Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, 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

RMOS Consultancy profile creation in wikipedia ?

Hi why i am not able to create a profile for my firm in wikipedia ? my account got suspended everytime i try to do so / plz help!

thanks in advance! RMOS Consultancy RMOS Consultancy (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of company profiles. If your company is sufficiently notable for the encyclopedia to need an article about it, then someone else will write one in due course. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hispano and Hispanos

We have an article titled Hispano and another one titled Hispanos, which is the ordinary plural of Hispano. They are on different though related topics, and they don't even cross-refer for disambiguation. IMHO that's a mess.

In fact, there's a lot more mess than that; see Talk:Hispanos § NOT a term or ethnic group. But the title issue is my main reason for bringing the topic here. Can anyone advise or help on it? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice

I recently found out how to use Edit notices, but I could not add one to my talk page. When I tried to create page User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice, it says that it is supposed to be the talk page of "Imfrankliu/Editnotice". How can I add an Edit notice to my talk page? Frank (User Page) (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Imfrankliu. Edit notices are created by a template placed in the wikicode at the top of the page in question, not on another page. Please read Wikipedia:Editnotice where the technical details are explained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No Cullen328, User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice is correct. I see it has been created now. What was the exact message you got there about "Imfrankliu/Editnotice"? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frank, it looks like you figured it out: The Edit notice you created before posting above was User:Imfrankliu/Editnotice not User talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice. So the message you received was to alert you of that wrongunexpected filename. —teb728 t c 04:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, PrimeHunter TEB728. I decided to create User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice anyway, and it seemed to work. Thanks! Frank (User Page) (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

how to delelete history on ios app

I want to remove any Wikipedia footprints from my iPhone ios7, so that when I loan the phone someone won't be able to see what I've been up to. So far, the only thing I can think of is uninstalling the app, and then reinstalling. Is there another, "built-in" way to do this? More generally, is there a tutorial or "odds and ends" page? Thanks!184.66.104.13 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The Teahouse is for asking questions and getting answers about editing Wikipedia. Your question seems to be about how to remove or hide your usage history from an Apple device. I think that the experts in Cupertino who work for Apple are better able to answer your question than we are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an iPhone but I think the question is not about the builtin browser by Apple but about the Wikipedia Mobile app by Wikimedia Foundation, linked on iPhone at Help:Mobile access#Official apps. If you don't get an answer here then you can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls?

On the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberal_Party_%28UK,_1999%29 , user Emeraude has taken it upon himself to defame the party as a far-right organisation, and refuses to accept evidence to the contrary. He has demonstrated behaviour that in any other context, would be considered trolling and/or slander. What can be done about this? I have previously tried discussing this issue with him, but without success. Rhialto (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you to discuss on the article talk page. There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Also, assume good faith and please do not characterize differences of opinion as trolling. If discussion on the talk page does not resolve the matter, the dispute resolution policy identifies several venues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find a reliable source describing the party's politics and use an inline citation for any changes you make to the infobox. Or are inline citations recommended against when inside infoboxes? (I haven't been a serious editor in a long time, but I'm thinking of coming back, but my knowledge of style and policy is probably rusty.) (And of course, other editors are expected to always provide verifiable citations as well.) 72.204.168.159 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rhialto. When you accuse another editor of serious misconduct, as you have regarding Emeraude here, you should inform that person. I have just done so, because it is important for any editor to know when they are being attacked. The issue is how to accurately describe a tiny political party that has received only a handful of votes in a few elections. It may be that no source which is reliable for evaluating political ideologies has commented on the ideology of this party, since it is so small. It seems clear that many of the individual leaders of this party have "far right" backgrounds. The question is whether or not that is sufficient to describe the ideology of the party itself that way. In my opinion, that is not sufficient, and a reliable source stating that explicitly is needed. I am inviting Carrite, an editor with lots of experience working on political party articles, to comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jim and all. To find an answer to this matter I popped by the fascist website Stormfront.org and ran a little search of their message board archive, which ultimately led me to THIS piece on the NLP. It's a National Front splinter, so "Far Right" is an accurate description, but seem to favor a multi-cultural ethnic-nationalism-for-all approach that needs to be considered seriously. My advice is to accept the nominal identification but to really work to explain the group's ideology, which seems to be more complex than run-of-the-mill White Nationalism. Hope this helps, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly true that, many years ago, a couple of the individuals involved in the party had far-right associations. However, that was before the party was even founded. This is comparable to, for example, describing the German Nazi party as a far-left party due to a historical association with some left-wing movements. It might be "technically correct", but it gives an entirely wrong impression of what they were about and what they did. Emeraude has chosen to disregard evidence such as the party's "shop local" campaigns and statements in the party's manifesto, as well as adding entirely unsourced statements to claim the party is elitist, monarchist, and anti-Russian. It is telling that almost half of the entire article discusses events that happened before the party even existed.

