Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

page it seems not satisfying Wikipedia's guidelines

Hi, I have created a page for an IPS officer named Manoj Abraham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Abraham, but later I have received a message from Wiki stating "Hello, Trishna2017, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Manoj Abraham, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained" , I need someone could help me making this edits perfect

Trishna2017 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Trishna2017: in the case of Manoj Abraham, I don't think the problem is with the article itself, it's with the choice of subject. It seems that Mr. Abraham simply isn't notable, in the way that word is used here. Even a "perfect" article about him would be rejected. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Trishna2017. The short answer is that Wikipedia articles, especially articles on living people, must be 100% based on reliable published sources, and mostly based on sources unconnected with the subject. In an article on a living person, every single factual claim should be cited to a published source. If you can find such sources, you can start writing the article - forget everything you know about the subject, and write from what the sources say. If it happens that there is not enough independent published material about the subject, then it will be impossible to create an acceptable article, however it is written: the Wikipedia jargon for this case is that the subject is not then notable. Please read Your first article and biographies of living persons. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Trishna2017, Hello and welcome to Teahouse. I looked your article, it is a biography article but does not cite reliable sources that prove your content right, we say a topic is not notable if it has no reliable sources. Articles topics must be notable, please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Biography of a living person to get idea about notable objects and instructions to create an article about a person. You should cite at least three sources from different reliable sources to prove notability of your article. Please ask any other question! Sinner (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I have done some cleanup on the article. There were a lot of external references in the body which should have been references, and so I have turned those into references. I also Googled and found additional sources. It seems this person may be notable. The article needs further work, though. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am a new comer here, and I am trying to follow Wiki guidelines, but its all news to me, I have seen photographs of people in their Wiki profile. Any chance if Wiki editors could do the same!? If we search in web we will get photos of the person

Trishna2017 (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No Trishna2017, please don't do that, as almost every image you will find on the internet will be copyright, and so cannot be used in our articles. - Arjayay (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok Arjayay, I will not do, but in which way how we could select a photo, should we request photo directly from the person ? Trishna2017 (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Trishna2017, you could do that, but they would have to upload it themselves, or complete the copyright release, which is slightly complicated. However, I wouldn't worry about the picture, until you are sure the article will not be deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

in this section "In the area of cyber security, he is the man behind “c0c0n" - an international cyber security conference[5][not in citation given]" "not in citation given" its an annual police conference this time its going on in Cochin (18th and 19th of August 2017), the program details are given here http://is-ra.org/c0c0n/ , http://www.keralapolice.org/kerala-police/innovative-initiatives/cOcOn, previous talk in news channels https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OEj7JKTmw4 Trishna2017 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I added the "not in citation given" tag, because although the citation supports the fact that c0c0n is an international cyber security conference, Manoj Abraham is not mentioned anywhere in the citations given in the article or above. (The news story in the Youtube link is in Malayalam which I unfortunately can't understand, but from what I can tell it is about the conference, not about Abraham's role in it.) If the conference website actually names Abraham as "the man behind" the conference, it is not very easy to find (and if the information is not supported by an independent source, it shouldn't be in the article). The same thing applies to the text about him being responsible for the "Cyber Dome " project - his name is not anywhere in the source. In addition, I don't think a local police project is really encyclopedic information, unless it has been written about in independent sources (as opposed to th Kerala Police website, which is a primary source). Hope this makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Associated with Cyber Dome Kerala Police initiative his name is given in the Police website http://cyberdome.kerala.gov.in/contactus.html //The news story in the Youtube link is in Malayalam which I unfortunately can't understand// I shall try to submit supporting links here Trishna2017 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

From the cyberdome.kerala.gov.in website, Abraham is apparently one of the main officers on the project (not the chairman nor the person "behind" the project). Since there are no secondary sources discussing his role or, indeed, any secondary sources at all discussing the Cyber Dome, it does not look like something that would normally be included in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a CV and we don't want to cover every single thing a person has done in their career. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Trishna2017, I've done some changes in the sentence structures. I went through all of the references under 'Cyber Crime' and found none of those except 'Asia-Pacific ISLA Senior Information Security Professional Award 2013' support the claims. A lot has to be worked upon this to be worthy of an encyclopedic article. Though I found about the educational (university) claim here, neither does it give the details nor does it qualify to be a citation. Vignyana^talk 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

References

How can I add a non-free Scout logo to the List of William T. Hornaday Award Gold Medal recipients page

The pre-existing William T. Hornaday Awards page includes an approved image of all of the awards, combined into a bit of a collage, in a single file. I would love to include a derivative of that file... simply by cropping out the image that matches the content of the "List of... recipients" page and then posting the thumb on the page. The viewer is intended to see the image of the medal while reading through the list of recipients.

If the original content o the image is controlled, I understand that it cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia... which (unless I am more confused) means that I have no place to list the {{Non-free Scout logo|BPSA}} tag.

How do I upload the image straight to the Wikipedia article and properly include the tag that is necessary? Can I do that if the image is clearly a small sample from a previously approved image?B93 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, B93. Non-free images must be uploaded to Wikipedia, not to Commons. But their use must meet all the criteria in the WP:non-free content criteria, and I'm dubious that this use will meet all of these. I may be wrong, though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your response, ColinFine. ...But I am still confused. Does this mean, then, that the list cannot have a visual image to show as reference for the reader as they read the list? I guess I am suggesting that you really haven't answered the question, sufficiently. An earlier page - the main page for the history of the subject (which was written by someone else), already has an image attached to it. Again, I am questioning if a cropped version of the same, previously posted image (from another contributor) is appropriate. It would be a derivative work from a previously permitted image. If that is not acceptable, then is the original image authorized in the other article?

I am seeking the "how to" instruction for doing it right. I don't want to violate copyright law or open Wikipedia for lawsuit of unlawfully allowing a controlled image to be posted. The image in question is a low-res image of a medal that is awarded by the BSA. One could argue, as it is with any other numismatic, that once the medal is issued into the public sphere, a simple educational record of what it looks like is or can be strictly intended for educational use. ...which is certainly my intent for including it in the Wikipedia article. The image I would post is a low-res image that otherwise confirms to Wikipedia's requested guidelines.

Please advise further. --B93 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, B93. The criteria in WP:NFCC are, I believe, stronger than the law requires. The criterion I was referring to obliquely was "8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The logo of an organisation is often used in this way in articles about the organisation; I am less sure that this is met in an article about a whole load of awards. But that is a judgment call. The "how to" is given in WP:Uploading images. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Many thanks. I appreciate your candor on this. I will see if I can figure this out somehow. Thanks for doing what you do.B93 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Related question and follow-up... If the legally licensed, trademarked, and otherwise controlled logo is the sticking point, what is you opinion on excluding that (just the logo) in the image? (Luckily, we are not talking about a logo that considered divisive, but I want to be respectful.) The BSA logo is a tiny part of the design for this numismatic. My thought is that a generic fleur-de-lis could be tastefully superimposed over the BSA logo, and resolve that problem. Am I trying to force a square peg into a round hole?B93 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Review edits on changing the tone

Dear editors, especially @NewYorkActuary:, @ColinFine: and @GrammarFascist: (since you all made really helpful suggestions before) I have edited my draft on singer Brodha V keeping all your feedback in mind. I worked on the tone of the article, made it more neutral and added more references. I hope it has significantly improved and meets the Wikipedia standards now. I'd be really grateful if you could take a second look and let me know what you think. Warmly,

