "List of archives in Italy." The subcategory at the top of the page is empty because I deleted the link from the following page.

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

Zcarstvnz (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

On looking further I see that the page List of archives in Italy already exists. It wasn't a member of Category:Lists of archives, but I've added it now. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! But how do I fix the problem with the "Subcategories" at the top of the page (that shouldn't exist)? Zcarstvnz (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You'll see that Category:Archives in Italy exists, so it was perhaps that category which you ought to add to Fondo Egone Missio Archives? If your new category was created in error, you can tag it for deletion by adding {{Db-author}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about how to delete the category. I've never deleted anything on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure I do this correctly after my earlier mistake today. Thanks! Zcarstvnz (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Only an administrator can delete the category, but if you paste {{Db-author}} to the top of the page, that will flag it as being requested for deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zcarstvnz: I'm an administrator and have deleted Category:List of archives in Italy. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles

I really want to write some good articles and am a bit rusty because was not here, but I'm back. So I want format any articles or write some good articles. Help me with the ideas please. Yours sincerely,Ema (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried clicking the "random article" link, fifth from the top in the menu to the left of this and other pages? Most Wikipedia articles have scope for improvement. If you get an article on something boring, just click again. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added factual information with appropriate citations and my edits are being deleted.

The article I am editing is on Shiva Ayyadurai. I have only added factual, cited information that gives context to what has already been written, yet my minor edits are being deleted by, what appears to be, a few folks who have commandeered this page? Any advice on how to ensure that factual information makes it on to Wikipedia without someone arbitrarily deleting it??

Thank you. Newark Latina (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Newark Latina. You may not have realized it, but your edit changed more than just the one sentence; you inadvertently removed the infobox from the top of the article. The editor who reverted your edit, Barte, noticed what you were trying to do, and changed the article to make it clear that Ayyadurai's claim is very much disputed. Your edit was factual, and the editor realized this. They only initially reverted you because you removed more than you intended to. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was most obviously not a "minor edit". Please read Help:Minor edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Editors should also be aware that this article has recently been plagued by newly-minted accounts making remarkably similar pov edits ... richi (hello) 00:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the use of embedded external links ever acceptable?

Hello Teahousers. Take the following text (from a draft article) with embedded links to external websites and to GitHub:

Calliope is a energy system modeling framework, with a focus on flexibility, high spatial and temporal resolution, and the ability to execute different runs using the same base-case dataset. The project is being developed at the Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland. The project maintains a website, another website for documentation, hosts the codebase at GitHub, operates an issues tracker, and runs two email lists. Calliope is written in Python and uses the Pyomo library.

Is this use of embedded external links acceptable? I realize that Wikipedia:Citing sources § Avoid embedded links clearly states:

Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article, like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product...".

But is this example an exception? Indeed, under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia policies are ultimately for guidance and not absolute. I feel that migrating these embedded links to {{cite web}} templates makes them more obscure and represents a step backwards. Any counsel gratefully received. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Welcome to the Teahouse. I do not see this as a valid case of "ignore all rules" and it looks to me like an attempt to spam a bunch of websites into a Wikipedia article. I think that a large percentage of experienced editors would be inclined to push back strongly against this content. If all of these websites are worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, it is because independent reliable sources discuss them, not Calliope itself. As encyclopedists, we have very little interest in what Calliope says about itself, and instead summarize what other publications say about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328. Many thanks for your prompt response. I based my writing in part on several articles describing software, with the GNU Linear Programming Kit entry being one such example. That page, with no specific references and a long list of external links, would doubtless fall under the criticism of being insufficiently encyclopedic (although the software has been covered in several academic papers and textbooks). The problem is that while Calliope (for instance) has been covered in journals (including Energy and Applied Energy), these papers tend to focus on results and not structure. Valuable background information (such as licensing details and programming language) are only available from project websites and self-published software documentation. I guess the conclusion is that the bulk of the information must come from reliable secondary sources, duly cited. Once again, I appreciate your informative reply. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Android device codenames

Hi,

Android devices all have specific codenames, for example:

Moto E2 LTE - surnia

Motorola Droid Razr - spyder

Would it be appropriate for me to add links to these Android devices on the disambiguation pages of their codenames?

Thanks Mtbu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbu (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mtbu: Sounds right, as long as these codenames are supported by a suitable reference. The information probably also belongs in each article about the phones. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

I will make sure the phones' pages also have their codenames on if they do not already, as this is useful information particularly in the modding/rooting field. Mtbu (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard Wassersug

Whilst editing I have stumbled upon this page which, I think, just passes the boundaries of notability. I would like to politely educate the IP editor (who I presume is also the focus of the article, given the amount of edits) about lists of publications, and then remove the list. I am sure that it is not part of what we do here (bio articles with publication lists, that is), however I can't find a guideline or policy to support that. Could I have some help? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Tom (LT). I agree that that list is not appropriate. It would be appropriate to list key publications, in my view, but the article looks like a CV. A relevant guideline here is WP:NOTCV. The article should also be tagged for the conflict of interest if Wassersug has been editing it. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT) I also agree. An IP editor added loads yesterday, which I reverted, but there's till too many in my opinion. I'd say 10-15 is probably more than enough. Joseph2302 12:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You can also call their attention to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as to the length of the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, a published work should be listed only if a reference to an independent review of that work is provided, or if the published work is independently notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Images and fair use

Can I upload copyrighted (and maybe non-copyrighted) images under fair use directly to Wikipedia without going to Commons? I would like to add images of musicians to their articles but there hasn't been any of those images in the Wiki gallery. I remembered something about fair use that allows a copyrighted image to be uploaded but only if that image has no other suitable substitutes. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheMagnificentist Images of living people cannot be uploaded under fair use, as they fail the first criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria that "no free alternative is avaliable". In essence, anyone could take a photo of a living person and use that instead.