I have tried on more than one occasion to add cited references to the article, but as Emneraude has reverted them each time, it became an exercise in futility. Rhialto (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Eugenio B. Bito-onon Jr. turned for for lack of notability

This article was turned down by the reviewer for lack of notability. I tried asking the reviewer for clarification, but haven't gotten a reply. I reviewed the general notability and notability guidelines for politicians, and I believe that the person in question does qualify. Bito-onon played an important role in the establishment of the 1st and only permanent Filipino civilian settlement in the highly disputed Spratly Islands. He's been interviewed multiple times by international media. He's made a tour of the US, giving talks, interviews and meeting several US officials along the way (How many mayors from the Philippines do that? This information isn't very encyclopedic so I haven't added too much info: I would basically have to find each specific mention of an US official from pics, etc, and add that to support the claim about meeting with multiple US officials, such as this photo caption "PENTAGON MEETING. Kalayaan Mayor Eugenio Bito-onon (3rd from left) meets with Dennis McGinn (4th), the US Navy's assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment, accompanied by members of the US Pinoys for Good Governance on September 28, 2015.") Photo courtesy of Eric Lachica/USPGG) I'm not sure if this is the proper forum to ask, but I'd like to get more feedback from others on whether this person is notable. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fraenir and welcome to the Teahouse. Being the mayor of a fairly small community may not pass the notability guideline for politicians. However, it looks to me as if this draft passes the General notability guideline. I don't have time for a full review at the moment, but I will do one soon. However there are a few points I would like you to clean up.

1. You have shortened footnotes pointing to "Hayton" and "Kaplan" but these aren't linking properly. Please see WP:SFN and Help:Shortened footnotes for how to format these so that the notes link to the actual refs. I have made an edit and I think it fixes this, but please double check. (When i started this comment I thought the sources weren't listed, I didn't look at the "Further Reading" section.)
2. Many of the online sources have only partial metadata. Please list the work in which the article was published, the author (if known) and the publication date or year (if known), and the page number for sources in print or PDF format or any format where a page number is relevant.

If the above is done I will probably approve this when I have a chance to review fully. Perhaps SwisterTwister. the experienced editor who declined the draft last week, would care to comment. DES ^(talk) 15:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I really appreciate it!

1. I understand that most small community leaders will not qualify for notability guideline for politicians; however, if I'm not mistaken, he should still pass #2 (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage). and #3 (Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".)? Are all 3 points required to pass notability guideline for politicians? I highly doubt this, as it appears point #2 was created specifically to deal with cases such as Bito-onon. I'm just asking these questions because I want to understand these policies a bit better.
2. I'll try to make those fixes to the best of my ability. If you have any other concerns about the presentation or content of the article, please let me know. Fraenir (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct, Fraenir, passing any one of the specific criteria, or passing the WP:GNG (which is basically point 3) is enough, there is no need to pass all of them, This is generally true with all the subject-specific notability criteria, passing any point from any of them, or the GNG, is normally enough. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, so what is required to pass #2 (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage)? Does major here mean 1. "A local political figure of an important place", 2. "A local political figure of high standing" or 3. "A local political figure with importance beyond the office"? #2 doesn't make sense, and #1 almost means that notability lies with the office and not the person, so #3 should be the most reasonable interpretation? Fraenir (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fraenir. In my opinion, WP:POLITICIAN is the wrong tool for evaluating the notability of this particular person. The New York Times does not normally write several times about and interview the mayors of tiny villages. The same is true of other worldwide media organizations. He is notable because he is the senior Philippine government official on the actual front lines of the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. This is an issue of great importance and potential danger in international relations, and in my opinion, Wikipedia ought to have a biography of this person. I also invite SwisterTwister to comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I have accepted the draft. DES ^(talk) 11:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

how to tag word,people,place or else~~

how can i tag work, place, names, animals on my article?Faizan mumeed (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Faizan mumeed: and welcome to the Teahouse!

