Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Copyright notice and references and knowledge problems

Hi guys. I am writing an article in my sandbox for later use I keep receiving a copyright notice when copyright is only about 3%. Can any one help me get rid of it? Also the article has quite a long history but has little online available references and restrictions on written ones due there value. But this history is listed on other wikipedia pages can I use this as a reference. Also should I list multiple references to one event to increase the notability of the article or stick to one prominent one. Please check out my sandbox to give me pointers. Also do I have to have a high level of knowledge in a field to edit it on wikipedia? Thank you RDs123 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RDs123. I will try to answer all your questions.

1. Copyright material is not allowed anywhere in Wikipedia, even in a sandbox. Please don't copy anything from elsewhere into your sandbox - you can put a link to the external material temporarily, but if you're going to put text in you need to rewrite it in your own words.
2. Sources do not need to be online, but need to be published from reliable publishers: in principle a reader needs to be able to go and check every source, but if they could get it through a major public library, for example, that would be acceptable.
3. Wikipedia may not be used as a reference, because it is inherently unreliable (anybody may edit it). However, good Wikipedia articles should have references, and you can of course use those references. (If you go to an existing article for references, and find them lacking, it would be great if you would add some!)
4. There's no universal answer to whether to include multiple references for the same information; but I would say that quality beats quantity. If you have found one or two good references for a piece of information, there's no need to add any more; conversely, if you've a dozen references but they're all weak (eg dubious sources, or just mentioned in passing), consider omitting the information.
5. No, you don't need a high level of knowledge in a field to edit it on Wikipedia; but it usually helps!

If you've any further questions, please come back and ask. --ColinFine (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But its taking words and saying thats copyright when nobody own copyright to these words. Can admin see my sandbox? RDs123 (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about conflict of interest

Hi all!

I am interested in writing an article about the person I wrote my thesis on. I'm not concerned about notability, because she has been written about by other people and is generally considered important in her profession. I am a bit concerned about conflict of interest, since I don't want the article to be seen as promoting my academic work. (Which is, and probably deserves to remain, obscure.) If I cite the sources that I used in my thesis rather than citing the thesis itself, am I pretty well covered? Should I also disclose the (potential) conflict of interest, and if so, where would be the best place for that disclosure?

Thanks!

MetaClaudia (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MetaClaudia, and thanks for asking. The answer, I think, is yes all round. It is not a conflict of interest to write about something you are an expert on, as long as the result is based on published work that covers all views of the subject. (I would warn you that experts sometimes find Wikipedia a frustrating pace to work, because people may disagree with you who you do not consider to have your level of understanding of the subject, and it could even happen that a consensus goes against you on some point. But if you go into it with an understanding of what you are getting into, we'd be pleased to benefit from your expertise). It's not clear to me if your thesis has been published or not. If not, you shouldn't cite it, (which means you should also not quote any arguments or conclusions from it). But if it has been published in a reliable journal or a book from a reputable publisher, you can cite it, and even cite arguments and conclusions from it, as long as you don't privilege it over other published views of the matter. But either way, you should cite other sources, which will presumably mostly be sources you used in your thesis. I suggest you do disclose your potential conflict of interest on your User page, and possibly also on the talk page of the article you write. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested Articles / Sports

Hello Wikipedia Editors;

I have attempted to prepare information to be posted within the sports section of wikipedia but I am unsure as to weather or not it will receive any attention so I wanted to ask if someone would be so kind as to help me have the entry for Randy Beverly Jr completed/published;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#American_football

I think there are enough notable sources for Beverly Jr. The issue is that Beverly Jr is being confused with Beverly, who is an historic entry already.

Thanks in advance, MeanMachine1 93.32.151.39 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Help on editing

Hi! So, i find it very difficult to find articles to edit. Any advice?Samwise723 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Samwise723. The menu on the left side of each page has a link to the Community portal. You can find lists of many articles needing various kinds of work there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

36 Crazyfists

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I made a new page for the band 36 Crazyfists and their new cd Time and Trauma and I'm told it isn't referenced but I've attached album reviews I guess I am not too sure what references means. Can you help or explain in better detail? Karmakage (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Karmakage, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two issues about the references in Time and Trauma. One is that I don't think the rateyourmusic link is a reliable source, because it appears to be a site that anybody can post on. We don't accept such sites as references: it must be somewhere with a reputation for editing and fact-checking. I'm not sure about the blabbermouth site: on a quick look it appears that it is edited, but I don't know how reliably. The other point is that references need to be inserted throughout the text, attached to the information they are used to support. As a general rule, every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be found in a reliable source, referenced at the end of the sentence or the paragraph, so that a reader can go and check it, at least in principle. If any piece of information has not been published, or is only in an unreliable source such as facebook or a blog or a Wiki, then it should simply not be in the article. Please see referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

how to save editing work for completion later

I would like to edit some articles, but I don't think I can do it in one sitting. Is there a way to save the work and return to it later, without putting an incomplete version in the public space? Miguelyjoven (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes you can save it in a document on your computer or as a sub-page in your userspace, for example your sandbox User:Miguelyjoven/sandbox - using cut-and-paste. You have to be careful, though, as the article you are changing might be edited by someone else while you are working on your copy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

If practical, you can also complete a part of the wanted changes, save them in the article, and come back later to work on other parts. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

To let people know you want to do more work, you can also add {{inuse}}.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability troubles

Hi everyone. I am writing an article for a human rights organization called the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project in Uganda and I keep getting really bad reviews! The truth is it sounds like a soft AD and notability is weak. I tried this out several times..making changes all the while. But still its not good enough!!!!

Please, please will someone help me????Nyinakiiza (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you, as the author, admit the notability is weak, what do you expect other people to do? It might help you to read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability" - an essay which explains that probably all you can do is wait, until there is extensive coverage in reliable, independent, sources. - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was "speedy deleted" for not stating why the subject is important. The draft at User:Nyinakiiza/draft would pass this test for me. However the real test is to find "multiple independent reliable sources" that provide "significant coverage" of the subject, as otherwise the article is vulnerable to a slower and more deliberate process that considered notability - WP:AfD.

I believe you have a good chance of finding such sources, I am seeing a lot of information on-line.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Creating an Article about my company?

Hello, I am writing frequent mails to wikipedia concern person, about bringing back my company's article that has been blocked. My Ticket is #2014110410006832, we have tried a number of times that my company comes in search results. Can you please help us to retreive our old article or let us post new article from my user name. I have framed new content which is not promotional. However is there a way I can get my content approved before posting. Please help and suggest us further.10:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shruti.jain12 (talk • contribs)

Hi Shruti.jain12 welcome to the Teahouse. The page you created must have been deleted due to a reason. I'm guessing that it's due to conflict of interests or neutral point of view issue. Wikipedia strongly discourages writing articles about yourself or your company. Because in most cases users who are creating such articles violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. And some of them are paid to write articles. Only admins can restore deleted pages. But don't create multiple accounts to re-write the same article again. Because it will be blocked again and also you risk your account being blocked for Sock puppetry.--Chamith (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chamith. This is of help and I shall take care of it.

11:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shruti.jain12 (talk • contribs)

Photo of certain object in London

(This question moved here from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse by w.carter-Talk 09:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Happy New Year Wikipedians, i want to extend the list of Armenian Genocide memorials. According to [1] there is also a memorial in London not for from Hyde Park. It is located on the yard of Saint Sarkis Armenian church, exactly here [2]. Is there any photograph willing to help me with making a photo of it? If so, i kindly ask to make some overview and detailed photos (often at the back or side there is a plaque or inscription) of it and upload it to Commons. I need this detailed photos to add the transcriptions afterwards. Thanks advance, --Aschroet (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If this query does not yield any result you might take a look at editors who have a "This user lives in London" userbox (they are listed here and here) and see if any of these have a userbox stating that they are interested in photography, and simply ask at their talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aschroet, Not a bit of London I often visit, but I have posted your request on the talkpage of this Sunday's London meetup. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a nice picture, it may be worth contacting the org to see if it can be released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Thank you. Hope that someone makes some good quality photo which would be best solution. --Aschroet (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding waving links twice

Hello everyone! It is a good thing that I had attached myself to this forum. In this section, I want to know that can an article contain same waving link twice? For example, in an article's lead section, I had put a link to Ford Motor Company. Then, I added the same link to the body. Is it fine or a serious problem? Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ikhtiar H, nice to see you around. It's generally speaking a good idea to wikilink something only once in an article. The Manual of Style says that you can repeat a wikilink in an infobox. So if you have a wikilink in the infobox, it's OK to link it once - but only once - in the main body of the text. LouiseS1979 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

LouiseS1979, Thanks a lot, I appreciate your help! 08:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikhtiar H (talk • contribs)

Ikhtiar H welcome to The Teahouse. It is actually a good idea to wikilink more than once if the article is really long. That way if someone reads only a section that is not near the beginning of the article, the link will be there. Once in each long section might be a good guideline.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Publishing an article for the 1st time

Greetings -

I am the owner of a small entertainment lifestyle marketing and management firm, and as part of my portfolio I manage 1 recording artist. He is a pretty widely regarded artist within his genre (he makes line dance music and choreography), being a 17 year veteran who has national distribution for his product, gets records played on major commercial radio stations across the country, and gets booked to perform at various venues across the United States. I just signed him to a management deal in February of 2014, and we had a pretty decent 1st year working together. Anyhow, I say all this to say that I felt he was worthy of a Wiki page at this point, so I opened an account to create one for him. It's a work in progress but I think I have the "meat & potatoes" in place, and I'm looking for an expert opinion on it before I publish it. I'm not very solid on how to do the footnotes and referencing just yet. Also, I'm not sure how exactly to publish the article once I'm ready to "go live" - all I see is the user page right now. Is there some approval/review process from Wiki before it goes live? How does that work? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks , Derrick Big Mucci - The International King of Line Dance Music (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it's nice to see you trying, but you seem to be trying something difficult, especially for a newcomer. You have said why someone is good and deserves notice, but that's not what it takes. The subject of an article needs Wikipedia:Notability (people) which is a long complicated document but probably the main problem is, deserving isn't what it takes. Notability means, roughly, already famous. That is, discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. Independent means, roughly, not connected with the subject. Like, newspapers or some other media that don't just say what the subject and his friends, colleagues, relatives and agent say. You can run into other problems, like WP:BLP since it's a biography. You will definitely hit WP:COI because you are his manager. A Wikipedian with plenty of experience might be able to navigate through all these difficulties, but would probably not think it worth the effort. Too bad; I have nice deserving friends who can't get a fair break in show business, but I'm far too lazy to offer to help them in this way. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Big Mucci - The International King of Line Dance Music: Wikipedia may not be used for promoting anything: a person, a business, a charity, a band, a show, whatever. Until a subject has already been noticed and written about at length by more than one reliable source unconnected with the subject, Wikipedia will not host an article about them. Once your artist has been written about, Wikipedia may have an article about him: but you are going to find it hard to write that article, because of your conflict of interest (as Jim Henderson noted). One more point: I believe that your username violates our policy on usernames, as it is overtly promotional. --ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How to use information from a web page I own

I own the copyright to a webpage. On the wikipedia page I am trying to copy and paste the information about my subject but wikipedia deletes it due to copyright infringement. I can't edit the web page as I have forgotten how to login. Also my article keeps being deleted due to "promotion" how do I avoid this? RDs123 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@RDs123: - hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I can address the points in order:

• First of all, Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted content. If you own the website, you can release the text under a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence and copy it across without problems, but this gives other people the right to re-use it and change it (on Wikipedia at least). This would be donating your work. All other text, even if you own it, can't be just copied across without incident. It's also probably a bad idea just to donate content: firstly, there's no guarantee it will remain unchanged, since anyone can edit your article; secondly, you don't want to give away the words you've used on your website (just like you wouldn't want to give away other copyrighted material such as artwork); and thirdly, it's probable that when writing for your website you wanted to promote your company or organisation and Wikipedia needs a different emphasis in its articles than your own website requires. (See the third bullet point below.)

• You are already logged in, since you were able to sign your post with a username rather than just an IP address. If the text has been deleted, however, you will have to start a draft - which should not contain content copied from elsewhere - from scratch, since only administrators can see deleted contributions.

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than a business directory or other networking site. Normally when content is flagged as 'promotional', the editor has written it in the style of an advertisement or a piece puffing up their company, service, product or organisation rather than adhering to the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. So when someone says your work is promotional, they mean that you're not writing in the style Wikipedia requires.

What I'd suggest doing is reading the set of links Tutelary provided you with earlier today. Those would help you understand the core policies of Wikipedia. Also read WP:Your first article - that might help explain what Wikipedia is and is not and help you create content which will stick around here rather than being deleted straight away. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I indeed tagged the page as copyright violation (which it was) and for unambiguous advertising (which it was). The copyright violation could very well be sated by OP in giving permission via OTRS that the text belongs to them. But then, if you saw the page, you would know instantly that it was promotional. Nearly every single sentence was telling me how great and perfect the entity was and why I should join it. That's not acceptable for a Wikipedia page. If the copyright violation no longer applied, the promotional one surely would. I linked them to WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI, a thorough essay on what a conflict of interest is, what you can do, what you can't do, and a bunch of stuff on the subject. I just figured they'd have one if they can just as fast get permission for the text, indicating that they were close or even are the subject who created the article. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tutelary - I also post welcome templates (quite often before I look at an article) as they're a useful toolkit for explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You're also right to mention conflict of interest, as that was something I forgot in the main body of my reply. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

English cross check

Hi. I'm in the midst of creating some articles. But my main concern will be the language. Being a non-native English speaker, I'm afraid of too much grammatical errors. Are there any person who can proofreading my articles before I click submit button? By the way, I've joined Wikipedia since 2013 and get very active with it. I found Teahouse welcome message is helpful. But I wonder why I didn't get one. I've seen some who got welcome message from Teahouse but end-up vandalising. Tafeax (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tafeax - welcome to the Teahouse (selamat petang/pagi). Welcome-templating isn't automatic (there may be bots out there, but if there are they don't always get there quick enough and I've left loads of templates manually); to the best of my knowledge it relies on someone who wants to give you a welcome message seeing you when you make your first few edits (or before someone leaves another message on your talk page). I usually leave one when I see a redlinked talk page; I usually patrol new pages, which means I don't often come across vandals but quite often see well-intentioned but ultimately unproductive editing (such as people who think we're a place to post a listing for their local sailing club or jazz cafe - they're not vandals, they just need to be told what Wikipedia is and is not). However, a welcome template on someone's page is IMO a useful way of welcoming the editor and equipping them with a toolkit so they become better editors. There will always be vandals, but hopefully some will progress beyond that initial flurry of disruption and settle down.

As far as style and grammar issues, my main editing before becoming more engaged over the past few months was browsing articles in particular areas and cleaning up poor English style and grammar. I am interested in eastern and central European politics and history (I wrote my Masters thesis on the Helsinki Final Act) and got started copy-editing the articles I was reading while I read up on topics. Last autumn, I graduated to the Guild of Copy-Editors when I thought I could tackle the job a bit more systematically. So there are people out there working on the task of smoothing out language which may not be perfect for a lot of reasons.