In general however, if there are images that meet all the fair use criteria, then they can be added to Wikipedia and not the Commons (Commons deletes all Non-free images). Joseph2302 08:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Welcome back to the Teahouse. Only images free of copyright or freely licensed under an acceptable Creative Commons license are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Some non-free images are allowed here on Wikipedia, but our requirements are much stricter than fair use. As for non-free photos of people, the only ones allowed are those of people who have died, since there is no realistic possibility to obtain a free image in that situation. For living people, the presumption is that a freely licensed photo can be taken at any time, so we do not allow non-free images in such cases. Please read our policy on use of non-free images, and be absolutely certain that any images you upload are in complete compliance. Since you have a mentor, I recommend that person reviews and approves any images before uploading. We take copyright compliance very seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Recently edited a page, want feedback

Hello, I'm a student editor and recently edited a page for a class of mine. I added a section entitled Water Scarcity under the Geography section of the Bulawayo page. I attributed a couple of paragraphs to one source and after finishing typing my text I noticed that one of the pictures on the page was oddly positioned, so I also moved it over. I just want feedback on whether or not my edit was good or bad. Thank you. -- MJ6571 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@MJ6571: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your addition to the article is a good one, but I have a couple of comments and suggestions. You note that your reference is available on the web, but do not provide a link. It is always useful to provide a link to an online source. Please read Referencing for beginners for how to do so. Copyedit your work, as I noticed a typographical error. You mention various suburbs. I suggest that you name them. I think that more information about the public health implications of the water shortages would be a useful addition. I hope that this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Master Long Tian Xiang

I reviewed Draft:Master Long Tian Xiang and declined it as reading like an advertisement. I then received the following on my talk page from User:Wikismartsg:

Dear Reviewer, This page was not created for marketing purpose but really created for Master Long Tian Xiang to remember him. He is a famous figure in this field in the Singapore market but he was not found on Wikipedia. I just want to contribute an article to Wikipedia by consolidating the many third parties' objective comments found on forums and blogs on him. He wants to retire and really does not need to have more business. There are many many more references but I did not have enough time to put them up. I will continue to add when I have time.
To prove that this is not for marketing purpose for Master Long, I have shortened the writeup to make it more neutral. I have also managed to find one negative post about Master Long Tian Xiang and have added it as one of the reference too.
I have spent a few hours to search for the references to complete this article. So please help to reconsider again to approve my contribution. Thanks!

I would like the comments of other experienced editors. However, my thought on the shortened version of the draft is that, in taking out the non-neutral language, the author has left almost nothing, and that Wikipedia isn’t here just to record that someone exists. The revised draft doesn’t read like an advertisement, but it doesn’t read like much. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikismartsg: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please be aware that "forums and blogs" are not acceptable as reliable sources for use in a Wikipedia article. We need coverage in published sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Also, we do not use honorifics like "Master" in the titles of Wikipedia articles, but that is easily corrected and secondary to the issue of the quality of the sources. The bottom line is that I do not see good evidence that this person is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

How to change a title/headword

Hi I'm a very fresh 'beginner' in editing on Wikipedia. And I have a question In the English Wikipedia there is a page titled "House of Elzevir" Although it might be a phonetic correct 'translation' and also at present sometimes used by family members (descendants), the correct spelling - as used and in multiple historical literature, in official registries, and not in the least: by the family itself - is and has always been "Elsevier" and "Elzevier". So my proposal would be to change the title of the mentioned page in "House of Elsevier, Elzevier or Elzevir" or something similar. Is this possible and if yes how. Thanks DElsevier DElsevier (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello DElsevier, welcome to the Teahouse. The standards for naming articles on Wikipedia are described by the article titles policy. That policy takes a long time to read, but it ultimately boils down to this: an article title should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. It should also be supported by reliable sources. If you think "Elsevier" or "Elzevier" would be a better title under the policy, you can change it by "moving" the article to a new title. While signed in, go to the dropdown menu that says "More" to the right of "View History". The option "Move" should be listed there, and that should allow you to enter a new title for the article (see image). You can also navigate straight to Special:MovePage/House of Elzevir. Make sure you specify the reason for moving so that other editors will understand why you did so, and after you move the article, make sure you edit the content of the article itself so that the title remains consistent. Finally, the House of Elzevir article doesn't seem to have that many references. You mentioned "Elsevier" or "Elzevier" are used in historical literature: I would add a citation to those reliable sources in the body of the article to support your title change. If you find yourself confused, feel free to ask for help here at this Teahouse again. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to add to that:

The procedure described above is for uncontroversial moves. There is a more formal procedure for moves that are potentially controversial, which is explained at WP:Requested moves. In case of minor doubts, it is also possible to start an informal discussion at Talk:House of Elzevir to see if it appears likely that anyone would contest the move. I believe the article started life based on the article Elzevir in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which suggested that that spelling was more common in English (actually, that is not exactly what they said, but you can read it online). Another consideration might be the avoidance of confusion with the modern publishing house. --Boson (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

templates

is there a template that you can recommend so that I may make an article that is articulate and flowing22:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruminative (talk • contribs)

Hello, Ruminative, and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on what you mean by "template". On Wikipedia the word has a specific meaning: Templates are pages that are embedded (transcluded) into other pages to allow for the repetition of information and there are some that make articles more flowing (such as infoboxes). If by "template" you mean an example to follow, please see Your first article and take a look at some of our best articles. These follow all of our style guidelines, and you can take much of what the Manual of Style has to say as a "template" on how to make article flow good.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I review pending changes?