First, as an important frame of reference, it is not "your" article - it is a Wikipedia encyclopedia article that anyone can edit.

But to your actual question, I am not sure what you mean by "tag" but you can "link" to another Wikipedia article in the body of an article by placing the article title in double brackets like this [[ARTICLE NAME]]. But do not link every word, only the important ones. We also have a system of WP:CATEGORY that use double braces brackets [[Category:American male journalists]] at the bottom of an article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

School block

Materaialscientist blocks some IP vandals as school block. Someone posts on IP talk page,"WHOIS" message, that the IP belongs to school. Wikipedia must have a bot which will automatically tag this WHOIS school IPs. The Avengers (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, The Avengers, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not automatically block all school IP Addresses, only ones that have a significant history of vandalism or abuse. In general, blocking requires some judgement, so it is not normally done by a bot. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that The Avengers was asking for them to be blocked, but for a bot to automatically add the message on the talk pages of school IPs. - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that will help us identify User IPs from school/college IPs.--The Avengers (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear what to me what User:The Avengers is requesting be done by a bot, or whether it can be done by a bot. Interpreting a WHOIS is normally done by a human, and some of the interfaces to WHOIS use a CAPTCHA to block their use by bots. Not all school blocks are identified as school blocks. It appears that adding a school block identification to an IP address is done after there has been administrator attention. Is there a reason that we need to identify school IP addresses if they aren't being used for vandalism? The Avengers refers to user IPs as opposed to school IPs. Do they mean IPs that are assigned to ISPs for dynamic assignment to users? It isn't clear what is being requested, or whether it is a task that can easily be done by a bot, or why a bot is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review the page NEXA

Dear editors, I request you all to visit my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexa and help me in making it more efficient. I have taken care of all the parameters for making this page. I will appreciate the helps of any kind. Thank you Edito Freak (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Edito Freak: I don't believe that you took into account the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT as parameters that must be followed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@TRPoD, I will take into due consideration the points you raised. I am working on them and I believe to improve myself and my contributions.

Thank You Edito Freak (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Edito Freak: you will need to remove pretty much everything : "premium" , "leading" , claims of "new" "first" "innovative" "only" . everything only supported by Press releases. etc etc.

any other analysis must be attributed to the person making the analysis, and those analysts must be noted professionals from reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with TRPoD regarding judicious use of the term "premium" in the article NEXA; per multiple reliable sources cited, that seems to be a term for a class of automobiles, apparently analagous to the "luxury" automobile classification used in the United States. (I'm afraid I am not familiar with terms used for different classes of vehicles in other English-speaking markets.) Thus "premium" is here descriptive rather than evaluative, and does not in itself violate NPOV. The article as a whole does still contain other promotional language which needs to be removed or rewritten, even though both Edito Freak (who created the article) and I have removed some. However, on the whole, with sufficient references to reliable sources, substantial coverage by same, and a base of facts beneath the veneer of promotional puffery, the article seems to be shaping up well. It may well be that the topic seems like it shouldn't meet Wikipedia's notability standard, but the sources cited indicate that it does. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

we wouldnt use the descriptor "luxury" for US car without specifically attributing it to reliable sources either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What's happened to my article

I wrote an article, titled "Southern 80", a few weeks ago, but now I'm not sure what's happened to it. I believe I submitted it for checking and then publishing, and it said it might take a few days, but I'm not sure what's happened - and I'm finding the Wikipedia user interface a bit awkward to use/overwhelming. So hoping someone can point me in the right directionJminchin80 (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jminchin80. It's here. --John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jminchin80! For future reference, you can always access your contributions list by clicking the "Contributions" link at the top-right of every page. In this case, your contributions are viewable at Special:Contributions/Jminchin80. As John mentioned, your article draft appears to be here — and it doesn't look like you've submitted it for review. You can do so by placing {{subst:Submit}} at the top of the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, it has not been submitted for review. If I were reviewing it in its current state, I would not accept it. It's quite well written, but unfortunately good prose is not what qualifies an article for publication. You need reliable, independent sources writing about it in detail. Your sources are not that. The sponsoring club is not independent, and a magazine published by an insurance company is of dubious reliability. What you need are magazine (mainstream magazines, not trade or advertising publications) or newspaper stories. Water skiing a couple miles killed me, even as a teen. Can't imagine doing it for a hundred miles. Good luck. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks very much for your feedback. I did have that concern when I submitted the article, regarding references. For a niche activity like this, which does not feature in mainstream media, nor for which there are any books published, how would you suggest I find some reliable sources? I can try to use the newspaper from the town which the water-skiing event is held, but apart from this sources do not exist. Look forward to your response, and thanks again for the help. Jminchin80 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, coverage in mainstream media is pretty much what qualifies a subject for an article. Lacking coverage in magazines, books, newspapers, tv & radio news, or trusted academic journals, a subject just doesn't qualify for an article. For certain subjects, and events are one, that coverage has to be from a widespread area. So Altho adding things from the local paper will not hurt, it may not get you over the hurdle either. FYI, I did decline your article, and in the process of reviewing it, moved it to Draft:Southern 80. John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