Nramesh (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Nramesh. I skimmed your revised draft, and did not see any overtly promotional language remaining; you have done well at learning how to write with encyclopedic tone. I noticed two issues remaining with the draft: First, it needs some minor copy-editing, which I would be happy to do for you tomorrow. Second, many of your reference citations are not formatted correctly; you may wish to use Visual Editor to correct those, as it provides labeled fields for you to add required information. You may also wish to consult Help:Referencing for beginners. Fortunately you should still have plenty of time to fix the citations, due to the AfC backlog. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Thank you so much! The article has been accepted at last and I'm really grateful to you for all your help. Nramesh (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Need a opinion

I just published a page translated from the French Wikipedia. The English version is Mohamed Abdennour (Ptit Moh). It used a way of linking to pages about records that I haven't encountered and that I kept. A message from a bot appeared, "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." I guess I can convert all to refs, but want to be sure that the way that I did it isn't ok.Jacqke (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The message wasn't from a bot, but from this edit by User:PRehse. It certainly looks as if your article does include external links outside the External links section. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok , I misread the history. I liked the way it looked but will get them turned into refs. Thank you'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqke (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jacqke: hello! I noticed that in your first edit on the page you correctly attributed the material you translated to the original article – and very diligently included the revision number! I have added this information into the template {{Translated|fr|Ptit Moh|version=139603212|insertversion=795513537}} on the talk page, which is a little easier for other editors to spot. (The numbers are the respective versions of the original and translated page.) Please keep-up the good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I appreciate it. This was my first translation done that way and I hadn't encountered that tag before. Thank you!Jacqke (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jacqke: I've done copy edit on a couple dozen translated articles, and attributing to the original was often overlooked (and may technically be plagiarism). You noted it in the edit summary which is the important part. Adding the translated template is then just a cleanup issue. Nobody is expected to know about all of these templates, but it's handy if you plan on doing more translating. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeking second pair of eyes

Hello

I'm hoping to have someone take a look at an article I've been writing. Draft:South_Australian_State_Emergency_Service

I'm not quite ready to publish it just yet, but I'd appreciate someone having a proof-read, checking grammar, spelling, clarity, etc.

Also, how is my citing? I've raided my library's archives & referenced some news paper clippings from as far back as the 80's. Do you think I need to add any more?

Thank you muchly KaiRAWR (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello KaiRAWR and welcome to the Teahouse.

First off, the notability guide as it applies to organizations is what will be used to decide if this article should be created at all. I think you may have achieved this.

One thing I'd be concerned about is how much overlap there is between the draft and the organization's website. Direct copying would be bad.

Was the logo uploaded and released under a very broad license by its creator? That's sometimes a newbie mistake, to claim something as ones own work to satisfy the upload mechanism (I realize the uploader used a different username).

Working against you is the previous deletion history of the article. It still looks pretty promotional to me, triggered by the appearance of the phone number in the lead. Aside from the promotional tone, there's also a tendency to use extra connectives for sentence transitions that leave the prose sounding unencyclopedic, however you want to define that. Here's one example:

As every community is different, the services provided may differ from unit to unit. For example, a rural unit is more likely to attend a car accident than a metropolitan based one. Conversely, a city-based unit is more likely to respond to a request for assistance relating to storm damage.

Many of your references used accessdates without there being a URL to access. The system complains about this and it would look better if you fixed these. Other than that, your grasp of inline references looks okay, though there are some swathes of material that, at least at first glance, looks unsourced. Still, I can imagine someone might see this draft as containing too much detail, that editorial judgment about what is noteworthy and what is trivial might need to be improved.

Overall, I'd say you were close to ready to submit the draft for more formal review if you can reduce the promotionalism. Are you connected with the organization? Please see the conflict of interest policy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How to stop offensive reverts to my edits

I have been trying to correct an offensive mistake in "Religion in Jamaica". No reason has been given for the reverts and I would like it to stop.

Rastas find the term "Rastafarianism" offensive. There are zero people who follow this made up term. There are plenty of slang terms for other religions which are not used because they are offensive. Why is it that there is no respect for the wishes of Rastas? Is it racism? Colonialism? Or just the usual schism that Rastas have no contribution to make to world knowledge?

Black minds matter. 67.213.144.66 (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Without knowing anything specific about this issue, I can say that you should not keep restoring your edit. Continually doing this is considered an edit war and is not permitted, regardless of if you are correct or not. You should also be aware of the three revert rule. If you are in a dispute about article content, you should first discuss the matter on the article talk page. If that does not resolve the issue, there are further dispute resolution procedures that are available to you. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I would also state that you should assume good faith unless you have evidence to the contrary- of which merely reverting an edit is not. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I should say you should use user personal account if you already have, or create one if you do not have one to contribute, no one can revert edit of a registered user without proper cause, if someone does, you can freely ask him why he reverted your contribution. Sinner (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: The IP user has made their edits under their IP; editors are not required to register a username if they don't wish to. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I think registering account gives more rights than IP, including editing partially protected pages. Sinner (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I feel you are a bit nervous, In wikipedia, there is no preference of one group over other,of one religion over other religion. Rastas are equal to Christians and Hindus in wikipedia in status, this is an encyclopedia, a completely neutral encyclopedia. There is no racism, colonialism or discrimination of any group. Wikipedia will not change "Rastafarianism" to "Rasta" because Rastas feel it is offensive. Muslims also face a similar problem, Pictures of Muhammad (Peace be upon him). They completely forbid showing his pictures and these are offensive for them but no one removed the pictures from Muhammad, because wikipedia neither sports nor discriminates any group or religion. You should discuss this matter peacefully with 99.53.112.186 as he reverts your contributions. Sinner (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The essential difference here is that showing a picture of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), while offensive to some, is not incorrect (assuming there is verifiable evidence). "Rastafarianism" is just incorrect. The person doing the reverts is giving no evidence or explanation whatsoever for their actions, and that is what makes it truly offensive. I feel the onus is on the reverter who, so far, has not participated in a conversation started in good faith. The person who corrected a mistake and provided a verifiable reason why, has done a service for Wikipedia and should not have to chase after anyone unable or unwilling to reciprocate. An explanation should take precedence over a non-explanation by default.67.213.144.66 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

we shall see how are they known internationally, what they call themselves, even verifiable, will not always change the word throughout wikipedia, if the religion is more popular as Rastafarianism, then this term will preferred. Sinner (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Why is it that there is no respect for the wishes of Rastas?" I suspect it's just ignorance. Don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Maproom (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It may be that the appropriate policy for this is WP:COMMONNAME. If most sources use Rastafarianism, it's quite likely that WP will use it as well. Changing what WP does is not simply to convince editors that Rastas don't like it. That recognition has to gain a strong hold in the greater world before it is likely to be reflected here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Autowikibrowser

Is it possible to use autowikibrowser offline? for instance could i make a bunch of pages from a template, then use them as the base to paste in when making pages on wikipedia? the autowikibrowser bit would fill in basic information, infobox, and some basic references from a csv i have made from public gsi data. I believe it is possible to use other non-wikipedia related tools for this if this is not possible. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation before you go any further with this idea. A mass page creation of the type you describe will get you blocked instantly, unless you go through the correct channels beforehand to discuss exactly what you want to create and exactly what method you plan to use. ‑ Iridescent 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes that is why it would be offline all the articles would be created by me manually at some later date(s). A Guy into Books (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose with technical knowledge you could host your own instance of MediaWiki on a server, and import Wikipedia's article database into it and do edits locally. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Company's name