How do I review pending changes? Because of the 'r' flags that show up on my watchlist sometimes, I asked for pending changes review permission. It was granted. But I cannot figure out how to do it: what and where to click. I thought there might be some editing gadget, one of the help pages directed me at AFCH. But that isn't it. M.boli (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi M.boli. To review pending changes, go to the page history of the page in question. Unreviewed changes are highlighted in yellow. View the diff or click on the "pending review" button and you'll see options to "Accept revision" or "Unaccept revision". To view all revisions currently awaiting review, click on the "(View all pending revisions)" button. If you edit the page, you have the option at the bottom of the editing window to accept the previous revisions. Finally, if you revert the edits using Twinkle or rollback, your changes will automatically be accepted.

Also, a list of all pages with pending changes awaiting review can be found at Special:PendingChanges. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! I have checked now. It seems that pages marked on my watchlist with an 'r' are no longer showing as unreviewed on the page histories. I had missed that fact. But now I know how to do it. M.boli (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

How does one respond to comments left on ones teahouse question?

How does one respond to comments left on ones teahouse question? TrueColor (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TrueColor. Ordinarily, you would do so by clicking on the "Join this discussion" or "Edit" links in the relevant heading. However, posts here are archived after a few days of activity, and this is the case with your question. In this case, it's best to start a new discussion, preferably providing a link to the previous discussion in the archive. The link for your question is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 540#I would like to create a few Wikipedia pages.. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, THANK YOU. This Wiki business is not very intuitive. difficult to find one's way around.TrueColor (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability?

I've been working hard on an article of an author I like. I think I have researched enough information to prove notability. Can an experienced editor have a look for me? It is: Jessica_Dee_Humphreys Thanks!Aphra (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AphraBenn - Do you have a specific question? Experienced editors have already looked at your draft and disagree about notability. In posting this question, you correctly showed your article as in article space, because it was accepted from draft space. However, another editor has put a GNG tag in the article, indicating that they are not sure that she passes notability, but they did not nominate the draft for deletion. My advice would be to see if you can find more reviews or other discussions by independent parties of her work to improve the article. Do you have a specific question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon. Just this morning I added more new information with many citations and references, in hopes that it would now meet notability criteria. I guess my question is, now that new information and references have been added, how does it get "reviewed" so the notabillty can be confirmed?Aphra (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears, based on the way that you are wording your concern, that you have a different concept of how Wikipedia works than experienced editors do? You ask how to get it "reviewed" so that notability can be confirmed. Your draft was already reviewed by one reviewer who agreed that she is notable and accepted the draft. Another reviewer has doubts. I am guessing that you are asking how to get a final review that locks the article in so that it isn't subject to tagging and isn't at risk of being nominated for deletion. I don't think that there is such a thing as a final review. All of Wikipedia is a work in progress. Everything is continually reviewed. Was that your question? If not, what was your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

My question is how does the notability warning get removed from the page? (Sorry, I am very new and still learning). Aphra (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AphraBenn - I will try to answer your question, but will also say that you are asking the wrong question. The answer to your wrong question of how to get the tag removed is to discuss on the article talk page. However, many Wikipedia editors, both experienced and inexperienced, think that tags are more important than they are. The purpose of tags should be to call attention to the need for improvement of the article. The way to deal with an article that has a notability tag is to add more references and more information to establish notability of the article. Don't worry that much about the tag. Try to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be so obtuse, Robert McClenon, but now that I have made additional references and more information, how do other editors know to check the article? You mention the article's talk page. What is this? Aphra (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@AphraBenn: Welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor interesting in the article will have the article on their watchlist and will be notified of changes. You can always notify any specific editor on their personal talk page. Every editor has a talk page, as does every article. If you look at the menu at the top of any article, you will see a "talk" tab. Clicking that takes you to the talk page for that article. The "history" tab enables you to find out which other editors have contributed to any given article. For this article, the talk page is located at Talk:Jessica Dee Humphreys but conversation has not yet started there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen³²⁸! Very helpful!Aphra (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post on a blocked user's talkpage

A blocked user is trying to speak to me on their talk page and I want to respond but I do not want to get into anymore trouble as I got blocked too few weeks ago and now I'm unblocked after requesting unblock. It appears that an admin has reverted one or more of the blocked user's messages on the talk page but I do not know why. Should I email the user instead? - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Just to clarify: you were indefinitely blocked, and unblocked less than twelve hours ago; you were then discovered to have been socking and nearly indef blocked again about seven hours ago; and now you want to engage in conversation on blocked users' pages? That sounds like a really bad idea. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please be clear, I was "socking" before requesting unblock. I never socked after that. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess I should refrain from talking to blocked users. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheMagnificentist. If there's a legitimate Wikipedia-related reason for posting on this editor's talk page (for example, posting a notification of an WP:XFD discussion, etc.), then I don't think anyone would take issue with you doing so. On the other hand, if you are just posting small talk or posting anything that might be seen as disruptive or further exacerbating the situation, then you may run into problems. Blocked users are pretty much only allowed to use their user talk pages to make unblock requests as explained in WP:UNBLOCK; they are not really supposed to be asking others to make edits on their behalf, posting rants against Wikipedia or the administrator who blocked them, posting random musings or ramblings as if their user take page was some kind of blog. Blocked editors who inapproriately use their user talk pages often find their ability to edit their talk page revoked. We do not own our userpages/user talk pages any more than we own the articles we create/edit, and we must use them in acordance with WP:UP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

In looking at your recent history, I see that you were unblocked subject to mentorship. Before asking any public question that might seem to raise questions, I would suggest that you ask the advice of the mentor. If I were the mentor, which I am not, I would advise you to call as little attention as possible to yourself other than by making non-controversial edits to articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

TheMagnificentist, Hello. I too have reviewed the circumstances behind your recent block. In my opinion, you are remarkably fortunate that you are not blocked indefinitely. I think that it is safe to say that you are skating on very thin ice. My suggestion to you is to control your temper and avoid interacting with any other editor who is in a similarly precarious position. You are unable to help the other blocked editor, and any attempt to try will end badly. This is my sincere personal advice to you, offered as a long term experienced editor who has never been blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the advice. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with article deletion/salvaging

Hello! I am new to wikipedia, so I went to the community portal help out section and chose the article Elham Manea to fix the wiki links on. After adding all the wiki links, I realized I didn't even think the article belongs in wikipedia. I have looked at all the deletion processes, however being new, it is very confusing which process I take it through. Can someone help?