George Bell (bishop)#Child abuse allegations: 1. Questionable editing practices, 2. POV

Hello. George Bell (1883-1958) rightly enjoys a high standing for his courageous stance against area bombing during the 2nd World War, and later against expulsions of ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. But as of this month it would seem that he was also a child abuser. I have two concerns about coverage of this emerging story on Wikipedia.

1. On two occasions (2015-09-08 and 2015-10-26) an IP has made an unencyclopedic edit and then undone it themselves a minute later. These IPs seem to have a reason for doing this, but it's not clear to me. Is this acceptable behaviour? If not, does something need to be done about it?

2. I'm considering placing a POV flag for the first time, as I think the current version casts more doubts on the allegations than can be justified by the sources. Should I just be bold and do this, or should I talk it through with someone first? GroupCohomologist (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GroupCohomologist.

1. I don't know what the IP's reason for doing what you describe could have been, unless it was something like a kid playing around on mom's or dad's computer and making unencyclopedic edits, which the parent then reverted.

2. If I was you I'd just be bold and do it. Accusing someone (even posthumously) of being a child abuser, or anything else along that line, without having reliable sources to back it up is slander. He may have been a child abuser and he may not have, but until we have more sources we can't know. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Given that high quality sources including The Guardian and the BBC are reporting that compensation has been paid to the victim, and that a police investigation stated that Bell would be arrested if he was still alive, and that the Church of England has issued a formal apology for Bell's conduct, I think that the sourcing is very strong, White Arabian mare. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that GroupCohomologist was saying that we were not stressing the accusations strongly enough, that we were saying less thqan the sources warrant, Cullen328. By the way, White Arabian mare in US (and I believe UK) law, it is not possible to slander or libel a dead person, as I understand it. DES ^(talk) 00:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In those cases, the accusations need to be stressed more strongly. I'm going to say that in general, though, I don't really like cleanup tagging and almost never use it; to me it's easier just to fix the problem. Most of the time it seems like the tags just languish indefinitely and don't get removed even if the issue is cleared up. :( White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Thank you very much to White Arabian mare, Cullen328 and DESiegel for taking time to comment. I had "brevity is the sould of wit" drummed into me as a child; but unfortunately this time I was so concise that my concerns were unclear at first. Sorry about that.

May I trouble you with some more detail on my first concern? The story officially broke on 2015-10-22, but earlier on 2015-09-08 a MAC address pre-announced the story: factually accurate, but phrased in an unencyclopedic way and of course unsourced. Two minutes later they removed their own contribution. Then on 2015-10-26 an IP address added a (potentially libellous) PA on the victim, deleting their own contribution one minute later. Of course, the AGF explanation would be that both editors quickly realised that they had made an honest mistake. But the bad faith explanation would be that this is a neat way to get your message out to those watching the page, who can't easily answer back. Is this legitimate behaviour, or is it gaming the system? GroupCohomologist (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

GroupCohomologist there is no way to know what the IP editor's motive was, nor is there much of anything we could do about it even if we thought the motive was to "game the system". However, such an almost instantly self-reverted post isn't a very effective way to "get the word out" as only those who read the article history will ever see it (which usually means only those who edit, many of whom will know better than to accept unsourced info anyway), and Google and other search engines are very unlikely to pick it up. And anyone watching the page could post on the talk page about the edit, with a link to the diff, if it seemed worth responding to. One could also post on the IP's talk page. DES ^(talk) 13:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanny I believe this should be a disambiguation page, but i can't change the title CokeAndVodka (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @CokeAndVodka: welcome to the Teahouse!