Thank you very much for your response! I forgot to mention it is not my company. I work for it, and we would like to have information regarding our history, projects, and team. I also wanted to change my username, so it shows the company's name instead of mine, but it was also rejected. Paolaeb (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paolaeb. Such usernames are not allowed. To be clear, you can have a username that represents you as an individual but shows your affiliation with a company, such as Paolaeb at Prodigy Network but a username like "Prodigy Network" would violate both WP:CORPNAME and WP:ISU. Meanwhile, I have left you messages at your talk page regarding misuse of Wikipedia for advertising and the posting of copyright violations. More importantly, the last message I left at your talk page is a final warning. Do not edit further until you comply with mandatory editing disclosure, which I describe how to comply with there. It's really not difficult, but it is not optional.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that the thread above is also from you and that you've received some of the same information there. It's often best to keep conversations in the same place.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As 331dot mentioned, Paolaeb, if you work for the company you must comply with our paid editing policy, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It is not permitted to have a company name as a username, as that would imply that multiple people were sharing the account (which is also not permitted), but you could probably change your username to "[your name] at [company name]". —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please understand, Paolaeb, that you and your company have essentially no role in maintaining a Wikipedia article about your company. You are welcome to suggest improvements to the article (preferably with citations to independent published sources) but the decision as to what to do with those suggestions is entirely out of your hands. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Questions (Rhetorical)

I would like to ask some questions about the process for deleting articles. These are probably rhetorical questions, because I am almost certain that I know the answers. However, some editors may benefit from having the answers restated tediously. First, is having spent considerable time working on a page a reason not to delete it? Second, is the desire of one's employer to make the page available to the public who may be interested a reason not to delete it? Third, is it useful to explain to the editor who tagged the page for deletion, on their user talk page, why the page should not be deleted? Fourth, is a request please not to delete something useful in general?

Now, first, I think that the time spent on the article is just a sunk cost, and that notability and neutrality, not time spent, are considered. Second, I perversely think that the desire of one's employer does make a difference, but only in that it makes it more likely that the page will be deleted, but that is only my opinion. Third, I don't think that the reviewer's talk page is the right place to make the argument. (The article talk page, for CSD, or the deletion page, for AFD, are good places to make the case.)

Maybe one or two editors may be paying attention. Maybe this isn't just preaching to a choir. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A nice list of FAQs. We should put that somewhere so we can point to it as needed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all the opinions you express in your second paragraph. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I agree that a FAQ page is a good idea, and these questions are a good start; maybe it could be an essay?

• 1. Unfortunately, amount of time spent on an article is irrelevant if the topic isn't notable. Neutrality, however, should be fixable if there are sources to demonstrate notability.
• 2. I have also noticed that many editors are more inclined to delete articles (and decline drafts) if they are aware that someone who is, or is connected to, the article's subject wants the article to stay on Wikipedia; I think this is unfortunate, as we should focus on the content and base our judgments on that.
• 3. I agree that the reviewer's talk page is not the ideal place to make arguments regarding deletion (or AfC review), but after an article has been deleted, there's no longer an article talk page for such arguments to be made on. I am not aware of a better location, aside from deletion review.
• 4. Politeness is always preferable to the alternative, and certainly a politely-worded request ("Please don't delete article X") is preferable to a demand ("Don't delete article X"); attempts at collegiality are to be encouraged. That said, however, no amount of politeness can overcome strong reasons for deletion (or decline) such as lack of demonstrable notability or copyright infringment.

Thanks for engaging us in this semi-rhetorical discussion with you. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Red links

Hello! I am a relatively new user. Not long ago, I wrote Blagaj Castle (Croatia). Shortly after writing it, some semi-automated edits were made to it that made me rethink my knowledge of red link usage. I have re-added the red links that I intend to create articles for in the future, leaving the rest. I was wondering if a more experienced editor could review the article, including the previous version, and give me any suggestions on red link usage for the future? Note: I am aware of most other shortcomings. Inatan (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Inatan, and thank you for your contributions. As Wikipedia's red-link policy states, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." You say you are aware of other issues with the article you mentioned, but I'm not sure you understand that that article is in serious danger of being deleted due to its current reliance on a single source. Although policy does not say so explicitly, in practice articles are expected to cite a minimum of three reliable sources which are each independent of the subject.

Back to your question: Your use of red links in Blagaj Castle (Croatia) is consistent with policy so long as there exist multiple independent reliable sources from which to construct the missing articles. That's not to say a bot (or a human) might not delink them again between now and when you create the new articles. If that happens, you could post on the article's talk page regarding the links so as not to run afoul of Wikipedia policy on repeated reverts. As always, feel free to return to the Teahouse should you have any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Inatan. I would not generalize from the other user's removal of the red links. I don't know what the very new user RajkGuj was thinking when he or she did so, because the edit summary left was fairly opaque, but red links are important to invite creation for topics that you think are clearly notable ones that do not yet have articles. It is also not at all uncommon for people new to Wikipedia to view red links as some kind of error that needs to be fixed (well, they do need to be "fixed", but by being turned blue by creation, rather than by removal). I have not done any research to learn whether the bulk of red links you had included do in fact warrant articles, but place locations, such as Smrčković, are likely to warrant them. Many well known castles would also. One thing to keep in mind is that in order to create highly effective red links, the correct title of the inchoate article should be used, which will get more accurate the more you become familiar with Wikipedia:Article titles (I am not at all implying you did not do so here, just mentioning it). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, both for the clarification! Sometimes policy articles get confusing, and it helps to hear from editors who understand how they work in practice.

For the above-mentioned issue, I placed a banner over the "references" section warning the reader that the article relies primarily on this source not long after creating it. I added some information from two other sources an hour ago just in case (now that the article is receiving more editor traffic from being placed here), but I am afraid that without a trip to the library there will be no additional major sources to corroborate my work (O, the state of Balkan digitisation!). The article is written on a minor [yet notable] geographical location, and Radoslav Lopašić (a 19th century medievalist with a reputation for being non-partisan) relied almost entirely on primary sources. So I think it should be good for now.

Once again, thank you! Inatan (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit for noticing and for explaining the real essence of red links. I will remember not to make this error again. RajkGuj (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Notabilty

At what point is an article notable? It would seem that two sources are sometimes enough. yet other editors will argue for deletion with 8 or 9 good references. what is the consensus on this, and why is there no way of finding what the past consensus on something is, or am I missing some archive where they get filed? A Guy into Books (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aguyintobooks. (I like and am well described by your username.) There is no simple formula to assess notability, and the mere number of sources cited or in existence is a very gross measure that tells you little. The issues redound to, non-exclusively, the reliability of the sources, whether they are primary and independent or secondary (or tertiary), their depth of coverage, the manner of coverage, whether the coverage is direct or indirect, other sui generis matters that will depend on context, and sometime the type of topic (e.g., what is considered reliable may depend [example: sources for an article on an actor, versus sources for an article on a medical topic], and whether, even though there are secondary and independent sources cited, it is just a brief bursts of news coverage, etc.). In sum, the assessment of a topic's notability is always highly contextual and not a counting exercise. Some oft-seen matters:

• 40 primary, non-independent sources cited = no evidence of notability provided whatever, because—notability is about the world taking note of the topic by writing about it independent of the topic.
• 40 secondary, independent sources cited, but that merely mention the topic in passing = saying that this provides " "no" evidence of notability whatever" is not quite right, but it's not far off, and if this is coupled with no other sources appearing to exist that treat the topic in some substantive detail, it may actually be thought of as evidence of lack of notability.