But please don't let it stop you contributing drafts. I think as long as you can write an intelligible article, then there will be someone to come along behind you, even just adding a copy-edit template to add it to the GOCE's lists. If you want assistance or a quick, friendly eye over your articles while they're still drafts or after they go live, leave me a note on my talk page. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you LouiseS1979 for your reply. Your experience on copy-editing has open my eyes. I can improve my English writing by doing so. Perhaps I've done it on Kuala Lumpur International Airport at last hour. Thanks again for your encouragement and willingness to help in future. Tafeax (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Anchors

When using {{anchor}} in section headers, is it more common to:

a put the anchor in the header, e.g. == {{anchor|Section title}} Section title ==,

b use {{visible anchor}}, e.g. == {{visible anchor|Section title}} ==

or c, place the anchor directly below the section header, e.g.

== Section title ==

{{anchor|Section title}}

which has the advantage of not breaking the section link in the edit summary?

Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: One of the principal uses of anchors is to protect against changes in section headings which otherwise can be simply linked to using a wikilink. On that basis I would suggest that your last option of placing the anchor below the section title is the better option as it is less likely to be edited away. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Uploading images/ Licencing question

Hi. If I took a photograph of a building or a logo, could I upload it without permission from the company? Dovikap : Talk 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The building, probably. The logo, probably to Wikipedia per the non-free content criteria; to Commons probably not, unless it is too simple to qualify for copyright protection.--ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Image from Getty Images

I am trying to add "Australians_Film_Screening_Battle_Ground.jpg" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Copping under his request. The image is from Getty Images, can I Embed the image from their site to get around the licensing issues?Thanks for the help! Castablebranding (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Castablebranding, welcome to the Teahouse. No, Wikipedia does not support embedded image links. Please do not upload a copyrighted picture and change the license terms. You can read our image use policy for more info or just post here again if you have more questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Castablebranding. To add to what was already said, we need a photo that is free, in the sense of being free to use for any purpose. An easy way to make sure that this is the case is to take a photo yourself at one of his public appearances. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Great guys thank you for the response. If he were to purchase the editorial license for the photo from Getty Images which allows use in one location, Wiki included, what license would that fall under when I upload the image to the commons area? Thanks! Castablebranding (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Still not acceptable, I'm afraid. As previously stated the image use policy is for free use anywhere for any purpose. Nthep (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Castablebranding: Anon126 has a good point. If you're in contact with the subject, ask him to take a selfie or have an acquaintance take a picture of him and upload the photo under a free-to-use license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Mismatched Talk Page

If you click on 'talk' on the Jon Jones (the fighter) page it takes you to the Jon Jones (director) talk page. How do you fix that? Chuy1530 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the redirect code from Talk:Jon Jones and copied a message about him from the director's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Chuy1530 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Challenging an article section

How can I challenge an article? For example, say there is some info that I don't think is true, what can I put to show that it might not be accurate? Punk4orchrist (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The usual place to discuss article content is the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And it might be worth having a look at verifiability. If you have reliable sources for your change and the material in there doesn't, then replacing it is straightforward; but if you haven't got a reliable published source, don't add anything. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What if posters/editors are ignoring the points made on talk pages, such as here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender#Gender_identity? I'm not so much challenging an article as I'm trying to make the various inconsistent sentences in the same section consistent. Maxxx12345 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

See here; Maxxx12345 is interpreting matters differently than what they actually are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

is it acceptable entry?

Hello, I would like to ask if entry "Diadem Cosmetics" will be accepted by administrators. I want to create create entry in Polish, as globally this is not very well known firm. Even in Poland they are not extremaly visible, however they are doing quite interesting type of CSR. I do not have any connections with the firm apart from knowing the owner's son. Thank you for your response. Ideon21 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, nice to have someone joining us. Minor point, we have WP: ADMINS but this not among their duties. Major point, if it's not well known then you'll have difficultly meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not for making the invisible visible. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ideon21 and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to the information above: This is the English Wikipedia and all articles here must be in English. If you want to write articles in Polish, you have to do so on the Polish Wikipedia. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Updating a removed link

Hello,

I am writing from a company New Net Technologies, whose product Change Tracker is listed under the File Integrity Monitoring page under Applications - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_integrity_monitoring. The link is however broken / was removed. How can I restore the link? And will the copy I have pasted below pass through the review process? Please can you also advise on where I can submit this copy for review?

New Net Technologies is an IT Security and Compliance Software Manufacturer with Offices in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

The company was founded in 2005 when it launched its flagship software solution NNT-Change Tracker Enterprise. The solution was originally designed for monitoring IT networks for unexpected changes but has since developed into an Enterprise-wide solution for Servers, Desktops, Applications, Network Devices & Databases.

The company is privately held by the current management team.

NNT Provides solutions for:

File Integrity Monitoring System Vulnerability Hardening Change Management Configuration Management

Corporate website www.newnettechnologies.com

SMartin1234 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! It looks like the link is broken because the article Change Tracker™ has been deleted under the reason WP:G11. This basically means that the article had advertisement or promotional material, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. To restore the link, you would have to recreate the article Change Tracker™. However, do be aware that articles in Wikipedia has to be notable. If Change Tracker™ is not notable, it is best not to create the article.

The copy you have provided sounds like an advertisement. You will have to rewrite and reference reliable sources for it to be accepted. Also, if you would like to submit articles for review, you can visit Articles for Creation. The editors there will happy to help you create your article. heyzec! 13:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

But before you re-write the article, please read our guidelines on conflict of interest which explain why you should not be creating an article about a company you work for in the first place. - Arjayay (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Change Tracker™ cannot be an article name. It would have to be Change Tracker, if that product is found to be notable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

creating student accounts

I created a course page for my class but I am not sure how to get an individual account for each student and how they can then connect with me as a class. I did input a user name for each student on the course page but I don't think they are able to log in yet. Any suggestions? Thank you MsCameron (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi MsCameron. You actually added your proposed student accounts (and course topics) to a Wikipedia template page - please don't do that! I would suggest that you read through Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Setting up your course before trying to set up your course page; you will also need to request the course instructor userright at the Education Noticeboard (which is the best place to get help with course-related issues). As regards your students, they will need to set up accounts themselves by going to Special:CreateAccount and filling in the username they want to use. They can communicate with you via your user talkpage and can use the course page for co-ordination once you have set it up. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello MsCameron and welcome to the Teahouse. They will all need to set up their own accounts. They can do this by going to the signup page and filling in the form. If they are doing this in-class, then it is likely that only six would be able to create an account in this fashion which isn't ideal. If you are intending on having them all create their accounts at once from class, then I suggest going through the Request an account process to get the accounts created for you by our team of Account creators. Make sure that in the Comments section all of your students mention Student in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MsCameron/Mi%27kmaq_Studies_10 by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MsCameron so the account creators that respond will know they are part of your class. If all of your students put in requests for accounts and it seems to be taking a long time for a response, you may wish to visit the #wikipedia-en-accounts-unreg ^connect channel on freenode and ask one or more of the users in the list with the + next to their name for assistance. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All references to AIPAC are deleted from Washington Institute for Near East Policy

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy was created in 1985 as a spinoff of AIPAC.

The article Washington Institute for Near East Policy originally described some of the relationships between the Washington Institute and AIPAC. Over the years, every mention of AIPAC has been deleted from the article.

I just looked up the article, and saw nothing about AIPAC, so looked it up myself and added something to the Criticism section, making sure to use a WP:RS (Foreign Affairs).

My edit was quickly deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy&action=history by an editor who apparently disagrees with the WP:RSs on the basis of his own personal opinion.

What should I do? I don't want to get into a long edit war. I don't want to get into an argument with an editor who will just repeat, "Well I think it's biased" and delete it. I went to the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration but they haven't been active recently. --Nbauman (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nbauman. You have not provided a link to the Foreign Affairs source, so that other editors can read it and evaluate it. Please do so. Please explain how it is relevant and worthy of mention that a group was founded 30 years ago by a person previously employed by another group. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The appropriate place to discuss this issue is the talk page of the article, which was once quite active. I see no discussion there in the last year and a half. Have you proposed your changes there, or otherwise commented there? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have now read your actual edit (I hadn't previously) and agree with the reverting editor that it is "highly biased". I recommend that you study the neutral point of view before editing in the Israel/Palestine area, which is subject to strict sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) Why is the Foreign Affairs article "highly biased"? That seems totally subjective. What is the text of the specific Wikipedia guidelines that it violates that cause it to be biased?