The page in question is in fact a disambiguation page. It just does not have a disambiguation (in parens) after its name - because there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which would be appropriate to place in the un-disambiguated use of the name.

For your overall question, articles are not "renamed" - they need to be moved to a different name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi CokeAndVodka. That is a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are only given the parenthetical addition "(disambiguation) if the base title – the title without any embellishment – has a primary topic. So for example, if a particular title has four topics people might be searching for, about equally, then when they type that topic into the search and land on the page listing all four (a disambiguation page at the base title), they can reach their goal upon a second action of clicking on the one of the four they were seeking.

However, if 92% [for example] of all people who type a term or phrase into the search engine are looking for only one of four topics by the same title, it would inconvenience many more people to have to "click twice" if the base term led to a disambiguation page. So the article on that much-more-likely-to-be-searched-for topic (the "primary topic") is at the base name, the disambiguation page is given a title with "(disambiguation)" added (and a hatnote is added at the top of the primary topic base page directing the other 8% to the disambiguation page). Make sense? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Snow Bowl (2008)

The originating unregistered editor requested, at the Help Desk, a review of Draft:Snow Bowl (2008). I neither declined nor accepted, but used the Comment feature to ask questions that, in my view, involved notability. The unregistered editor has now asked me to explain in the article draft and on their talk page at more length. Since this forum is the usual place for discussing declined drafts, I am asking for the opinion of other reviewers and experienced editors here. It isn't clear from the draft why the game is notable as a Snow Bowl, because there is nothing unusual about playing American football in light snow under slightly-below-freezing conditions. Maybe I should have done a lot more research into when there should be articles about individual post-season games before the Super Bowl. In any case, I am asking for comments by other editors here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• valid decline non promotion the New York Daily News is a tabloid and a single reference to that publication does not establish that the subject has received significant coverage from reliably published sources that are independent of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

About references

WikiPedia asks for references. In the article there are at least 3 external hyperlinks that appoints to the existnce of this person. Why are these hyperlinks denied by saying there are none ?? 81.205.214.61 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

These two edits to this question are the only posts that have been made from your IP address. If a draft was declined, I would suggest that you, first, provide a link to the draft, and, second, register an account to facilitate discussion and a contribution history. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia requires not merely links that "demonstrate" the existence, but reliably published sources with a reputation for accuracy, subject matter expertise and editorial oversight that are not related to the subject and have found the subject worthy of discussing in a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

To be a "reference", those reliable sources spoken of are not just listed in a vacuum. It is not a "reference" unless it's ... well ... being used as a reference. A "link" could be to an extremely reliable source, as described above, but it would still not be a "reference" as we mean it, simply by virtue of its listing in some ambiguous manner alongside the content. Rather, a reference is a special kind of listing where we are telling readers, in effect, "this source we are listing corroborates (verifies) the information in this article". Ideally, pointers to references are done through the use of inline citations, so you can tell exactly where the information in some specific portion of text can be corroborated. When a link is places in an "external links" section, "further reading" section, or otherwise does not explicitly indicate it is "a reference", it would be folly to treat them as references and so we don't. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline of Draft:Bukarester FC

I declined Draft:Bukarester FC at Articles for Creation, and have been asked by User:Alexiulian25 on my talk page why I declined it. As I explained in my decline, I didn't see adequate evidence of notability, including that it wasn't clear that the team met the fully professional standards of WP:NFOOTY. (I realize that those rules are primarily meant for players, but I was using them for a team also.) The submitter says that the team is notable, but there isn't a whole lot of information on it because it only existed a few years before it folded during World War One. I realize that means that there is a shortage of reliably sourced independent coverage. I also noted that the article would require heavy copy-editing for grammar. What is the opinion of other reviewers and experienced editors? Was I justified in asking the author to include more information, such as at least a clear statement that the team was in Liga, and was I justified in expecting the submitter to request the heavy copy-editing before submission? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• valid decline the article fails to establish the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• valid decline I agree with TRPoD. Nowhere near notable enough. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

move proposal

Am I allowed to make a move proposal as an I.P. without an account? 92.19.28.191 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Although it is always best to make your account and get registered, as far as my Wikipedia understanding of policies is concerned anyone can propose that but you must have a good reason for that. Any autoconfirmed experienced editor may then move it on your behalf. Hope that helps. JugniSQ (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So you may request page move. JugniSQ (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Am new editor, have seen note that my article has close paraphrasing, but no info/detail is included. How to resolve?