  In short, when we see such "mere mention sourcing", it is taken as a badge of a non-notable topic, that needs to be overcome. (It also implies a profound misunderstanding of sourcing by the person placing them, as if sourcing is some name checking exercise for their probably original-research-filled, anecdotal write-up, rather than content composed based on what sources actually sustain, which is how it should have been written in the first place.) We need sources to exist that actually cover a topic in some depth, from which an article can be written with verifiable content.

• A common problem with both of the circumstances above is that, if there are good sources actually present among such large numbers of useless-for-demonstrating-notability sources, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess the topic's demonstration of notability. (See citation overkill in that regard.)

I think if you listed some of the specific pages you came across that prompted your post—where you saw the seeming contradiction in interpretation of notability in application—that concreteness would likely anchor a more nuanced discussion of this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

that is very well explained, i think the general confusion i had was trying to find a concrete rule in what is very much a discretionary matter. I am reasonably new to Wikipedia but have noticed in the Afd area lots of 'argument'. to quote some, there was this Afd which clearly was notable, although several people didn't initially think it was. and then this Afd where the subject has ~200 references on google, but nothing that could prove notability (I'm pretty sure it will be deleted or stubified). all this is combined with the guidelines that someone put some effort into making nicely ambiguous. I think i have some idea whats going on, i'm sure it will be more obvious over time. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: I can see why the first notability discussion you cite might have been confusing. One of the issues that cropped up early there was lack of compliance with WP:BEFORE. In a nutshell what people were saying by invoking that is to the effect of: "I don't think we should even consider whether this is notable or not, because the person who nominated it did not do basic due diligence to try to check for sources themselves, before nominating".

In this regard you may already understand this but it can be a point of confusion—especially since it is not true of CSD A7/A9/A11 (or of other speedy criteria) which are often conflated with notability but is true of notability—which is that notability does not turn on what is currently in an article, but regards the merits of the topic itself for having an article. So the existence of sources (and their depth, quality, etc.), out in the world, should be the sole focus, but you'll see this misunderstanding cropping up in many AfDs. (That is, when the notability deletion discussion is about sourcing and not some other notability ground provided at one of the subject-specific notability guidelines [all of which I would trash and think are a great detriment to the project and to sane administration and to honoring verifiability which is supposedly non-negotiable <even though I wrote WP:BK; which I would trash too>].)

Anyway, because of this, if you are going to nominate an article for deletion based on lack of the existence of sources for a given topic, you are expected to run some basic checks first, such as a Google Books search so that you are not going to waste the community's time with a nomination that might be one that cannot succeed, and one that does not start with the benefit for everyone of presenting the results of a sources check.

There are also quite a few opinions there from users whose !votes were completely un-moored from guideline and policy and so added a lot of noise to the discussion. And for another, some people gave their opinion before more sourcing was found, so what was at issue changed at a point, but with the prior opinions still present. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does one upload a non-free logo

Hello, I need to upload a non-free logo for our radio station to wikipedia. Where do I do this? KENW-Mike (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey KENW-Mike. You can request the image be uploaded at WP:FFU. It's pretty backlogged at the moment, but I plan on working through the list of pending requests over the next week or so. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy, is there a place for registered users with the required number of edits to upload the file using the "Non-free use rationale" template? KENW-Mike (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're on a computer in desktop view...Scroll to the top of any page, look in the 'Tools' section on the left, and you'll see 'Upload file' - X201 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks X201, got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENW-Mike (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, good on you KENW-Mike. You seem to have figured it out pretty well on your own (no small feat actually). I would just add that since the logo consists only of text and simple geometric shapes, it can be uploaded to Commons under Template:PD-logo. This can be easily done by using Commons Helper (just make sure to click the Authorization link). That way it can potentially be used by Wikipedias in every available language, and not just in English. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy, I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENW-Mike (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

we received some warnings and some of our edits were removed

Our WIKI page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Center_for_Population_and_Development_Studies

We started it in January and then made some edits to it recently. Several rounds of the edits were removed and we received a notification that there were multiple issues (that we might be too close to the subject). We are a research center and we did indeed create this page about our center, it's history, etc. I would like to be able to add back in the edits that were removed, but don't want to do this and have them removed again. Do you have any suggestions on how we could improve the page and how we should proceed? Hcpds (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hcpds: Hi there, I've had a chance to review the article. There are few main issues that are important to understand in this situation:

• There is an expectation that topics covered on English Wikipedia will have some coverage in independent sources. Currently, the sources in the article are from the Center's own publications or from Harvard University generally, neither of which fit the criteria for an independent source. Are there any other publications not associated with Harvard that discuss the work or history of the center? If not, the article may not be appropriate for inclusion on English Wikipedia.
• Editors generally shouldn't be writing articles that they are directly associated with, such as their workplace. This guideline is to help keep articles neutral; articles about an organization written by folks involved with those organizations generally carry some promotional overtones that aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. For folks who find themselves in this position, it's usually better to wait for someone else to write the article and make suggestions on the article's talk page for changes in content (with appropriate sources) and work with uninvolved editors to make desired changes. In this case, as the article has been written already, I'd recommend using the article talk page to make suggestions from now on.
• We actually don't permit usernames than imply shared use by an entire organization, but I'll get in touch with you on your talk page about changing it before moving forward on these other issues.

I'll also take a look into what independent sources might be available to summarize the organization. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How to create a prose?

I am new to Wikipedia and I saw the prose template on Snapdeal. I have created the prose for Section: Funding and Section: Acquisition. I request someone to review the edits so that I can move forward and contribute to the Category:Articles with sections that need to be turned into prose from April 2017. RajkGuj (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, RajkGuj, and welcome to the Teahouse. My apologies that your question wasn't addressed in order (it happens sometimes). I would be happy to review your proposed prose replacement of the tables in the Snapdeal article, but I didn't see anything in your contribution history that looked like a draft, and you haven't created a user sandbox yet. If you already have your prepared prose on Wikipedia, please link to it; if not, click on the red "user sandbox" link above and you can put the proposed prose there. Thanks! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

GrammarFascist Thank you for your response. It would be great if you can send me a link that already has a prose, so that I could look at the format. RajkGuj (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The way in which you refer to "a prose" suggests that you may have limited command of the English language. If you can understand it, there is relevant advice at WP:PROSE. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

GrammarFascist and David Biddulph, I have created a user sandbox for the Funding Section of Snapdeal and would like you to review the same. Thank you! RajkGuj (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, RajkGuj, and thank you for your contribution. I have made some minor edits to what you wrote (click here to see the "diff", or difference between your edit and my own) but overall you did a fine job of converting the table to prose. You can now replace the table in the Snapdeal article's Funding section with the prose in your sandbox. Please preview your changes before saving them to make sure you don't break the page — it can be tricky making changes to tables — and feel free to ask for help replacing the table with the prose if the previews won't come out right. Thanks, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you GrammarFascist. I have added the edited prose from my sandbox to Snapdeal's page. Thank you once again. RajkGuj (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I create a page?