(2) Even if it is biased, so what? WP allows biased sources. According to WP:RS WP:BIASED:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

What is the specific Wikipedia guideline that requires us to delete a supposedly biased source that is a WP:RS?

I am familiar with WP:NPOV, and I've read it many times. What is the specific text in WP:NPOV that you are referring to? In my reading, it says the opposite of your position.

WP:NPOV says:

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone....

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid.

WP:NPOV links to the essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete which says

It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

So WP:NPOV prohibits deleting material because of bias.

Please explain, with citations to the text of WP guidelines, why the Foreign Affairs article is biased, and even if it is, why it should be deleted from WP. --Nbauman (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the article you cited was highly biased. I expressed the opinion that your edit was highly biased, Nbauman. I will say no more than that, because I do not want to get involved in this contentious area. The place for further discussion is the article's talk page, and you need to gain consensus there for any additions you propose to make. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How to determine official name?

I was reading WP:Article Titles and it had information on official name's. I understood what common name means but did not fully understand official name. Could I ask how does one determine the official name of a group? Do we accept the official name to be the one that is self-chosen as per reliable sources? I hope my question makes sense. Just in case it does not, I will provide an example examples:

• A group decide on a name Y - is the group's official name y

Thank you Mbcap (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mbcap. There is no strict definition of "official name" as it can vary according to context. It could be the name that is self chosen, as in the case of an organization. It could be chosen by parents, as in the case of a person's full legal name. It could be designated in law. For example, the official name of San Francisco is "The City and County of San Francisco". So "self chosen" is not a requirement. What is required is that reliable sources report the official name. It should be mentioned in the lead section of the article, often in the first sentence. But as my "San Francisco" example shows, it is the common name that determines the article title, not the "official name", which is often not widely known. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Cullen³²⁸. A couple of question in regards to your answer. I would be grateful if you could explain (assuming my query is in relation to a group).

1) So if, for the example I gave above, a group chooses for itself the name Y and it is subsequently reported by reliable sources that, said group has self-chosen Y as their name, would Y then be the official name?

2) Is there anything that would supersede the above criteria, and thus nullify this official name which is self-chosen and reported as self-chosen by reliable sources?

3) You said that the official name should be mentioned in the lead section of the article, often in the first sentence. How is it determined if the official name goes in the first sentence or not?

4) I read in [WP:COMMONNAME] that the most common name should be used as the article title and I understand that. Could you clarify the trend I saw in the examples the policy gave such as Ghandi, Clinton, Bono and lady gaga etc. It seemed that the common name was used as title of the article and the official name was used to start of the lead. Is this always the case and in which cases would you not follow this format.

I would be very grateful for your assistance. Mbcap (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Mbcap.

1) We have have no official Wikipedia process for designating an "official name", so every case must be determined in context. What is the specific context of your question?

2) This is a tough question to answer without context. If a club of online trolls gives itself a name like "The Vatican" or "The United States Senate", then they should not expect Wikipedia to recognize their "self chosen" name.

3) The determination of when the "official name" should be mentioned is a matter if editorial judgment, as determined by consensus of active editors. Usually, but not always, it will be at the beginning of the article. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that a very famous convicted mass murderer decides to change his legal name to a long string of pornographic phrases, and the liberal laws in that particular jurisdiction allow that. Editors may well decide that the new name does not belong in the lead sentence, or even the lead paragraph. That will be a difficult discussion. But each case must be decided on its own individual merits.

4) In the cases like the ones you mention, the common name should be used, as long as it is unique. Neither Ghandi nor Clinton are good titles, as there are several people known that way. So, we need to disambiguate. But there is only one Lady Gaga though she was obviously born with another name. Cher is another, older example. When there is a strong acceptance of a stage name, or pen name, we go with that. Mark Twain may be the most famous 19th century example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for further clarifying my questions Cullen328. In regards to my point 4 above, I just shortened the name as I assumed you would know what I was talking about. I will provide context; lets say a rebel group has control over some territory. It has decided to call itself Y and it has been reported by both themselves and secondary reliable sources that they have decided to call themselves Y. They have also gone on to act in a way that is deemed to be "in violation of the UN declaration of human rights" and "committed many atrocities". About a 3rd of all the worlds nation states have decided to band together to eliminate this rebel group. I think that is enough and you probably now know what I am talking about but I ask that you assess it with the assumption that you have no knowledge of international news. Please could you tell me where their name (Y) should be in the lead and why. Could you also recommend any other relevant policy/guideline that needs to be considered. And lastly if you answer my query in your reply, would that answer be a definitive position or an opinion? Sorry for asking such a complex question. Mbcap (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, my guess is that you are discussing how to name the article about IS/ISIS/ISIL. Anything I would say would be my own personal opinion, and pretty much worthless here, since I have not studied the issue in any detail, other than being aware that a variety of names are used in English language sources. A few observations: Such highly contentious topics are often subject to ArbCom sanctions, imposing behavioral restrictions on editors. Comply with those restrictions carefully. Also, please consider that it is often far more useful to focus on improving the referenced content of such articles, instead of obsessing about naming controversies, which often serve as a diversion from far more important issues for the encyclopedia. Another point is that translations or transliterations from one language to another often involve subjective elements. My final point is that issues that seem intensely and vitally important at one moment in time are later seen as trivial and secondary. Wise editors may choose to abstain from such disputes, to allow the dust to settle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Want to update a non-profit page that is incomplete

Hi All! I want to elaborate on a non-profit's page that currently has a very limited description of the organization. I would like to firstly use information from their website to make the description more accurate. Then, I would also like to add some history using a few resources compiled about the founding of the organization. Should I make all these changes at once? Should I directly quote resources with footnotes, or paraphrase and just have the references at the end? I want to correctly credit the sources. Thank you BHinNJ (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, BHinNJ, welcome, and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. You can use information from their website in a very limited way: for uncontroversial factual information such as dates and places. But the great majority of the page should be referenced to reliable published sources unconnected with the organisation. At least every paragraph, and sometimes every sentence, should have a reference: use Wikipedia's referencing mechanism, and it will automatically number them, and collect and display the references at the bottom. See referencing for beginners. Nothing whatever in the article should come from unpublished information. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Article about a media company

Hello Everyone! I'm interested in making an article on a media company I work for. We cover charity events that have celebrity involvement and produce a weekly show. The notability factor is that we've interviewed many high-level celebrities and they have valuable inspirational advice for the audience. How can we make the article without appearing like an AD? Please help! OTSN Representative 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardGthe3rd (talk • contribs)

Hello, EdwardGthe3rd. The first thing is to be open about your conflict of interest, which you have done: well done. The next thing is to understand the special Wikipedia meaning of the word notability: what your organisation has done and who it has interviewed does not count in the slightest towards notability, unless somebody unconnected with you has written about them. Notability is entirely about what independent people have written about the subject in reliable published sources. If you can find such sources, then you can try writing an article, bearing in mind the guidelines in wp:conflict of interest. Anything even a tiny bit evaluative or subjective (such as any superlatives, any non-objective qualities, anything about people's motives, anything which directs how the reader should view the subject) may be included only if it is directly taken from a cited independent source. If you read about the articles for creation process, and use the article wizard to create it, then you can edit it without fear of it being deleted under you (as long as you don't infringe copyright), until it is ready for you to request a review. --ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Page is not linked

Hi guys! I've created a page Uzbekistan-European Union relations, but in search area and in the page Foreign relations of the European Union it says that such page does not exist. Does anybody know how to fix it? Farkhodg (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In the EU page you had an m-dash symbol rather than a hyphen in the title. I've corrected it for you. Rojomoke (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Rojomoke, thank you so much!Farkhodg (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Why my photos were deleted when I sent a permissions email

I am creating an article Draft: Tresor Otshudi (Entertainer)which I submitted for review. I will continue working on the article but cannot understand why the images I uploaded are being deleted. I twice emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org forwarding an email from the author to use the images File:Tresor WikiPic1.JPG, File:Tresor WikiPic2.JPG, File:Tresor Otshudi by Ernest Collins (crop-250).jpg, File:Tresor crop250.jpg, File:Tresor Otshudi.JPG. I sent an email on December 28, 2014. I cannot figure out what to do, and also, how to wade through all the instructions to determine what licence the images must have to satisfy Wikipedia's policy. Please advise me. 4Love&Laughter (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 4Love&Laughter. I think you were perhaps just a little too soon (remember that the OTRS group, like everything else, is staffed by volunteers). The deletion log of one of these a few minutes into 29 December is here, and says "(No permission since 21 December 2014: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored)". So I suggest you contact the user Fastily, who did the deletion, or else send another mail. I note that File:Tresor Otshudi.JPG is there in commons, and has been since 2010.