I have just posted my first article on Wikipedia. The article was an original piece of work, with many references added. None of the article was cut and pasted or copied from elsewhere. However, there is now a banner that says the article contains "close paraphrasing". I have no idea which section of the article is being referred to, but I definitely have not "closely paraphrased" anything ... how do I clear this issue up and remove the banner? Thanks. WikiForester (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Continuous Cover Forestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, WikiForester, and welcome to the Teahouse. The tag was added by Adam9007. You can leave a message for that editor on User talk:Adam9007, or perhaps he or she will see this thread and respond here as to what sections of the article included close paraphrasing of what sources or works. The article history shows what user made which changes, and can often be used to reach out to the editor who made a change, asking for reasons. It is good practice in such a case to leave a comment on the article talk page with more detail than a tag can provide, to aid editors who wish to fix issues raised in a tag. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiForester, the copyvio detection tool finds significant overlap with http://www.ccfg.org.uk and with https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260031518_Continuous_cover_forestry_in_Britain_challenges_and_opportunities. You might want to check for similar phrases and sentence structures with those sites. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

As per DESiegel, you can use the copyvio detection tool to see where the similarities are with which web pages. Adam9007 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Adam9007, when you tag an article and an editor then asks why, it would be helpful to indicate what sort of problems you actually found. This is especially true with a comparatively new editor, as per WP:BITE. For the matter of that, it would really be better practice in a case like this for you to have proactively left a note on Talk:Continuous Cover Forestry describing the issues you found in more detail than a tag supports. I do this frequently. Moreover, while the copyvio detection tool is excellent at detecting actual copying, it is not as good at finding close paraphrasing, and my use of it was merely a guess at what you might have found. Please tell us at least what works you found paraphrasing of that induced you to place the tag. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, but I am the co-author of the paper you quote, and do not feel there is an issue with the close paraphrasing. I wrote the article in my own style and added all the references I thought necessary. There is no copyright issue and there is no issue with the underlying ideas. So, I really do not feel that "close paraphrasing" applies. Grateful for any further clarification or preferably remove of the tag for "close paraphrasing". Thanks for your help. WikiForester (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiForester, do understand that even if you were the sole author of the paper, given that it had been previously published, Wikipedia will treat it as copyrighted and will not allow it to be copied from or closely paraphrased unless it is freely released. See Donating Copyrighted Material for details on how to do that. I have often speedy-deleted direct copies of other sites even though the posting editor says that s/he runs the site and wrote the content. For one thing we need to verify that, and for another we need a clear release. DES ^(talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed more of the concerns raised by editors, thanks for careful review, but now want to remove the messages and headers. For example, there is no longer close paraphrasing, no longer a lack of links to other wiki pages and also there are additional references in all the locations suggested by the editors. A wide range of sources all freely available as downloads have been carefully selected. There remains the issue of linking from other websites ... but that is a job I will have to do another time. Thanks for helping to now clean up the page and remove the notices WikiForester (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @WikiForester: I had a look and it seems as if you dealt with the close paraphrasing issue nicely (at least the tool is happy now). I've also removed the COI tag as that is only appropriate if the topic is being discussed in a biased way, which I can't see in the article. That leaves the lack of wikilinks to and from other articles, but that shouldn't be too hard address with a bit of casting around. Once that is done, you can remove the respective tags from the article yourself (it's the first four lines). Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Am not sure if the person am writing about is notable or not.

Need your help regarding article on an important personality.Rakeshpathai (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

no one still respondingRakeshpathai (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rakeshpathai. You only have two edits logged under this account, the two above. Were you working on something that got deleted? Or were you using another account? Who is the person and what is the evidence that they are an "important personality"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you would include the name of the person? or a link? Jaldous1 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Also please realize that like you, everyone here is a volunteer, with real life demands on their time. Attitude like demanding an answer in 7 minutes will get you nowhere in this volunteer collaborative project. John from Idegon (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

am new here, so wasn't sure how this works. I just tried to draft the article, am not sure whether it saved or not.