I've tried before but it doesn't work (I didn't have my account at the time). I tried making the pages , Mini Psycho Clown , Mascara Divina , Dinastia , Niño Hamburguesa , Big Mami , Venum (second version) , Ludxor (second version) , Argos , Ludxor (first version) , Lady Shani , Stuka , Mascára Maligna , Mamba (wrestler) , Polvo del Estrellas , Yuriko , May Flowers (wrestler) and the CMLL 84'th Anniversary Show (also tried to recreate the page Australian Suicide) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantherfan243 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC) ,

Hi Pantherfan243. First you have to find sources on the subject, like newspapers or magazine articles, and rewrite what they say in your own words. This is easier to do in your sandbox or draftspace than mainspace. See Wikipedia:Your first article. You have a lot of subjects above, but it will be easier to work on them one at a time if you choose to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. You're correct in thinking that IP addresses can't directly create articles. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Attention to references

Hi. I took TRIM14 from the GOCE list of articles needing copy edit and improved the grammar of the article. There is a long list of references below. Would I want to improve the format of these scientific journal publications? Many thanks, Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Myrtlegroggins: The formatting for the references looks well enough to me. In general, a single citation format should be adopted for any given article, and it looks consistent to me. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks again, Myrtlegroggins (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How to avoid being blocked

How can I avoid being blocked? I don't understand the Blocking Policy.Monosodium23 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Monosodium23: Hello and welcome. What specifically do you not understand about it? Unless you are out to get blocked, I wouldn't worry about it. As long as you act in good faith and work with other editors, you should be fine. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!Monosodium23 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Monosodium23. Simple. Edit with common sense (which for many people will avoid even a hint of ever being even threatened with a block, without any need to ever read a single policy or guideline). Still, some familiarity would be a good step to know what to avoid doing, so I suggest taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial and then reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia.

If you do run afoul of some policy or guideline, and receive some type of warning, try hard to understand the issue and read the underlying policy or guideline so you can avoid the pitfall. We do not casually block people from editing, and we mostly only do so when they continue to engage in the same improper behavior after multiple warnings for it.

Low hanging fruit: Don't vandalize; don't edit war and read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; don't post copyright violations; don't harrass anyone; try not to be a dick. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How to report threats

How does Wikipedia deal with threats such as this? 32.218.44.128 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I've just alerted emergencywikimedia.org regarding this material. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone messed with the article I've created.

Hi, i'm Giangkifer. I edit for a thousand articles. I just create an article, Julia Meade (character), a character from the Mission: Impossible (film series). It is the wife of the main character, Ethan Hunt. When I finished creating the article, it was reviews instantly by user Ukpong1, I think the person is the one who knows film fluently, but, right away, someone name Oknazevad deleted my article and put it into redirected, he THINKS that it is not deserve to be an article. I asked him to give me the draft of the article so that I can re-create it in the future, but he didn't answer.

I think it is an notable article.

Hello Giangkiefer. Please sign you posts here and on other discussion pages by typing four tilde (~) characters at the end. Your text is still available. If you click on Julia Meade (character), you will be taken to the Mission: Impossible (film series) page, where you will see " (Redirected from Julia Meade (character))" just below the title. click on the link there, and you'll go to the Julia Meade redirection entry. From there you can see all your previous versions of the article, via the "View History" tab. I hope this helps. Rojomoke (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Giangkiefer. First, please remember that nobody owns any article on Wikipedia. (Almost) anybody in the world has the right to edit - not "mess with" - any article you've written. Please assume good faith.

On the specific edit, Oknazevad's edit summary was "This character has no independent notability whatsoever. And none of the sources are valid, as they're all wikia, a user-generated site. Plus the grammar and word choices are awful. Julia Meade doesn't need her own article." You are welcome to disagree, but you should address the specific issues that Okazevad raises - in particular, justify notability - and discuss it on a talk page before taking any further action. If Oknazevad is right that the character is not notable, then any time you spend working on an article about her will be wasted, so it in your interest to establish that first of all. --ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Giangkiefer, I note that the edit summary quoted above was inaccurate. At the moment that it was redirected by Oknazevad, Julia Meade (character) had three inline citations. One was to a Wikia page (which should not have been used), but two were to news stories that at least discussed the character. I am doubtful that those were enough to demonstrate notability as the matter stood, but there are probably other sources available. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding an artist or actor

After adding an actor to Wikipedia with imdb sourcing their credits, I was told it was deleted for lack of sourcing. Since it seems like IMDb seems to be the major source to verify an actor, and many pages I see are only sourced with IMDb, what other source I guess would one need and why is IMDb enough for some actors?Rmmaas (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rmmaas, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you've stumbled across one of the frustrating things about Wikipedia: the fact that other articles with the same or worse problems exist does not mean that the article under discussion is exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Lots of people create articles, and new articles that have serious issues (such as lack of reliable, independent sourcing) often pass unnoticed for some time. Other times a new article will be noticed, and flagged for deletion, very soon after creation.

In any case, IMDB is not a reliable source. But... if you can find a few reliable sources that are independent of the actor and that cover him in some detail, you can use those sources to recreate an article about him. If you can't find such sources, then that actor isn't yet ready to have a Wikipedia article about him. Feel free to return here with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I would add that IMDB is not a reliable source largely because it is user-editable; it's the same reason Wikipedia is not a reference for other Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In a website citation, if the web page title is in ALL CAPS, should we keep it that way?

I added a reference for Sheldon coin grading scale § Adjectival Grades for Uncirculated Coins. The web page I cited has a title in ALL CAPS. Should I reproduce the title as written (in the citation) or reformat it to Sentence Case? I think Sentence Case looks better, but one could argue we should not edit another website's titles. Here is the citation:

"BU (BRILLIANT UNCIRCULATED) / MINT STATE". GoldBroker.com. FDR Capital LLC. Retrieved August 18, 2017.

Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen. MOS:ALLCAPS says to avoid all caps in titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, Markworthen we normalize titles in citations to standard title case, no matter what variations the original source may have used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you both for your fast and very helpful responses. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I posted a suggestion to the {{cite web}} template documentation Talk page to help future editors.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing my username

I realize this is more of a technical question than an editorial one, but I can't seem to find another place to ask this. In light of recent events, I feel the username I originally chose (basically in frustration at the carelessness of so many writers) is insensitive. I would very much like to change it and would appreciate any help.

Additionally, I'd also be grateful to learn how to reply to answers to my questions here at the Teahouse. Thanks. WriteinEnglish 08:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)WriteInEnglish

@WriteinEnglish: Hello and welcome. To change your username, you can visit this page which explains what your options are. To make further replies, simply click the word "Edit" located next to the title of this section(assuming you are using a computer to edit; not sure how on a phone). 331dot (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• To clarify, the page is WP:CHU. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

.....which is precisely what I linked to. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Inexperienced users don't always realize that blue text is a link. They may read "visit this page" as visit this Teahouse page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Fair enough, and thanks for the advice, but I have also read elsewhere that new users might not know what "WP:CHU" means, so it's tough to know which to use. :) 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I would just say "visit Wikipedia:Changing username". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

More population info?

I Would Like it on Every Country Page. There Would Be Population History Of That Country Or City.CONO ONOC (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CONO ONOC. Welcome to the Teahouse. Many articles about countries and major cities do have information about about population size at different times. Making this uniform would be nearly impossible, since comparable data isn't available in most cases, but I'm sure there are articles lacking information that could be filled in. If you're adding or changing population figures, please be sure to cite a reliable source and use an edit summary to explain your reasoning. Happy editing! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

100.35.57.135

Why is this IP Adress no longer available ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B000:B7E6:ED0C:A0B6:A9F8:9335 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It is available now. She was blocked for three months because she vandalized after her final warning not to. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

He not she

How would you know that? 99.53.112.186 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Everyone who edits Wikipedia, whether or not they have an account, leaves a history of their edits. The IP you're inquiring about has been blocked five times this year. Why do you ask? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is a question about an IP address, I would assume good faith and assume that the questioner is not the person who misbehaved. The best approach for a good-faith editor who is one of the users of an IP address that has bad-faith editors is to create an account, which may be pseudonymous, and has other advantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Jazz Legends

We are having a Jimmie Lunceford festival in October from October 23, 2017 - October 29, 2017. One of the goals is to start putting the jazz legends (of 50 or more) in Wikipedia. The elders are 55 and older. They have made a contributions to Jazz music and the African American culture. The project will be a intergeneration project where youth groups and individual groups will research the information with the elders and we will verify and then update as an article on Wikipedia.