Incidentally, for future reference, your page should be called just "Draft:Tresor Otshudi": we don't add further information to a title unless it is required to distinguish the page from others of the same name. But don't bother changing it now: when your draft is reviewed and accepted, the reviewer will move it to the right name in article space. --ColinFine (talk)

If an an e-mail has already been sent to OTRS please do not send another. The first email will be in the permissions queue with many others (currently 900+) and will be reviewed by a volunteer in due course.--ukexpat (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

adding to scientist template for infobox

I am working on the Paul Steinhardt page.

Is it possible to change the scientist template to add "undergraduate advisors" ?

currently this is just "other academic advisors."

Thanks so much! Sleepy Geek (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sleepy Geek. The place to ask is on the template's talk page Template Talk:Infobox scientist. It may be that somebody will be happy to do it for you, or you may have to persuade somebody that this is a good idea, so be ready with your arguments. --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My minor addition was again reverted

I added a small fact to the Wikipedia page on the movie Free Birds. It was reverted without comment, and I asked for help here - see below.

I found a reference for the fact, and did another edit. My edit was again reverted, with the comment 'Saying "it wasn't released" adds nothing. Were better off not inclusing it.'

I personally think the fact that a film released in theatres in 3D was not released in the United States for the home market in 3D is a relevant fact for an article about the movie.

I have never had an edit I made reverted like this. I don't think reverting back to my version seems like a very productive move. How should I proceed? Benthatsme (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Benthatsme. I think that might be a reasonable thing to note in the article, but the source you gave is just a blu-ray listing. If sources discussing the film in depth have noted that it was not released in 3D in the US, then it's probably relevant to the article. If they haven't, then it does still look (to others) like original research; it may be true that it was not released in 3D, but it's not being remarked upon by the secondary sources usually used to feed a Wikipedia article. The source looks a bit flimsy compared to the extensive commentary given as other sources for the article. What I'd be looking for would be other commentators who have remarked on it not being released in 3D in the US, rather than just that that is a fact. The www.blu-ray.com source looks like a primary source, which are useful for verifying information about a film (such as its release on blu-ray, which that same source is also used to prove) but not usually used for making editorial comments about them. There's nothing in the source which states it was not released in 3D at all, so the addition was probably reverted as not being shown by the source or proved by the source to be a particularly noteworthy issue.

Generally, if you can't find a source which highlights something as unusual or remarkable about a particular subject, it's not generally highlighted in a Wikipedia article.

Regarding the other person and their reversion, in general, when this happens, the normal procedure would now be to ask them why they didn't like the edit and discuss it with them on the talk page for the article here or their user talk page here. I know it's frustrating, but approaching the person who disagrees with you about the relevance or otherwise of a particular passage is the best way of getting a concrete answer (particularly in light of the above). It would also help if you approached them assuming they changed your edit in good faith rather than with an accusatory or upset/angry tone. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the help thus far LouiseS1979. I will follow up on the Free Birds talk page on the issue. Before I do, I would like to better understand your thoughts, if you have time.

I am confused by your first paragraph. The source used in the article for the information about the Blu-Ray release date (blu-ray.com) is the same source I used to reference the lack of a 3D home release (where the lack of a 3D release is specifically noted). You seem to both be saying that blu-ray.com is a primary source, and not a source. I suspect I am mis-reading your response in some way. Can you try to clarify for me?

You also mention that something must by 'unusual' to be included, which confuses me when it comes to simple facts. If I wanted to insert a line such as 'Unusual for a movied released in the theatre in 3D, there was no blu-ray release of the 3D version of the film' in the article, then of course I would need to reference that.

All I am trying to do is include a fact. From my point of view, the article (rightly) contains a lot of facts - gross, budget, director, etc. In fact the box office results get their own section - which seems right to me. I'm trying to make the point that there are a lot of 'facts' in the usual Wikipedia article on any movie that are not remarked on as being unusual by any of the secondary sources. This is one more detail about the blu-ray release, and I don't see that it is so irrelevant to the topic that it should be excluded from the article. Benthatsme (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was looking last night at a source which only included product information. Maybe I was mistaken. I still think we slightly differ on the word 'fact', to be honest, as might other users. Verifiable positive facts (earnings, release date, etc) about the movie can definitely be sourced to primary sources. I think the 'not released on 3D' fact is a situation in which you may need to provide more justification because it's something that goes beyond merely verifiable from a check-list of product information ('it earned $Xm on its first weekend') and into the realms of proving/explaining/justifying a negative ('normally these films are released in 3D, but this one wasn't because...', therefore, the source needs to explain why it's specifically relevant that this one was not.) Can you find any other sources that say that it was not released on 3D and why? Again, perhaps the best place to start is asking the user who reverted you rather than asking us here, because ultimately I don't know why they did so if you provided the source. LouiseS1979 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Recycle Rush copyright violation help

Hello,

At the Recycle Rush page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycle_Rush), I have recently had basically all the information deleted for copyright violation issues. I can say that the part which violated the copyright (the "rules" part) was not done by me, so I will just have to do it myself another time so that it doesn't violate the copyright. However, the "events" part that I had written had not violated any copyrights, so I do not understand why it was deleted. Plus I even included the source for that part and you could clearly see that there was no copyright violation. If someone could please inform me on this, it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! TheRoboticGuy (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRoboticGuy: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I agree that the list of events should probably not have been reverted. As for the rest of it, the problem may be that you (or someone, since you are not the guilty party) need to write the information in your own words and not just say what the source said. Also, we do not use "℠" and "®" in articles. It would be helpful to find multiple sources that establish notability, and especially sources independent of the subject of the article. Have magazines and newspapers covered this sport?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Perfect, I will just put the events lists back on the page for now and I will work on putting the description in my own words. Sorry, I do not know any independent sources such as magazines or newspapers, but I will try to find some. Thanks!