Its titled Doctor Bhagwan Das PathaiRakeshpathai (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rakeshpathai. That would be Draft:Doctor Bhagwan Das Pathai. Please remember to write in full sentences in a Wikipedia article. "He was married on 28 September 1982." not "Married: 28 September 1982" for example. This draft mis a start, but it needs to explain why this person is significant. Not every doctor will have a Wikipedia article. As part of that, and particularity important, you need to cite reliable sources, especially sources that are independent of the subject. This means not blogs or personal websites, not the site of his employers or partners, not press releases, but newspapers, reputable magazines, or other sources with editorial control and a good reputation for accuracy. This should include multiple sources that each discuss the subject in some detail, say several paragraphs at a minimum. See Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Your First Article, Notability of biographies, and Referencing for Beginners. When you think the draft is ready for formal review, place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to all: I sent Rakeshpathi a talk message explaining that the Teahouse, and Wikipedia, is edited entirely by volunteers on volunteered time. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Archive

How can I set up an archive for my talk page - FOX 52 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a very thorough tutorial at Help:Archiving a talk page. —2macia22 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

about adding an article

Hello guys, I am trying to create an article about an Ethiopian personality, who I admire so much. But I don't have any permission from that person. I don't think it is harmful to his career, infact, it can promote him world wide. So is there any way that I can post an article on his biography on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawit Tesfa (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dawit Tesfa, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best way to start a new article is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article and to make use of the article wizard. You don't need someone's permission to write an article about them, but also note that neither should you be using a Wikipedia article to promote an individual. Articles need to be written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and should include a balanced treatment of the subject - including, where relevant, criticism. You also need to consider whether the person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which require substantial coverage of a subject in reliable third-party sources before a Wikipedia article can be written. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It actually seems that you have already started the article, at User:Dawit Tesfa/sandbox. You need to address the concerns expressed there, which led to the draft article being declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry gave you some good advice. To add, a test I often recommend to help determine a subject's notability is the amnesia test:

1. Forget everything you know about the subject you want to write about—act as if you know nothing.
2. Go online (or your library or wherever) and do research on the subject, focusing more closely on third-party news sources and less on sources affiliated with the subject; be sure to check the reliability of the sources
3. From your research, and your research only, write an article
4. If you find that there are few or no sources to use, the subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

If you need any help, feel free to ask at this Teahouse again! Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

References cleanup - where is the Reflinks tool now?

What happened to the Reflinks tool for references cleanup? Is there something else available now to do these tasks? --Djembayz (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Djembayz. It has turned into reFill, available under Tools at the left hand side of pages. It has some limitations (Internet Explorer doesn't cooperate and put's # in instead) and some editors will revert it because of the way it formats some things. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Will give it a try and see if it gets reverted. --Djembayz (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Djembayz and StarryGrandma: Reflinks is available at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py I believe that reFill is a similar tool from a different person. I had to set an item in my preferences to get reflinks to appear on the left side tool list, it is there now. Reflinks also has some limitations -- it tends to stuff things into title that should be separate, but it is usually an improvement over a bare url cite. DES ^(talk) 13:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Djembayz and DESiegel: Thanks DES! I tried it on my Samples page and it does a much better job. First it leaves one in the editor after making changes making it easy to fix up, and shows the diff so you can see just what happened. It uses "publisher=" for the publisher instead of "work=". I couldn't find anything to set in preferences but copied this from your common.js to mine:

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
$(function () {
 mw.util.addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + mw.config.get('wgPageName')
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=20&lang=" + mw.config.get('wgContentLanguage'),
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

StarryGrandma (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ready to go live?

Hi, I have put together a well-sourced article about a notable person: the first East Asian elected to a national legislature in the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Victor_Evan_Wong

I'm not sure I've used the <ref> tags correctly, since they are not automatically turning into footnotes, except in one case, and there's a message saying I haven't closed one of the pairs, but I can't find where the problem is.

I have more than 10 edits on other pages. I'm not sure what the next step is. Can you help/advise? I don't know if I should Move this now to article status, wait for another editor to do so, or tear this up and repost throughout the "first article" template, which I tried but also found hard to use.

Sorry to be so clueless about the technical details, but I feel the substance of my article is notable, independently-sourced, neutral, etc. I'm just having trouble with the mechanics necessary to get this into the review process.

comment added by Sprucegrouse (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sprucegrouse. I've copyedited the draft. This is how a citation is made:

<ref>details of source</ref>

→ That is, there's an opening ref tag (<ref>) and a closing ref tag (</ref>; note the forward slash).