I want each individual we submit to have their own page. Will creating an article create a page? Do we need to get permission to create a project as this? We would like to have at least 20 or more completed by 10/1/2017.

Thanks in advance. C. Herd 16:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ctherd12. That sounds like a worthwhile project, provided that the individuals you want to create articles about meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. You should read Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon as it sounds like that's the sort of event you want to host. I strongly encourage you to have all participants, especially the "elders", familiarize themselves with editing Wikipedia before the event, and to have participants use the Wikipedia:Article wizard during the event unless they are long-standing editors with experience in creating successful articles. This will reduce the likelihood of articles created being summarily deleted. The biggest hurdle for your event will probably be finding a minimum of three reliable sources, each independent of the musician being written about, which each cover the musician in some detail (more than a couple of sentences); such sources are required to establish notability in Wikipedia's use of that term. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have.

Also, please sign all your talk page and Teahouse posts with four tildes (~~~~). —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Uploading a new photo/licensing

I work as a personal assistant/marketing coordinator for an author. The author would like her Wiki page updated with a new headshot photo. She has the copyright to the image, which is also displayed on her website.

I am an extreme beginner. How do I go about updating her photo?

Sjstonesmith (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sjstonesmith: First, Wikipedia is not Wiki. But that aside, you will need to determine the copyright holder of the image. That is normally the photographer, not the subject, unless the photographer explicitly granted all rights to the subject. ("Right to use" does not indicate that one is the copyright holder.) Whoever the copyright holder is, they will then need to release the photograph under a free license, such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. That means that anyone will be free to use and modify the image without permission or restriction, including for commercial purposes, so long as they credit the copyright holder and do not change the license. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sjstonesmith (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sjstonesmith, and welcome to the teahouse and to Wikipedia. The author would need to release the photo under a compatible free license such as CC-BY_SA-4.0. She can do this by posting a notice with the imag on her web site, or by following the steps at donanting Copyrighted matieral. But she should understand, this means that not just Wikipedia, but anyone in the world is free to use the photo without payment to her, and to make copies of it, and to distribute it, and to create altered versions of it, and to sell it. And those rights, once granted, cannot be withdrawn.

Once the image is released, it can be uploaded to Wikimedia commons here. Once it has been uploaded, it can be used in the article: see the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Note, i am taking you at your word that the author has the copyright to the image. By default the photographer owns the copyright, but it is not uncommon that a professionally taken photo intended for publicity purposes would have the copyright signed over to the subject at the time of creation -- I have such a photo myself, it is displayed on my user page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sjstonesmith, Seraphimblade and DESiegel have given you good advice. However the bureaucratic process of carrying it out can be quite tedious. A simpler method would be to take a new picture yourself, using your own camera or smartphone, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons as "own work". Maproom (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sjstonesmith, what Maproom suggests would work, and would be simpler and quicker, if the photo you take would be acceptable. (Although changing the web site to post a release notice need not take much time or trouble, depending on how the site is managed). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeking advice editing a draft article

I wrote a draft article Draft:Software_Toolworks which two editors said should be part of the Mindscape page. But neither commented on the content. I would appreciate some advice editing the article before going further, as I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor. Any suggestions? Bilofsky (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this is because Toolworks acquired Mindscape, therefore the two are being viewed as the same company by those editors. it would appear that 4 years later the toolworks name was dumped in favour of mindscape. therefore you could add an 'history of toolworks' to the mindscape article perhaps rewriting some of the rest of it to integrate sources and some facts. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have done this myself, you can change the Mindscape page to suit. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Bilofsky, Aguyintobooks It seems to me that the history of Software_Toolworks would be better placed in its own article, but it surely could be included in the Mindscape article. It also seems to me that there is already sufficient content in the draft to support a separate article, although not to require one. However, since A Guy into Books copied text directly from the draft into Mindscape, I have placed {{copied}} on the talk pages of both the article and the draft. (This should normally be done anytime such copying is done.) Note that this means that the draft must not now be deleted for any reason unless every trace of the copied text is removed from the article, and if it is moved to mainspace a redirect should be retained, or the template updated. This is the sort of thing that should be discussed on one or the other talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes thanks for that, i was not aware of how to properly credit the copied text, although i made the source clear in my edit summary. I decided against a separate article since two editors have rejected it at AfC, and copied over myself since Bilofsky has declared a WP:COI and that might make it controversial. A Guy into Books (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, Aguyintobooks Thanks for this. I agree that Software_Toolworks should be its own article. Mindscape and Toolworks were unrelated from their founding (1983 and 1980 respectively) until Toolworks acquired Mindscape in 1990. After 1994, when Toolworks took the Mindscape name, not much of significance happened except for several sales of the company and its breakup. But I will take that discussion to the talk pages, as you suggest. Again, thank you. Bilofsky (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, Aguyintobooks Can I make documented factual corrections in the Mindscape article, given my COI? If not, how do I propose them? My draft documents with a reference that the name change to Mindscape was in 1994, but the article says 1993. Bilofsky (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Bilofsky you may edit to correct clear factual errors if you cite a reliable source, and the change is not controversial. Otherwise please propose the change on the article talk page, and draw attention to it with {{request edit}}. Anothe editor should review it and make the edit on your behalf if it seems appropriate and well-sourced. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database

I know that Internet Movie Database is not a reliable source. Is Internet Broadway Database also not a reliable source for Wikipedia? I sometimes see IBDB.com cited in articles, and I wonder whether I should try to find reliable sources to replace the IBDB citations. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Teblick: You might want to consider posting this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thanks for the suggestion. When I went there, I found that the question had already been asked and answered in 2013. Two respondents said that IBDB is reliable, and no one disagreed. (If anyone would like to read the question and answers, they are available here.) Eddie Blick (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

European migrant crisis article POV

It seems I have come off to a bad start, as my first attempt at editing an article was rejected, and I've also seem to have been blocked from commenting on the talk page. I'm not sure how much of the problem is me going about things the wrong way, and how much is a genuine disagreement.

The article in question is European migrant crisis. Roughly, there are two general points of view on this matter: that the majority of the people coming to Europe are fleeing war and should be granted asylum if possible, or that they are mainly economic migrants or terrorists and should be deported. Ideally, the article should be acceptable to both sides.

Presently, however, the opening paragraph reads to me more like an opinion piece than an encyclopaedia, and seems to heavily lean towards the latter point of view. Compare this to other articles on refugee crises, such as Great Lakes refugee crisis, where there is no mention of whether the migrants in question are asylum seekers, economic migrants or disguised militants.

My attempt at editing was simply to remove the last paragraph, which was reverted with the motivation "Please avoid censoring any valid information that you ideologically disagree with." I then tried to argue for my case on the talk page and deleted just the part about "hostile agents", which I though was the most irrelevant one. Again, this was reverted ("restoring vandalism by created account (sockpuppet?) - do not delete sourced information").

This rather surprised me, as I would have though that the non-encyclopedic character of the wording would be obvious to most people. And my attempt to discuss this on the talk page was rejected as "unproductive". I suppose that what I am asking, apart from whether anyone agrees with me that the current wording is inappropriate, is whether I went about this the wrong way somehow. PSjolund (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For reference: European migrant crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

PSjolund, how have you been blocked from commenting on the talk page as you said? There are no blockes logged against your user name. I don't see that you have made any edits to Talk:European migrant crisis. That is the place where you should be attempting to discuss the issues, rather than here at the Teahouse.