For starters I don't think the article meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. While there are a lot of articles pertaining to Elham, they all seem to be of conflict of interest via place of membership or work. There are a few articles written in the news, however none seem to be significant over time and merely use her as a reference for the information or point they are trying to make.

Furthermore, the entire article is blatant plagiarism. this this and this all say almost the exact same thing as the wikipage. To me it almost seems as if Manea is going through all these organizations she has worked with and adding the same biographical information--and then had someone do the same on wikipedia.

Can someone please give guidance on what process of deletion this belongs to and if my points are even valid? Wikipedia is so vast that I have a hard time pinpointing the right method. Thanks for the help. Pual98 (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pual98. I would investigate and take care the the copyright violation right now but I am leaving momentarily, and just glanced here, and am only writing because copyright violations should be taken care of immediately. I recently revamped and placed detailed instructions at the new pages tutorial to deal with copyright violations. Please see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The use of the same language on multiple sites might be either of two types of copyright violation. If the language was used on one of the web sites first, and then on Wikipedia, then the Wikipedia text can be tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violation. However, it is equally likely that the subject, or someone associated with her, first posted the information to Wikipedia and then to the other web sites. That is a violation of Wikipedia's copyleft because it isn't properly attributed, but that doesn't call for deletion from Wikipedia. It is definitely fishy. If you don't think that her article belongs in Wikipedia for notability reasons, you can nominate it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Pual98: You have obviously done your homework on looking into this - well done. I see that you have tagged the article for Speedy Deletion now, and that will be resolved soon. If it is rejected, that may not be the end of the story - Speedy Deletion is the quick process for cases that are very clear-cut and fit into a specific set of criteria. So there is also a more involved process for cases outside those narrow confines, called "Articles for Deletion" or AfD.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Crafted page now becomes a redirect

Hi, I've crafted a page (Title: Kaeun) but now that I try going into it to edit today, it has become a redirect again. How do I go about to do this? Do I attempt to draft out from scratch and submit for approval/re-edit the source or? Thanks in advance! Animeuver (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Animeuver, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The article you wrote was very brief with no reliable sources, so editor Zackmann08 made it a redirect to After School (band), which is the band that Kaeun belongs to, and which contains all of the information from your article. The comment at the time was "Not worthy of own article", and based on looking at the material that was there I have to agree. I don't see any indication that Kaeun is "notable" on her own (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that word). In order to demonstrate that, you would need to show that she has significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (see WP:42). --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the prompt response. I was planning to edit and add the resources and additional info today, and I wasn't expecting it to be vetted so quickly - my bad on that part. However, is it still possible retrieve the skeleton template/information already done instead of restarting all the way from scratch? Animeuver (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes Animeuver, it's all still there. If you go to this link you will find your old article, so you can copy and paste it into a Draft. Then fill in all your sources at your leisure, and once you think it is ready you can submit it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Animeuver. The lesson of your experience here is that new articles should be drafted either in draft space or on a user sandbox page, and a top priority should be to add references to reliable, independent sources sufficient to show that the topic is notable, as Wikipedia defines the term. Only then should the draft article be moved to the main space of the encyclopedia. This strategy will keep conflict with new pages patrollers to a minimum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Declined - Baba Iqbal Singh - Baru Sahib

Hi David.moreno72

I just saw your message and have observed that the article was declined. I would appreciate some help on this issue since I am a new author on Wikipedia. Look forward to your help.

Thanks

RPS KOhli Rbykohli (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This is probably about Draft:Baba Iqbal Singh - Baru Sahib. After a quick look at it, I have three comments:

• The article should start by making it clear what the man's name is. Is "Baba" a name or an honorific?
• The language is excessively promotional.
• The article cites no sources. Statements in the article need to be followed by references to sources that support them.

Maproom (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Request an editor's help

Hi there, How can I request an editor or editors to review a page and change as needed? MichelleMTL (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the page Tasha Eurich? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MichelleMTL. If you are referring to Tasha Eurich, then feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasha Eurich as explained in WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions. That AfD discussion is essentially a review of the article to determine whether it belongs on the encyclopedia. You can continue editing the article and adding better sources while the dicussion is ongoing, but you should carefully read the comments being made by other editors about the article because they are in a sense telling exactly what they feel is needed for the article to avoid deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the use of the word "needed" in question and response is misleading. It suggests that there are changes that could make the page acceptable as an article. But the problem is not with the page, it is that its subject simply isn't notable in the sense used in Wikipedia. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability Maproom (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: You make a very good point about editing and notability. Just for reference, I was using "needed" in the context of "significant coverage of Eurich in independent reliable sources is needed to show she satisfies Wikipedia's relevant guidelines for notability". Such sources, if they exist, can be added to (i.e., edited into) the article by the creator or any editor who can find them. I thought this would be clear from the reading the comments left by others in the article's AfD discussion, but I probably should have been more specific on this point in my previous post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MichelleMTL - Do you have a connection or association with Tasha Eurich? If so, please read the conflict of interest guideline and make the appropriate declaration. If not, and if you simply are trying to contribute to Wikipedia, creating a new article is the hardest job that there is in Wikipedia, and many new editors would do better to help us with the five million articles that we do have rather than with one article that we don't yet have. If you do not have a conflict of interest, welcome to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

not sure if page moved from sandbox to draft

Re: draft page for Todd Anthony Tyler Hello, I tried to submit my sandbox page for approval using the submit snippet and I was then prompted to move the page to draft. I did this and got one message saying I had been successful and then went back to clean up and another message appeared saying that the move had not been successful. I wonder if anyone could let me know if the move has been successful please?Neil Kindness (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neil Kindness: The move was successful. I have found it at Draft:Todd Anthony Tyler. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

How do i?