TheRoboticGuy (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheRoboticGuy. Please be aware that, if there is no independent coverage in reliable sources for this robotics competition, then the article must be deleted. So, please make the search for such sources your highest priority. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Subject of Notability

This has nothing to do with the article that I originally attempted to write, but comments about the exclusion of a reference to a person who was not considered "notable". The person excluded from an article was a tutor to the "notable" person whom the article was about. So I ask do we only include that Haydn was a teacher of Beethoven because Haydn, himself was a notable person. Then perhaps we should edit the article about Johann Sebastian Bach and exclude his brother, Johann Christoph Bach, and his father, Johann Abrosius Bach, because if they had not been related Johann Sebastian Bach, and played a part in his musical education, no one probably would have taken note of them. They were not really famous or notable in and of themselves. I contest that sometimes a person is notable simply because they played a part in the life of someone else who would be considered "notable". I think your rules on "notability are just a little too stringent, because if you would enforce those rules in the article about Johann Sebastian Bach, I believe there would be a lot of people missing. I'm not advocating that we make people notable because they walked down the same street as the notable person did, but if they played a significant role in their lives, perhaps they should be included. 98.239.215.41 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

98.239.215.41 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Notability is not inherited. If you would like to discuss this, I recommend The Policy Village Pump, or perhaps someone there can point you to a better place to discuss the situation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Notability is a criterion for being the subject of an article, not for being mentioned in an article about a different subject. Somebody, not themselves notable, who was of some significance in the subject's life (and is reliably documented as such) may certainly be mentioned in the article. The question of whether the person's role is significant enough to be mentioned may be subject to discussion, of course. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The person edited out was a tutor and certainly could have made a significant contribution to the person the article was about, but they were edited out because they were not considered a notable person. It seems that not all editors are applying this policy as you described it. Mark Clark - TurntheHeartTurntheHeart (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Submission Denied. Came across as advertisement. Need insight

I recently submitted an article for my current company I work for. It was denied on the basis it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Could you take a looks and provide insight into the areas that come across mroe as a advertisment so I can remove or edit them? Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lumo_(sonarDesign) Bclark1220 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:15:43.2C 5 January 2015 review of submission by Bclark1220 -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence not adequate

Hi guys,

I submitted the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Rokos_%28former_hedge_fund_manager%29

Unfortunately is was declined as "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I was nearly sure that references used by me were verifable and independent.

Any ideas will be appreciated. MichelleOD (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MichelleOD. I think the references are borderline adequate. In my view the Reuters one is the only one substantial enough to contribute to notabililty - one or both of the FT and WSJ may do so, but I can't see them. The rest are reliable, and so can be used to support individual claims in the article, but are not in my view substantial enough to demonstrate notability. (Institutional Investors Alpha might be, again, but reads to me like a press release, in which case it is not independent). I suggest you ask The Herald (the user that declined it) on their talk page how you might improve it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Money in the Bank 2015

Please move WWE Money in the Bank (2015) to Money in the Bank (2015). At first Money in the Bank (2015) must be linked from other pages. This message is only for administrators. Thanks. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ikhtiar H, if you have a request for a page to me moved, the right place for that is at the Wikipedia:Requested moves, not the Teahouse. Best w.carter-Talk 13:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My article has been declined and don't seem to get what is wrong with it

Hello My article has been declined and don't seem to get what is wrong with it. All the bestSpecial:Contributions/samanthaluvs (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Special:Contributions/samanthaluvs, welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. Your article is declined because you do not have a Wikipedia account. If you have a minute, consider creating one. It's an easy way to keep track of your contributions and helps you communicate with the rest of the community. All you need to register is a username and password. However, if you would like to continue editing anonymously, that's fine too. Thanks. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Special:Contributions/samanthaluvs, to add to the answer given above, the only edits I can see on your account are this question and one at the Help desk. Did you perhaps just forget to log in when you wrote these questions? In that case, please provide us with the name of the article you were working on and we will be able to help you. w.carter-Talk 13:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. When Draft:Saturnia (band) was declined the note left at the top of the page stating the decline reasons had a number of links in it that further explained the words being used. To wit, it said:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

Did you click on any of those links to see what the concepts meant? There is a larger problem however. The draft was a blatant copyright violation, which has now been noted in its deletion log. Please do not copy and paste any copyrighted text again. Note that if you are the owner of the text, we could only use it if you or someone else with ownership of over the copyright, released it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain); we could not use it simply with your permission for our use here. If this content was suitable in the first place to be in an encyclopedia article—it was very promotional and could not be used in the form submitted anyway—some of the the methods for provided a copyright release are set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ikhtiar H:, I don't think not having a Wikipedia account alone would be grounds for rejecting an article. I'm not able to see who created Draft:Saturnia (band) since it was deleted, but if 85.241.24.149 has a consistent IP address, then he/she must have an account anyway since his/her contributions didn't show the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, deleted contributions don't show up. Anyway, I believe unregistered users can create articles in draft space and have them accepted. Someone tell me if that's wrong.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct.--ukexpat (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Template required

I am looking for an existing navbox template which creates a navbox like {{Ladies European Tour Seasons}} but which I can get by entering something like {{:numberlist|name=Ladies European Tour Seasons|link=Ladies European Tour|min=2006,max=2015}}. I'm surprised I can't find something. Nigej (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nigej: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. This is just a guess but I would suggest WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

sizing photo in infobox

Hi, I'm working on the Paul Steinhardt page, and would like to adjust the photo I'm using at the top of the infobox.

1. How can I make it larger/wider? 2. How do I change the caption? (this is a photo I uploaded)

Thanks so much for the help! Sleepy Geek (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sleepy Geek, welcome to the Teahouse. The infobox code starts {{Infobox scientist. That means it uses Template:Infobox scientist which is also linked at bottom of the edit window if you click "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page". The template page has documentation for the image parameters. I used that in [3]. There is also a caption parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What I did to add my hometown pic is go to Wikimedia Commons and search and find the image you want. Once that's done, above it should be a link saying "Use this file" with a Wikipedia icon beside it. It will give you 2 links, pick the bottom one. Add a | beside the last letter inside the brackets, then put in how large you want it, i.e. 400px. Then if you want it left right or centered, put another | and then left, right, or center. All inside the brackets.

Teena (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Reflist}} in edit mode

In article on Morrison Formation there is a {{Reflist}} but the actual references do not display. I want to add to this article and cite my addition. Thanks. Hilyard (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hilyard. Inline references are not placed in the Reflist section, which is a template. The coding for each individual reference is placed in the body of the article, immediately following the content being referenced. When the page is displayed in the normal viewing mode, the Reflist template displays the references in the proper order in the References section of the article. This is a simplified explanation of what can be very complex in lengthy, sophisticated articles. Please read Referencing for beginners for a good overview, and feel free to ask follow-up questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The references are appearing in the article so I presume you are trying to see the ones you add in your edit..??? To do that you need to preview the article and if you are edition only a section -- you need to add a {{reflist}} temporarily to the bottom of the section so the references will appear below the section -- remove it before saving the edit. Hope thos helps, Ariconte (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Another tip:   to see what the citation will look like before you save your edit, if you use a cite template from the toolbar, you can press the Preview button, then 'Show parsed view' to see how the citation will appear in the references.  ~I hope this helps.  ~Eric, aka:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

how can I get a new page started about the Coworking Institute

The Coworking Institute, established by myself in 1999, predates the establishment of coworking as described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coworking - The author of the coworking page at one time mentioned that my use of the term was an antecedent to his, but he found that it somehow proved confusing, and wished to make a clean separation between his use of the term and mine. Rather than make the distinction clear on his coworking page, he chose to remove all references to my use of it. I believe, however, that there are some very useful connections to be made, and would like to go about doing so. However, as I am the person who coined the term as well as started the Coworking Institute, I realize there would be conflict of interest and I would not be able to create such a page. I would like therefore to find someone who would be interested in doing that.

I do not at all contest that Brad's use of the term "coworking" to describe the idea of a shared, and hopefully communal office space is original to him. I do want to make clear, however, that I did use the term "coworking" - actually earlier than 1999, but as far as the wayback machine is able to document, 1999 - http://web.archive.org/web/19990429122650/http://technography.com/ - which is a good enough date to establish my prior use - to describe what I called "working together as equals." It seems to me that this is very much in the same spirit as Brad's use of the term. And it is also true that I linked the use to computers. Here's a bit more of the history of my use of the term: I had developed a methodology I called "technography" for facilitating meetings. It was based on using a single computer (at that time, computers were hard to come by and never found in meeting rooms) with a big projector to help document and organize collaborative work, especially brainstorming and strategic planning meetings. I've written about that extensively, first in 1986 in a publication called "Power Meetings." Later in 1990 is a book called "Connected Executives". Here's an article from the LA Times - http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/29/business/fi-13745 - describing a bit more about my use - and an article by Michael Schrage which shows me using the domain - http://www.co-intelligence.org/CItidbits-SchrageCollab.html - I established the CoWorking Institute in which Gerrit later joined me in the capacity of archivist to help document other applications of technology to support collaborative work. When I discovered that Brad had started using that term, I was delighted, and supported him totally in his efforts to apply it to his concept, granting him the use coworking.com and coworking.org - Gerrit and I decided to keep coworking.net I feel that conceptually, we are working towards the same ends, which is why I feel so good about his use of the word. On the other hand, I do believe that, though he may not have known about my prior use of the term, that reference to me, not as the originator of his use of the term, but as the originator of the term itself, is both merited and of value to all parties.