I see that in this edit you removed content that is well sourced to reliable sources such as the UN HCR and the Washington Post (neither exactly known for blatant hostility to refugees) with the summery Deleted som POV descriptions and terms. I see that in this edit you removed statements, sourced to both Reuters and the Washington Post, that some "hostile agents" were moving mixed among the migrants. Are you truly asserting that no such agents were present? If so, what is your source? I see that you changed the term "migrants" to "refugees" in multiple places. The latter term has a quite specific meaning in this context, it excludes economic migrants, while "migrants" includes both economic migrants and refugees. Are you asserting that all the migrants were refugees without exception? No source I have seen supports that, although there is debate about what percentage were refugees.

I urge you to discuss the matter on Talk:European migrant crisis, and present sources to back up your contentions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I do see this edit from an IP address. Was that you, PSjolund, editing while not logged in? If so, that edit has not been reverted or blocked. It does seem to fail to assume good faith implying that one of more Wikipedia editors intentionally created the text with a biased point-of-view. It also seems to incorrectly assume that there was a single primary author of this article. Look at the history more closely and you will see that this is not so. None of which proves that the section is not given undue weight by its placement in the lead section, but that argument was not made as clearly as one might wish. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

All right, perhaps I misunderstood. I tried to edit the talk page, and got a message to the effect that my edit was rejected on grounds of not being constructive (or something to that effect). I guess I should make another attempt to continue this discussion there.

Just for the record, my original edit (that I made before I had created my account, so it is anonymous) used the term "unauthorised foreign migrants", which seemed pretty loaded to me. Also, what I dispute is not the fact of disguised ISIS agents, but its undue weight , as you say. I will make another attempt to take this discussion to the talk page. PSjolund (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do see, on further examination, that you have three times tripped an automated edit filter, PSjolund. Twice because you were removing references, and once because some of the content in your post matched phrases typically used by abusive editors in the past. I see you have reported the latter as a false positive, which is the proper response. None of these filters is set to block you by name, and by reworking your intended comments (and avoiding the deletion of references) you can probably make your points without tripping filters. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PSjolund, I think that will be the past way. I believe the message you saw was from the automated edit filter. There are a number of such filters, and edits are checked against them. Some of them mark edits that match as possibly a problem, and some of them block edits that rip the filter altogether. They are not unlike the spam filters that many email providers use. The details are not publicly disclosed, as that would allow the malicious editors they are aimed at to avoid them. When false positives occur, the filters are often modified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some help?

I'm working on writing and improving an article in my sandbox. Before I submit it for review, I would like some advice/help on how to improve it or what to do. Here's my sandbox. I can do the work if someone just tells me what to do. Thank you! Ramesty (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article. The first thing is to determine whether the subject is notable, meaning that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. If not notable, there cannot be an article on the subject. If the subject is notable, you need to use those reliable sources as references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. You would need to remove the misplaced external links from the body of the text. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Would I need to reference those external links? (create a section for references, I mean) Ramesty (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Ramesty you would need to add a section named "Notes" or "References" (personally i prefer the former). If you are using the referencing system of footnotes with with <ref>...</ref> tags, you need add nothing beyond {{reflist}} to that section -- content will be automatically copied from the ref tags. (Other systems of referencing have different requirements.) The existing external links on User:Ramesty/sandbox can be considered for use as references, but on a quick look, not all of them are to reliable sources that support content in the text. In any case additional references and content supported by them would be required for this to be considered notable and so qualify for a stand-alone article. A reviewer has suggested merging this content into an existing article, and you might decide to act on this suggestion. But that is up to you. Remember that any such addition to an existing article would also need to be supported by reliable sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please help me improve my draft

Hello! Friends, I'm developing a user space draft at Wheel Construction. I'm trying to cite proper sources. I'm poor in writing in encyclopediac manner, please help me improve this draft to get content tone, and to encounter spelling, grammar, text and neutrality problems. Please help me improve it, I shall be thankful for companionship of friends, Sinner (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Sinner. I have edited your draft for tone, style, and grammar. Note that you were using both US and Commonwealth English (e.g. US mold, aluminum vs. UK mould, aluminium); I flipped a coin and it came up US, so you should try to use American spellings. Also note that Wikipedia uses sentence case, not title case, in section headings.

I also replaced one of your sources, which was a blog post, with the actual article that blog post cited and which seems to itself be a reliable source.

What I did not do was simply delete your "Quality of wheels" section. You cannot rely on a single source for such a section, and especially not for a "top 10" list; if you can find another independent source (or sources) naming some top wheel manufacturers, you can list whichever companies are named as top-quality manufacturers by both (or all) of the sources, but that list should be in alphabetical order, not based on one source's rankings. If you can't find another source for this section, then you should delete it.

I'm not entirely convinced the whole article shouldn't be merged into Wheel, but I do recognize that there is unique content in your draft. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding to GrammarFascist's comments, the "Quality of wheels" section seems to be about car wheels only, but this is not explained. Also, I am not sure that this source should be considered reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I previously pointed out that we already have the article wheelbuilding, Nazim Hussain Pak, but looking into that term more closely, it doesn't apply to modern car wheels (because they are not wire wheels). Some thought probably needs to go into whether there is scope for one or two articles here, and if two, then what each one should cover. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

My page is not approved

Hi, I work with Vijay Varma and we have an introduction on his imdb account. We are using the same text for his wikipedia account Winsomemedia (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winsomemedia: Hello and welcome. From your use of "we", saying you work with Vijay, and your username "Winsomemedia", I assume that you represent a PR firm or other promotional business. You will need to change your username as the Username policy does not allow usernames to be that of a business, they must be that of an individual and cannot be shared. A username in the format of "YourName of Winsomemedia" would be acceptable(you don't have to use your real name). Please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for instructions on changing your name as soon as possible.

You will also need to review the conflict of interest policy before you edit further. As you seem to represent Mr. Varma, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to review and comply with the paid editing policy and declare any paid relationships you have(such as with a client). This means you can be blocked from editing if you do not make such a declaration.

Regarding the page you created, it will almost certainly not be accepted for several reasons, the most important being that it is copied from elsewhere. Due to licensing requirements, we cannot accept text copied from other websites. The text also will not be accepted because it is promotional in nature ("started his acting journey"). It also has no independent reliable sources to indicate how this person is notable.

Please understand that Wikipedia is different from other websites like social media; it is more selective about its content. We are also not interested in what an article subject says about itself, but in what third parties state about it(such as news reports or independent reviews). 331dot (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have posted information about changing your username on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Subject

Hi. I've started writing about Katsuya Kisaka, one of the original karate instructors who introduced Japanese karate to the USA in 1960's, and one of the only living instructors of the time. He was classmates of many notable karate instructors who wrote many books and became famous for their own publications. Kisaka was one of the first graduates of an elite instructor program (1961) back when karate was unified under the JKA. He was world All-Japan Kumite Champion in 1965. He was then assigned to teach in the USA, when he moved and set up shop in NJ. He remains in NJ, teaching daily for the past 52 years.

Perhaps the problem with notability is that while he had been referenced in some books, as part of the karate movement of the mid twentieth century, he shied away from popularity and was content to have his karate schools without seeking fame. He's had thousands of students and black belts over a half century. But his lack of interest in fame and only desire to fulfill his assignment of life-long karate and Japanese philosophy instruction has left him behind where many of his contemporaries are noted in Wikipedia (Enoeda, Kanazawa, Nakayama, Okazaki, Mori, Ueki, etc.)