Good day wikipedians, just want to ask my question here because i found it good here. Please how do i edit a template on wikipedia? --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Music Boy50 and welcome to the Teahouse! Might I suggest seeing Help:Template or Help:A quick guide to templates to editing templates? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adog104: I will read towards the link which you provide, I think it helps --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

how to create borders

I am creating the Wikipedian On Fire Award for an esteemed co-editor and I need to know how to generate a border around my image and the accompanying text. I con sired my self to be a C student when it comes to this sort of thing, so the simpler the explanation the better. Thanks Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Carptrash. There are many means and types of borders that could be applied. What I suggest is that you take a look through Category:Wikipedia award templates and when you find an award that has borders in a form you like, simply click edit on the template, and copy its code—either to make the template you will be wrapping the Wikipedian On Fire Award image in, or, if this is a one-off, and you won't be making a template, then you can also just use the code from the template, but in that case make sure to replace the parameter markup (parts in tripled curly braces) with whatever the specifics are.

To illustrate, if you were copying a template's code that had "I, {{{1|{{{yourname}}}}}}, hereby award...", when you copied it for your one-off use, you would replace the entire parameter markup with whatever the parameter called for: "I, Carptrash, hereby award...". By the way, almost all suitably free images should be at the Commons. Any reason you uploaded it here? If not, please see Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Fuhghettaboutit: I will try that. Over the last decade I have uploaded probably hundreds of images and every time I try at Commons something weird and user unfriendly occurs, so I have stopped trying. Carptrash (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Publishing

After I have written an article for Wikipedia, how do I get it published on Wikipedia?

Rebecca.b.mason (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca.b.mason This appears to be about Draft:Peter Kahihu, but it is nowhere near ready to be moved to mainspace. You have "???" placeholders for missing information that you still need to find and add, the referencing is also completely inadequate, please read the Your first article and Referencing for beginners guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pre-internet degree verification

I added a citation to an article but it was marked as "not in citation given". It was the only reference I could find for the subject's graduation from a university; the article I found online was about alumni's accomplishments, and referred to the subject as "9T7", meaning graduated from the University of Toronto in 1997 (in the university's parlance). Here is the reference: https://issuu.com/vic_report/docs/vic_report_2016_winter__cbf0b80fd2fb40 (page 12). If this isn't satisfactory, how does one verify degrees? Thanks for any advice.Aphra (talk)

Hi AphraBenn. The article is Jessica Dee Humphreys. Bare urls like this don't make very good references, since they can move around. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. Use a complete reference with title of article, author if known, date, page. You add a note that says 9T7 means graduating in 1997. Using a template simplifies formatting references. For example <ref>{{cite journal |title=Careers, Authors, Honours |url=https://issuu.com/vic_report/docs/vic_report_2016_winter__cbf0b80fd2fb40 |journal=Vic Report, Winter 2016 |volume=XLVI |issue=2 |page=12 |date=March 27, 2016}} Her graduation date is given as 9T7, standing for 1997.</ref> becomes "Careers, Authors, Honours". Vic Report, Winter 2016. XLVI (2): 12. March 27, 2016. Her graduation date is given as 9T7, standing for 1997. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks StarryGrandma! Really helpful notes! Will implement asap. Aphra (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have an entire article in Word doc and I'm looking for an editor who could post it

Not sure if I really want to get into creating the Wiki article yet so I'm wondering if somebody would want to look at the two articles to merge into the one I created. It is 2757 words with all the references now. There are 35 references plus links to Wikipedia pages. So I'm wondering if somebody would want to take what I have and run with it. If not point me to a starting place and I'll look a bit deeper than I have so far on editing. It's taken me two weeks to get the article together and dig up references. This is my field so I can respond to any question. I've kept it fairly general for all readers. I've circulated to my mom and colleagues for review so far so once I do another cut, I'm finished with this round.Gsmoke (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gsmoke. I suggest you start with My first article. Please be aware that writing Wikipedia articles is different from writing in most places, and that writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia. The fact that it is your field is of course helpful when writing an article; but academics who come new to Wikipedia often get frustrated because it takes them a while to understand that what should go into a Wikipedia article is not what you think, or even what you know, but solely what your reliable sources say - original research is not accepted. I would also advise that working for weeks on a private copy that Wikipedia editors cannot see is not usually a useful way to proceed, especially if you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines

My advice would be, once you've read My first article (above) to create a draft using the article wizard and copy the text from your Word document into it - it's pretty easy formatting headings, paragraphs etc. References are more complicated: please see referencing for beginners. How to import articles may be helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll look at the references you noted and come back. There is no original work in the article. I had to track down and reference as many Wikipedia and other source articles as I could to compile this draft. I figure the best way to do this is take the [liquid smoke] page and wholesale replace what is there section by section maybe one section per week. The History is the longest section and took the most time to piece together to build the case for the lineage of the products for at least the last 2000 years. It's a perspective that hardly anyone would appreciate. I do the more I look into it in spite of spending the last 39 years in this arcane field.Gsmoke (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of using CXT