I did a search on the Internet hoping I could find some sources. I did find these links mentioning the Coworking Institute by name http://coworking.net/ | Welcome to The CoWorking Institute (this link is current, the only domain we kept) http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2004/06/11/coworking-institute/ | elearnspace › Coworking Institute http://www.livestream.com/coworkingnews | Daily News from the Coworking Institute - live streaming video powered by Livestream http://www.newhois.net/www/coworking.net.html | coworking.net - Welcome to The CoWorking Institute | The CoWorking Institute .. http://www.topictimes.com/videos/film/better-meetings-full-Pct9GfM5m5A.html | Better Meetings http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/17690 | It's A Match http://www.mcgeesmusings.net/2002/03/05.html | McGee's Musings http://www.co-intelligence.org/CItidbits-SchrageCollab.html | Michael Schrage on Collaboration http://www.cognexus.org/id27.htm | Related Work http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Bernie-DeKoven/21462041 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/amazing-what-you-can-do-with-a-little-electronic-duct-tape/article4147877/

Bernard De Koven 20:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs)

Hello, Majorfun. As you have a conflict of interest, you might need to put some basic detail about yourself on your user page if you intend to involve yourself in this project. If the institute is notable (per the usual sourcing guidelines here) then I don't see why it shouldn't have a page, but given the COI rules, I suggest you use one of the services on offer to draft and request help and assistance, such as WP:Articles for Creation, or make a request on WP:Requested Articles. LouiseS1979 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

here's one more reference - http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/156192/The-History-Of-Coworking-Presented-By-Deskmag#vars!date=1996-10-05_21:36:23! - sadly, I still haven't found any clear direction as to what the best next step might be.

Bernard De Koven 21:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs)

Hello, Majorfun, I'm not sure exactly what you want/need to hear from us here, but assuming those sources fit the reliable sources guidelines, then you can just go ahead and write the article. If you want to create a draft article and submit it to WP:Articles for creation for feedback before it gets accepted, I'm sure that's possible; just don't forget to mention your conflict of interest WRT the Institute itself. Or you can make the article yourself directly into the main Wikipedia space - all users can do that. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, please don't do that and please be very careful advising users who have a COI to do so. Users with a COI are strongly advised not to create articles about their subjects (although it is not prohibited). --ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - but I'm not sure what step I should take next. Any suggestions would be welcome.

Bernard De Koven 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs)

Sources and editing

I have tried to edit an article, Alevism, but my edits always get reversed- I have tried putting in good academic sources, but people get emotional and revert anyway. If academic sources are not considered a good basis for editing then editing wikipedia doesn't seem very appealing. I tried in August and gave up after 2 days, but I am trying again! Edging (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Edging. A quick look at Talk:Alevism suggests to me that you are following Wikipedia policies, and the people you are arguing with don't understand them. I suggest you call for third opinion, or something else from the dispute resolution process. --ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. I tried the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was told I should just edit boldly- the discussion was closed and no effort was made to resolve the dispute. The result is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Alevism. Edging (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Should I edit this timeline?

Working on the Disappearance of Lauren Spierer article. We put the timeline of the last evening she was seen in the article. Some of the times are on the basis of witness statements and some are based on surveillance footage. The timestamps in bold that were based on surveillance footage and witness statement times unbolded. The reason this distinction is important is because in this case, the witness statements are in question, they are suspects, there is a lawsuit, etc. I feel like making that distinction is important and most everyone working on the article has agreed on that point.

Well, it seems like once a month or so, someone comes by and sees that some times are in bold and others are not and fixes them (making them all bold or all unbold). Thus far no one has brought it up on the talk page, so I'm assuming that they are simply mistaking this distinction as a typographical error. It doesn't bother me to just put them back and I put a hidden message explaining the situation. The problem is not that they're being changed, the issue is, I have to assume that the people who are fixing this "error" are representative of the average reader who just assume the same thing.

I asked this a few months back and a couple of people felt I should leave it as-is and that they themselves realized why it was the way it was, but people keep changing it, so I have to assume it not obvious to everyone. Should I try something different? Colors perhaps? Any ideas? Bali88 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2015 Teahouse, Bali88. Do reliable sources analyze the timeline in this fashion? Do reliable sources list the various times in two typographically distinct ways? If not, beware of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Are readers detecting OR in an article that is supposed to be a strictly neutral summary? That may explain the edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bali88 and Cullen328 It would have to be a freezing day in San Francisco (a very unlikely occurence) before I ever question anything Cullen says. But, hey it IS a freezing day in San Francisco so here goes: IMO the bold in this timeline is not OR at all. Everything in the timeline seems well referenced. But there is a crucial distinction which I agree with Bali88 it is critical to make. Some of the refs that validate the timeline are from timestamps on video surveillance. Others are from witness testimony. There is a very rational (and also well documented with sources) speculation that at least one of the witnesses is lying and knows more about the disappearance than they are saying. Hence it makes perfect sense IMO to show the distinction. If for example one of the editors had a theory that one witness in particular was less trustworthy and were only distinguishing that person's testimony that would be OR but they aren't doing that. They are taking the very logical approach of saying "here is what we know from actual cameras and here is what we know from witnesses, one or more of whom may not be as credible as the footage". Making this kind of distinction in data presentation is IMO good UI design. Regarding what to do about it: have you tried putting a comment at the top of the timeline? Something that says the issue has been discussed and that people should look at the talk page and comment there before unbolding parts of the timeline. If it is happening a lot it also might be possible to make a Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection I notice there is also some emotional discussion on the talk page about "missing white girl syndrome" which could also be a reason some people are unbolding the timeline and might further help make a case to partially protect the page. My advise would be to try the comment first though and stick to just watching the page and undoing the changes unless it is happening very frequently. Regarding using color rather than bold, I personally HATE adding color to text and think there is a chance that any editor who would ignore the comment about the bold text would also ignore the comment about colored text and would change it anyway but I could be wrong on both counts. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bali88 I noticed you already had a comment in the timeline. I added another more emphatic comment at the very top of the timeline as well. If you think the wording was too strong or otherwise want to change what I did feel free. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Freezing temperatures in San Francisco are not common but are also not rare, as last night shows. It is also not rare for me to be wrong, but my concern about the formatting remains. The paragraphs beginning with bold times seem to start with facts that could be observed on surveillance video, and then stray into information that must have come from witness statements, or interpretations, such as the conclusion that she was so intoxicated that she failed to protect her face when she fell. So, the formatting tells the reader that everything in the section that follows can be readily verified by watching the video, and I truly doubt that is so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328 and MadScientistX11. The interesting thing about these responses is that the two of you responded to the question the first time I posted it, in the same order, and said basically the exact same things. lol Honestly, I don't think people are taking a stance on the issue for any reasons at all aside from simply thinking it's a typographical error. No one has really had any qualms about discussing their issues with the article or the way the case is portrayed in the article so I feel like if people were editing it because they felt it was original research, or felt it was biased in some way, I would've heard about it on the talk page or someone would've re-reverted it back to what they had edited. Yes, I can put a warning on the page not to edit it, but that doesn't really fix the problem. I don't care that people are editing it, I want to make sure that the reader comprehends what that difference is meant to signify and doesn't just perceive it as a typo. I have to assume people are perceiving it as a typo given how many people are editing it as such. Honestly it isn't *that* big a deal. There are much bigger clarity issues than this. I just didn't know if someone had any unique ideas that I hadn't considered before. If no one else presents any, I'll just leave it as-is and call it a day. :-) Bali88 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bali88 So I just want to explain a bit more where my point of view comes from. I used to build software for a living and I'm rather fanatical about good UI design. For that reason I almost always discourage people adding bold or italic or colors to text because it is usually superfluous. The reason I discourage such formatting is because I think it should be saved for those rare cases where there is some important information that can't be easily communicated any other way. I think this IS such a case. Cullen328 perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment but it doesn't make much sense to me. This is a timeline. The goal of a timeline is to show events in order by the time they occurred. The information they have about the events comes from two different sources. Hence, the logical thing to do is to show events that are sourced from the video one way and events from witnesses another way. I don't quite follow you when you say "the formatting tells the reader that everything in the section that follows can be readily verified by watching the video, and I truly doubt that is so." It seems to me the whole point of wanting to distinguish between video timestamp info and witness testimony is precisely to avoid people thinking that everything in the timeline is supported by video. My one other bit of advise is it might be a good idea to post this question at the reference desk, find the topic that most closely matches something like Human Computer Interaction (HCI) or User Interface design. That won't address the issue of people changing it but someone who is an expert on UI design might have some better ideas on how to present the information most intuitively. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think his issue is largely that mixed in with the surveillance video is a bit of witness testimony. I can kinda see his point, but honestly I can't see a way to present the information any differently. To me, the surveillance times are anchored, the witness times are not. The times are what is important. We know she was in this location at this time. Any suggestions or feedback are appreciated Bali88 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me give a specific example of my concern: We have a description of her entering and exiting an alley based on video from a security camera mounted on a nearby apartment building. Then later in the same paragraph, we are told "He vomited on the carpet on the way upstairs". It seems highly unlikely to me that a security camera on an adjoining building could have recorded this. The only information in those paragraphs with bolded time stamps should be strictly objective facts observable in that specific video. Nothing from witness statements and no conclusions should be included. Those paragraphs are full of such content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for how you would fix the issue? Bali88 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps add paragraph breaks so that the only content in the bold timestamped paragraphs is what can be seen, indisputably, in the referenced videos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