Thanks For the Input!

OshiShinobu (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, OshiShinobu, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, on the English Wikipedia all article subjects are required to meet the notability standard (click here for details); the short version is that any person you want to write an article about must have received substantial coverage (more than a couple of sentences) in reliably-published sources (click here to see how we define reliability for Wikipedia purposes) that are each independent of the subject of the article (thus interviews with or writings by the subject do not count). This means that Mr. Kisaka's humility may have created a situation where a Wikipedia article about him is not possible. (But if he's as averse to fame as you say, that probably won't bother him.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

how to ref notes again n same article

A page has notes 1,2&3 contained in a section headed Notes beneath the References section. What code do I use to reference say note 2 in more places on the page? Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jacksoncowes. Assuming this is about Charlie Gard case, you need to provide a name for any notes you want to reuse. So for example, if you want to reuse the first note, you would replace (changes in red):

"{{refn|group=note|Sec 3(1)..." with

"{{refn|group=note|name="no delay note"|Sec 3(1)..."

and then, the next time you wanted to use that note, you would place at the location in the text you wanted to cite it again:

{{refn|group=note|name="no delay note"}}

I should mention also, the name you choose for the note only needs quote marks if it has spaces, but if there are such spaces, the quote marks are not optional. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Template?!

Hello! If I make an addition to a template (for eg. Template:UFOs), will this change show up in the existing articles where the template has already been used or only the subsequent ones? Thanks. -Casktopic_say 16:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Casktopic, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any such changes will show up on all pages where the template is transcluded. However such changes will not show up on pages where a template has been substituted using the "subst" keyword. Some templates are routinely transcluded, and some are routinely substituted. A navigational template such as {{UFOs}} is normally transcluded, so changes will show up on articles which use this (although there is usually a delay for the behind-the-scenes process to operate). For that reason, changes to templates should be made carefully, and often tested in sandbox versions of the template. Moreover, it is often a very good idea to seek consensus for changes to a template, particularly a widely used template, in advance. In this case, i advise you to post on Template talk:UFOs describing the changes you plan to make. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks -Casktopic_say 06:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

rplying on talk page

hello, how to rply back on talk page, or if sumone send u a welcome msg on talk page how can we rply to them, pls if on article there is a dispute tag how can u send ur suggestions to the editor for example Naagin page has a dispute on cast Arjun bijlaniFizaahmed (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Fizaahmed, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can simply respond on the talk page where the comment you want to reply to was made, by editing that page and placing your comment after the one you want to respond to, usually with a greater indent level, as I am responding to you now. (Use one colon at the start of a paragraph for each indent level.) You can draw the attention of a particular editor by pinging that editor. This is done by including a link to that editor's muser page, or using {{U}} or {{ping}} or {[tl|reply to}} or qany of several mother templates which have the same function. Note that a ping does not work unless it is part of a signed comment. Adding a ping afterwards or fixing a mis-formed oen afterwards will not cause a notification to the user. I am pinging you in this comment. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting together an season/episode table?

I'd like to make a table of all of the seasons and episodes of Bob Ross' "The Joy of Painting". Since the episodes all have known broadcast dates, episode titles, etc., it would be helpful to put this all in one place. Also, since all of the episodes are available on YouTube, it would be helpful to have links letting people know that this content is free to access. I thought it even might be cute to color-code each season with the colors that Ross used (titanium white, sap green, prussian blue, etc.) Does anyone know how to make a table for seasons and episodes?

If anyone can help me get this started, I'd really appreciate it. Deliveryreviled (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)\

Hello, Deliveryreviled and welcome to the Teahouse. You raise an interesting sugestion, that has several issues to be setteled.

• The first question is, does anyone (besides you) want such a table in Wikipedia? It might be well to ask at Talk:The Joy of Painting.
• The second question is, where would such a table (or tables) go. It might overwhelm the existing article The Joy of Painting. But would it be notable enough for a spin-out article? perhaps, we do have many such season and episode lists. List of Episodes of "The Joy of Painting" perhaps?
• The third question is, are those YouTube videos posted by the copyright holder, or with permission from the holder? If not, they are copyright infringements and it is against policy to link to them.
• Use of color such as you suggest is a somewhat controversial issue. Please read WP:Color. A table should be so designed that the use of color does not overly decrease contrast, and that no information is conveyed solely by color.

Only after all that has been settled is the format/layout of the table really important. However, i will do a short mockup for you. Please read Help:Table for further advice on table syntax. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Deliveryreviled, I have created Draft:List of Episodes of "The Joy of Painting" as an example. Feel free to use it and modify it. It has no real content, merely placeholders, for one thing. If you have questions about the table syntax please do ask, but please do not neglect the other issues that I mentioned above. They really should come first, before any significant work is done on the table. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed edit on Talk page; No response; Made edit; Now what?

Do I need to do anything to the Talk page? For article Santorini (game) Jsejcksn (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jsejcksn, and welcome to the Teahosue. There is nothign else that you need to do. It would have been better if, when you made m your edit to the article, you had provided an edit summary explaining what you were doing, and included "see talk page" or something of the sort to point people to your previous comment. But that is in no way required. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Great; thanks DESiegel! Jsejcksn (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

URL in patent citation gets ignored

Hi, In my first and only page "Draft:Gary Babcock Gordon", submitted for review, I cite several patents, all of them with URLs to their USPTO pages. One of the patents, US6433780, ignores the URL and gives me the patent's page on the European patent office site instead. I even made a copy of the citation with a URL of "xx" and that one does the same bad redirect. This patent is widely cited - USPTO finds over 120 hits - so my guess is that Wikipedia caches it somewhere. But it caches the wrong page, a US patent should come from the USPTO. What am I to do? Is there a way to force loading the explicitly supplied URL? Thanks G steinbach (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia page not showing on Google search results

Hi, I created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTimes a while ago. On Google US, when I search StarTimes, the page does not appear at all in search results. Later, I created the French version of StarTimes page, which is ranked on 1st page of Google French search results. I wanted to know if there was a problem with the English page or if I needed to improve it to make it more visible on Google. Thank you Daweibj (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daweibj,Welcome to Wikipedia.I noticed that you have created an article about StarTimes.This article that you have created may take time to be available in the Google search engine.The articles which are created newly may not visible on Search engines at the beginning.After a few days you may able to see it on the Google search.Thank you.Abishe (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A decision was made last year that on the English Wikipedia new articles would be NOINDEXed until they have been patrolled through the new page patrol process. You will see at Special:NewPagesFeed that there are over 16 thousand pages awaiting patrol, and a backlog of more than 6 months. If you are lucky your page may be patrolled earlier, but if not the NOINDEXing will be removed after 90 days. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

can you explain how to edit

Can you help know how to write article and know what van be put in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary johns1on (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. In general it is not advisable to start trying to write a new article until you are more familiar with Wikipedia's rules & guidelines. There are some useful links on your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Disregard of requests due to COI

Hello,

I have declared a COI with London South Bank University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_South_Bank_University but have been making edit requests on the talk page, according to the COI rules. I am aware that wikipedia is not for promotional purposes and am making small requests to correct and update rankings. I use neutral language and keep it to the facts, always using third party sources. However it appears an editor believes all of my requests are "cherry-picking" even though the information is relevant. I have had some success asking other editors directly to intervene, but without making the edits myself and being reverted in an edit war, is there anything else I can do? In fact, the editor's language in the talk discussions is not very helpful, and is quite aggressive.

Any advice greatly appreciated. LSBUStephMasters (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)