Whenever I try to translate a page using the Beta feature of "translate page", even if I select "Don't use machine translation" on the CXT tab, I always trigger filter 782 for "using" the content translation tool. Any way to avoid this from happening? I tried visiting the Wikipedia:CXT page but did not find any help. Yevgeny Kitaysko-Angliskiy-Entuziastov (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Yevgeny Kitaysko-Angliskiy-Entuziastov and welcome to the Teahouse. These flags are triggered by many events and do not necessarily indicate that the user has done something wrong or that there is a problem. If you use the Content Translation tool and follow instructions (including not using machine translation), you'll be fine. I believe the flag exists because we've had problems with people who do not follow the instructions, but we do not have automated means to discern good content translations from bad ones. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Does it actually mean that it is best to take some extra time and "create" a new page for the article to be translated and do the translation without using the Beta Translation Page as to avoid triggering these flags? Yevgeny Kitaysko-Angliskiy-Entuziastov (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit in doing it that way, Yevgeny Kitaysko-Angliskiy-Entuziastov. Like I explained above, you should not be afraid of triggering the Content Translation flag if you are not doing anything wrong. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I reported the accusation as false positives, and all were determined by human administrators as true positives, therefore, in order to maximally evade this situation, I might just spend some extra time and translate from one page to another manually. Thank you, Finnusertop, you have been helpful ;) Varxo (Yevgeny Nemestnyye-Russkiy-Entuziastov) (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Varxo (Yevgeny Nemestnyye-Russkiy-Entuziastov), just keep in mind that if you do translations manually, you need to account for the attribution of source that the Content Translation tool does for you. You should do this in the edit summary. Instructions can be found here: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of own work

I am currently working on the stub page sogetsu-ryu. I am a photographer and my wife is a Sogetsu Ikebana teacher. We have a lot of photographic material we can and want to share freely. What should be do about copyright licences ?

Ben Ben Ikebana (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ben Ikebana and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have photographs that you have taken and want to use in an article, you need to release them under a free license. Please upload them at Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard. The page will help you chose a license, but you can go with the recommended Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike. Under that license, you remain the copyright holder but irrevocably give anyone the right to use the photos for any purpose, including commercially, so long as reusers credit your name, etc. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't the page [Nancy Cadogan] showing up on google/Bing etc?

Hi there, Just wondering, has google changed the way they index page recently, or have I messed up? I created the page Nancy Cadogan for a successful artist friend of mine, and when you do a search on Google, Bing etc it does not come up at all, all the way back to p6 with no actual relevance to Cadogan at all. The page is fully backed with credible citations and interlinked with other wiki pages. Confession: when I created the page I accidentally listed it under (Article): RisenFall/Sandbox and had to get the page deleted, before correctly listing it under Nancy Cadogan (I know, idiotic). I wonder if this has thrown the SEO? RisenFallRisenFall (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been said that a change was being introduced such that new pages would be NOINDEXed until they had been through new page patrol, and the latter process has a backlog of 13580 pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

OK thank you. I can see Editor theroadislong has been through the page today and tidied it up - is that likely to be a New Page Patrol check? And is it possible for me to check I've correctly indexed the page or is that a moderator level job? Still so much to learn! RisenFallRisenFall (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@RisenFall: The page has not been reviewed yet. It's a specific action and not a side effect of editing the page. You may get a notification when it happens, depending on your "Page review" setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. The page still has this in the html source: <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>. noindex requests that external search engines don't index it. This setting automatically changes when it's reviewed, assuming it's approved. We don't control how long after that it is indexed by Google and others. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thank you for your help. RisenFallRisenFall (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

how should I create a wiki page about my friend for his birthday

I'm really confused since I just started here I came to learn to create and edit wiki pages and I wanted to make one for my friend about them what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VxBunny (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, VxBunny, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless your person is notable, which I doubt, you should not. Wikipedia is not a social network, among other things, but an encyclopedia about notable topics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you VxBunny (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VxBunny (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I prevent a Wiki page that I created from Speedy Deletion?

Hi. I just created a wiki page about the International Teacher of The Art Of Living Foundation Siddharth Kar. The page has been marked for speedy deletion, I've already contested deletion in the page talks, but I wanna know what more can I do to prevent its deletion and further its updation and improvement? Sachinkar (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have been given a number of useful wikilinks on your user talk page. Start with WP:Your first article, and quickly add references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate his notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I posted an article with regards to my soccer career. I was inspired to do so as I have viewed many soccer players that I played with over my soccer career that have their own articles about themselves . My article was rejected stating I had no reliable sources. Not sure how to supply a reliable source since my career ended 20 years ago. I see others on Wikipedia that I played soccer with, can I use them as a reliable source? Can they vouch for me?

Thank you, Gary DowneyGdowney55 (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Read the autobiography guideline and the conflict of interest guideline which discourage writing about yourself. Also read the reliable source policy, which will explain about reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines with editorial control and review. Individuals are not reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gdowney55: Welcome to the Teahouse. Start by familiarizing yourself with notability guideline for association football (soccer). No, you cannot have anyone else vouch for you. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what published reliable sources say about a topic. Those sources need not be readily available online, but they must be cited properly. Please read an excellent essay called Your first article and an instructional essay called Referencing for beginners. You should also read some cautions about autobiographies, and stick with the Articles for Creation process because of your Conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So how are other players profiles that I played with listed on Wikipedia? Did someone else post their profile?Gdowney55 (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gdowney55: There is no way to answer that question in the abstract, since we cannot see the articles you are alluding to. If you mention specific articles by their precise names, we can give you a quick evaluation of those articles and their histories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gdowney55. There are currently over 5,000,000 Wikipedia articles and many of these are quite good while many others are not. The fact that another article currently exists doesn't necessarily mean it should exist. Articles are being constantly added on a daily basis which means that it can take time for other editors to weed through the encyclopedia and find the ones that should be deleted for whatever reason. Moreover, articles are not profiles or social media pages. They are only intended to reflect what published reliable sources (preferably independent sources) say about a subject. If a particular subject has received significant coverage in a reliable sources, then it is likely going to deemed be Wikipedia notable enough for its own article. So, if you feel that you satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and you can provide reliable sources which show that you do, then feel free to request that another editor write the article at Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. If there's enough to write an article about you, someone will almost certainly do it.