hello welcome to teahouse you can open that page and click on edit and change your timeline i hope this answer would help you12:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)12:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~

There is serious problem with using bolding (or other typographic variation such as italics, underlining, colour, font, etc.) to convey meaning, it violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY. The information it attempts to convey is lost for users who depend on screen readers as such software does not convey typographic variations to the user. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Real Projective Line Page

Hello. I was a little confused about why ∞+∞ is not defined but ∞*∞ = ∞. This doesn’t make sense. I believe both should be left undefined (for now) and i think 0*∞ , ∞/∞ , and 0/0 should be defined as C where C is a constant. Idk if this constant could be infinity but I certainly think these should be defined. if a/0 = ∞*b then that implies a/b = ∞*0. A similar proof could be done with the others. Am i allowed to change the page or add a note because this is more of an idea but idk if this is 100% correct (maybe a note to the right of the equation?)

From, Michael Orwin

75.129.112.17 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Michael, I hate to pass you off to another locale, but you might get better responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is where all the math experts hang out around here. Maybe someone there can help... --Jayron32 04:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ok. Hopefully someone responds tomorrow or Saturday morning. Don't know how quick wikipedia is. Never used wikipedia beforeJetstream5500 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, every article in Wikipedia has an associated Talk page (pick the 'Talk' tab at the top) and that's the best place to start a discussion about the article. If nobody responds there, then this is one of the places to try, but the talk page is your first port of call. The answer to your question is emphaticaly, Yes, you are allowed to change the page: the worst that can happen (as long as you are not being obviously disruptive) is that omebody disagrees and reverts your change: then you can have a discussion with them on the talk page to try and reach consensus. But here, it doesn't sound like correcting an obvious error, but a difference in approach, so I would recommend the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a very informative answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Summerslam 2015

Please move Summerslam (2015) to SummerSlam (2015). At first you must link SummerSlam (2015) from other pages. Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it has been done. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

help required from experienced authors

hi sir, i just added the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arowana_Consulting which has been declined due to lack of sources of notability. I added a number of sources but wikipedia accepted only two. kindly help me finding more and please suggest if adding the links to pdf of certifications acquired by the company could be of some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelrini2 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rachelrini2. No, pdf's of certifications acquired by the company are completely irrelevant to establishing notability. A Wikipedia article must be 100% based on published information, and mostly - maybe 90% - based on what other people have said about the subject. The The Hindu article is fine as a reliable, independent source - but it only mentions Arowana in passing. You need to find places where people who are nothing to do with Arowana have written at length about it, and had their writing about it published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. If you cannot find such places, then it is impossible to write a useful article about the company, and so it is not permitted to try. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My page is about to be deleted

Hi, i am Manuel98 T and i created a page for a Greek player called Alexandros Tanidis and everytime above my page i see a message about my page. It's about deletion of my page. The same happened one week ago when i put an image and i was been reported because my image was copyright (as they said), and now i created my page again and now i have a message about Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Tell me what i have to do to keep my page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuel98 T (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Manuel, and welcome. The concern is that Tanidis "has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league." Because of this, other editors think it will be hard to keep an article about him up to date and accurate, which is one of our goals on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss this with other editors, you can contribute on this page, but it's likely that Tanidis simply doesn't meet our minimum requirements for having an article. Shii (tock) 15:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Emoji

How to make them on Wiki? Is there a key? Chrislamic.State (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chrislamic.State and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that Wikipedia:Emoticons is the page you are looking for. w.carter-Talk 21:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly W.carter! Chrislamic.State (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To contradict

My article has been declined and don't seem to get what is wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Wizard (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Royal Wizard. You haven't told us which article it is that has been declined (and I don't see any in your history). If you mean the edits you made to Padrauna, they were all reverted because you did not give any source for them, and some of them were rather subjective and not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The adventure game didn't work!?

Hi!!! Please help me… I tried and tried,but the game never started, but I managed to click on "mission".Oh,and by the way,I'm Grace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.248.198.4 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How???????

No big deal!Only I don't know how to go to the game.When I pressed on tea house, I came here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.248.198.4 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I get my article to live?

Hi there,

I am very new to Wikipedia in terms of creating my own articles. Just wondering, could you help me with regards to getting my article to go live? I'm not sure what exactly is missing but I have tried to add as much information and references as I could.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliyas Hafiz (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Iliyas Hafiz. You get it reviewed by inserting {{subst:submit}} into the top of it. But don't do that yet, because it will not be accepted. As a general rule, every single piece of information in an article needs to be individually referenced to a reliable published source, and most of it to sources unconnected with the subject. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding External Links

Hello! I am the personal assistant to author Jillian Lauren, and have been asked by the author to add more external links to her Wikipedia Biography. The links are all content from verified sources and syndications, and are all articles that will help readers further understand the subject they are researching. I added the links and they were taken down. How can I keep the external links on her page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarreyn (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tarreyn. I'm afraid that the simple fact is that neither you nor Lauren have any kind of control over that article. It is governed by Wikipedia's policies (in this case, specifically external links), and the consensus of editors. Wikipedia is very sparing with external links: while a link to a subject's official website is encouraged, very few others are allowed. As somebody with a conflict of interest you are certainly allowed to argue (on the talk page) for the inclusion of a link (or any other material), but in the end you need to bow to the consensus. In my opinion far more important than adding links is to find some more reliable independent sources. At present, in my view, there is precisely one substantial independent reliable source cited (the New York Post) - the rest are all either minor (mentions in passing) or not independent (I've not listened to the Nerdist podcast, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source) - and so the article is liable to be deleted for not establishing notability. --ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)