As for the other players you mentioned, I cannot really comment on them without knowing specifically which articles you are referring to. It could be the case that these articles are properly supported by reliable sources which establish their Wikipedia notability. It could also just as easily be the case that some or all of these articles should be deleted. If you feel the article has problems that you can fix, then please WP:EDIT and be bold and try to fix them. If you feel that an article should be deleted instead, then please read WP:BEFORE and then nominate the article for deletion if it can't be fixed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. After some toing-and-froing with maintenance tags, the article has been deleted at the author's request. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It does raise an interesting question about verifying information pre-internet age, though. Soemthing for another topic, I suppose.Aphra (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that offline sources are perfectly fine (newspaper articles, books etc.) even if they are not available or even mentioned online, they just must be in some way accessible, e.g. available in libraries, not just unpublished private communication Beevil (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I create the page. But how I make it live? Help me please

I create the page. But how I make it live? Help me please BuVaSh (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi BuVaSh. Is Wikipedia:Pavel Fedotov (MMA/Muay Thai Trainer) the page you've created? You seem to have mistakenly moved the page to the "Wikipedia" namespace which is generally only used for policies, guidelines, essays or other community pages related to editing. Articles belong in the article namespace. I have taken a look at the page and think that it might be agood idea for you to request that the page be moved back to the draft namespace or your userspace so that you can continue to work on it because right now it does not look like it's quite ready for article status. Not only are there a number of formatting issues which need to resolved, but it is also not clear if Fedetov satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability based upon the sources you've provided. I will post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts and see if someone more familiar with these types of articles can provide you with some more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I am prepared to be bold and move it to Draft:Pavel Fedotov. Putting it in Wikipedia space was clearly a good-faith mistake. It doesn't need disambiguation because there isn't another Pavel Fedotov. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.

There is one Pavel Fedotov already, he is a artist. When I try google Pavel Fedotov, and nothing show up on wikipedia. What does it means? I am tottaly new on wikipedia , and I dont know how it works. BuVaSh (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. There is a Pavel Fedotov, so the martial artist will require disambiguation if he is accepted. I don't understand the question about Google. I do get the Wikipedia article if I Google on him. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@BuVaSh:: I'm not sure why, but you've moved the page back to the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Pavel Fedotov even though you were told above that this is something you really should not be doing. You also seem to have created Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA coach)) by copying and pasting content from your draft into the article namespace which is also not really how articles should be created. I think it might be a good idea for you to slow down a bit and ask for assistance with page moves,etc. because you are starting to create problems which are eventually going to require an administrator to clean up. Copy and paste moves are not really advisable because of the potential problems doing so can create with the page's edit history. There are now two "articles" that need fixing instead of one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Make that four problem "articles", as there is also Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA Coach) (without the double bracket), and Template:Pavel Fedotov. There is also a redirect left at Help:Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA Coach). --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So , better me to wait when it everything will be fixing? BuVaSh (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the draft back. While you wait for the rest of the mess to be sorted out, read the links you have been given above, and also read WP:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners, and other links from WP:Welcome. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA Coach) be deleted since it is the same as the Draft article.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That article is truly a mess. It should be moved back to the proper Draft space and cleaned up a lot. No the subject did not win lots of medals - they are apparently won by people he has trained and frankly those connections aren't supported by references. It really is hard to commit to notability but yes BuVaSh wait until everything is moved to the correct place and do not move it into article space yourself.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

When you admitted that you were totally new in Wikipedia and didn't know how it works, you should have realized that meant to leave things alone while more experienced editors sorted things out. As it is, you have made a real mess, and it will try our patience just to get things back to how they were. Consider this a warning to you that inappropriate efforts to fix things that actually break things may result in your being blocked from editing due to Competence is required. As I said, your original mistake, in creating the draft in Wikipedia space, was a good faith mistake, but continuing to create copies of the draft was not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for advices. BuVaSh (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the sandbox ?

I am new to Wikipedia and do not know much on creating and editing. I am used to exploring and I am just curious about the sandbox.Halofan53 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Halofan53 and welcome to the Teahouse. Sandboxes are pages that you can test editing in without the fear of breaking something in existing articles. I see that you have created one here: User:Halofan53/sandbox. Feel free to use it for trying out how to create links, format text, use references, add images, etc. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for this information. I am new to editing, and will look for sandboxes to help me learn. I did not know about these. EvelynHope22 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations lacking / poor

Sometimes articles get marked as not up to standards -- plagiarism, poor grammar, any number of things. While I've seen these mark-ups, I've not found how one does this. I have edited a number of articles, usually minor fixes like grammar and old citations, occasionally bigger fixes (I'm working on a couple right now).

The article I'm not sure I'll get to is about Chinese actor Jiang Wen. I'm not afraid of making the edits but the documentation is hard to trace -- I've put in a library request for the movie review by Richard Corliss but the review is 16 years old (Devils on His Doorstep, By RICHARD CORLISS, July 24, 2000 Time Asia) and getting it done is down on my priority list. I expect that once the new Star Wars film Rogue One debuts the article about Jiang will get more attention.

Anyway, this comes up from time to time, both when an article is challenged and what to do if you think it is fixed.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi GeeBee60. Those banners you see in article are placed by templates, which we use for loads of purposes throughout Wikipedia. These types are often of the variety we call maintenance templates. Use of templates is a big subject but here's some other notes:

1. When you see one and want to see how it was placed, you can edit the page to see the markup. One potential confusion I've seen fairly often is that editors are sometimes only familiar with the side edit links in articles—rather than the Edit link at the top of the page, which accesses the entire article. These templates are usually in the first section of the article, at the top, and usually there is no side edit link to access the first section.
2. Every template, though placed by the markup {{Some Name}} (and often with parameters you can place after pipes ("|") e.g., {{Some Name|parameter}}) is actually named Template:Name, so when you want to visit the template page itself, type into the search field "Template:" followed by whatever name you find after the opening curly braces.
3. Knowing how to visit the template page itself is important, because most have documentation describing the how to use the template.
4. The big, organized list of templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages (shortcut: WP:TM). Templates targeting poor citations – the name you provided for this thread – you will find through that page's subsection at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.
5. As opposed to added a template to an article, when you want to notify or warn a user on their talk page with a template, many of those templates will be found at WP:WARN. Unlike most templates placed in articles, user warning templates should often be substituted, by prefixing "subst:" before the template name, e.g. {{subst:Some Name}}.

Hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Thank you. I will make use of the help in your message in the future. GeeBee60 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarized content found

I just started editing an article for a class project and have found that the introduction, the only part of the article that has been written, was copy and pasted from the source. How should I proceed? Do I flag it or remove it? I want to write this article for my class project so I don't want it to be deleted. Franza615 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Franza615: Welcome to the teahouse, and thanks for asking. At a minimum, it should be flagged. If you are quite certain that it is a copyright violation, you can remove it. Be aware that sometimes, contents match because a "source" copied from Wikipedia. I could give more specific advice if you identified the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the Sustainable Materials Management article.

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

The words are directly copied from here: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-basics

Franza615 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Franza615, the copyright status of publications by agencies or employees of the US Federal Government is not necessarily as clear cut as most other sources, AFAIK such publications are often/usually free of copyright restrictions. But I'm by no means an expert on the topic so we should wait for a better informed opinion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably public domain and you could put the hyperlink in as a reference. See exemptions section in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._governmentGsmoke (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

reply to reason for submission decline of Draft: Diana Fosha

Hello, My article Diana Fosha was declined because the reviewer Robert McClenon stated that too many of the references were not from independent sources. I am presenting the 11 references and explaining here why each is in fact from an independent source. I understand how it could seem otherwise, so an explanation is in order:

Regarding References: 1. is from page xvii: List of theories. this reference supports the statement that Diana Fosha is founder of AEDP. 3. is a published transcript of an interview with diana Fosha, with an introduction by the author David Van Nuys that supports the statements about her professional background. David Van Nuys is not affiliated with AEDP in any capacity. 4. is from the aedp institute website, but the reference is there to document the statements about the institute itself. 5. Is a published transcript of an interview with Diana fosha by Polly Ely. It supplies information about Diana fossa's education and training.Polly Ely has attended aedp workshops etc... but is not a member of AEDP institute. 6.Grotstein is a very important independent reference- He is a major figure in the field of psychoanalysis which is not in anyway associated with AEDP. Grotstein's review provides information about the impact AEDP has had on the entire field of psychotherapy. This is published in APA newsletter . I will attach the to the reference. 7. same as 6 - David Malan is entirely different modality of therapy and is very highly regarded. 9. is a review of book by an author, bessel van der kolk also unaffiliated with AEDP. 10. is link to APA website which published the DVD's of sessions in the APA's master therapist series.

I hope this helps to resolve the issue. Thank you. Carrie Ruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Carrieruggieri. You need have this discussion in the first place with Robert McClenon, and you haven't even linked him (though in fact he often posts here, so will probably see this. I've linked him anyway). In any case, this is not the appropriate place to have this discussion, but on the talk page Draft Talk:Diana Fosha. I haven't looked through the paragraph above, but I will note that an interview with Diana Fosha, whoever performed and published it, is incapable of being a source independent of her. While non-indepedent sources are acceptable for some purposes, anything about a person's "professional background" should come from a source other than herself. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Carrieruggieri - You already posted a lengthy discussion of your references on my talk page. I advised you that this Teahouse was a reasonable place to ask general questions, but that the place for comments about your references to support acceptance of the article was either in AFC comments in the draft article or at the draft talk page, Draft talk:Diana Fosha. I think that is also what User:ColinFine has said. The only reason for a discussion with me is if you, Carrieruggieri, think that I made a mistake in declining the article and should accept it. Otherwise, I am willing to let another reviewer review the draft once it is ready for re-review and resubmitted, and in that case any justification involving the references should be in the draft itself (including in AFC comments or on its talk page). I think that ColinFine and I are in agreement that some of the references that I said were not independent were not independent, and that improving the references would be useful. Do you have any general questions either about the draft or about contributing to Wikipedia? If so, we can try to answer them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)‎

thank you Robert and Colin, I'm sorry for my confusion. I'll bring my questions to the talk page on the draft But how do I bring attention to a potential reviewer that I posted on the talk page. Until now I have responded to a post on my talk page. Also, The AFC comments on the page - that is a space I can respond to the comments? Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Carrieruggieri. As a suggestion, your could add an {{AFC comment}} template to the main page referring to discussions on the talk page. Something like this:

• Comment: Please refer to the talk page for a discussion on the provenance of the references included in this article.

Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone read my explanation of sources on the talk page for Draft: Diana Fosha? Thank you. Carrie

Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I linked to a wiki page that doesn't yet exist

I just edited the Glen Eyrie page, added some information, and linked to the Queen's Canyon wiki page. Then I realized that Queen's Canyon does not yet exist as a Wikipedia page. Should I leave the link, or remove it? I will likely start an article for Queen's Canyon sometime in the next couple weeks. Thanks for the help!EvelynHope22 (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It's OK to leave a redlink if you intent to write an article. Just one small point is that in Glen Eyrie you didn't link to Queen's Canyon but to Queen’s Canyon (with a curly apostrophe); you ought to correct that. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello EvelynHope22. Just to note that straight or typewriter apostrophes ' and double quotes " are preferred under MOS:CURLY. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. I will fix the error. EvelynHope22 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You changed it to yet another wrong character. You changed it from Queen’s Canyon to Queen′s Canyon (with a prime character), so I have now changed it to Queen's Canyon. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)