Do not use <nowiki> around the ref tags. That's for telling the code not to treat wiki markup as code, as in your use above to show the ref tag, rather than having it manifest its function. Another issue was that in order for these tags to properly display, you needed a references section, with code there to tell the software "this is where to display the references". I've added that using the template {{reflist}}. You were also attempting to place various things you see in other articles by a "homemade" method. For example a table of contents is automatically generated (when an article has four or more sections) – that is, you don't make one, the software does. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Fuhghettaboutit!

What next? May I move it to another area for review?

Sprucegrouse (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sprucegrouse. You now need to introduce proper wiki-links, as I did in this edit. Find a term which has a Wikipedia article, and which it might help the reader to know more about and make a link by adding double square brackets around the target term, like this: [[Target]]. Don't over-do this. If an article includes a phrase like "The door of the house was painted green." it is not helpful to link "door", as that would be of use to most readers. You can also find and add additional reliable sources if any are available, but the sources already present are probably sufficient. The formatting can be improved a bit, for example, titles of works should be in italics such as The Daily Argosy (not just The Daily Argosy). When you think it is ready for formal review, place {{subst:submit}} (without the nowiki and code tags) at the top of the page. There is no need to move the draft, if it is approved the reviewer will do that for you. DES ^(talk) 18:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. I appreciate all your help. I took the tutorial for beginners, which was also very helpful, so I should be a little better at the basics now. My article is now in line for review, about 500 articles back in the queue.Sprucegrouse (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Advice on article rejected for notability?

Hello, I've been working hard on getting the article Draft:Wei_Dai published:

• Worked on the article for a while before submitting for review.
• After the initial rejection, I made dozens of improvements.
• I asked the reviewer for suggestions, but never got a response.
• Did my best to read through WP:REFBEGIN and WP:PEOPLE and find reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• I asked for more info on the "Articles for creation help desk". No reply.
• I contacted other editors who are working on related articles, but did not receive any constructive advice.
• After many more edits, moving my user space version to Draft: namespace and merging content from existing draft, I submitted the article again. It was rejected.

Part of the problem here is that it is difficult to establish notability for a cypherpunk who deliberately avoided media attention, interviews, etc.

Considering the influence his projects have had, plus the many sources which do mention him (although briefly), I am confused what more is needed?

Reliable sources that are independent of the subject:

• New York Times.
• Wall Street Journal.
• The Sunday Times.
• The Register.
• Business Insider.
• The Washington Post.
• Engadget.
• IEEE Spectrum.
• University of Maryland, Department of Mathematics.
• Journal of Peer Production
• Unenumerated - Blog of world-famous cryptographer Nick Szabo
• International Association for Cryptologic Research.

I'm close to giving up... am I wasting my time with this? -- JonathanCross (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JonathanCross. I'm afraid you may be. I haven't looked at your references, but just on the basis of what you've written here, somebody who has "deliberately avoided media attention" may well not be notable. You say "the many sources which do mention him (albeit briefly)" (emphasis mine). Brief mentions are not generally enough to establish notability. I am become increasingly clear that "notability" is a very unfortunate word for the Wikipedia concept, because people repeatedly assume (reasonably) that it means famous, influential, significant, popular or some thing like that. It doesn't mean any of these. The way I think of it is that it means "there is enough independent, reliably published, material about the subject to make it possible to write an article on the subject". If Wei Dai is often mentioned in articles on something else, he may well appear in a Wikipedia article about that something else; but do those mentions, even taken together, allow one to put anything significant into the article. As I say, I haven't looked at your references - this is just in response to what you've said above. I hope this helps. --ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response ColinFine.

"there is enough independent, reliably published, material about the subject to make it possible to write an article on the subject"

(Emphasis on the word "enough" added by me)

There is a lot of sourced information there, so it doesn't seem to be a quantity issue from what I can tell, but more that subject does not have mainstream articles about him as a person. Do their accomplishments not count towards notability?

do those mentions, even taken together, allow one to put anything significant into the article

Would you mind taking a look at the draft? (I of course feel there is an abundance of "significant" information in the article. :-)

If it is true that Wikipedia will not allow this article to be published (shame), then I'd like to somehow alert others not to waste their time the way I did. Can I add a note on Talk:Wei_Dai pointing to the draft? -- JonathanCross (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Jonathan. No, I think an article is possible here – and you're close. Some possible additional sources for you to mine from (I haven't looked in depth at these, just giving you some options): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. For the book sources you might use the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books to easily get the citation to place (though I always tweak its output, usually adding location information; changing the name format to last, first; changing the exact publication date to just the year; and most importantly, the page parameter always needs fixing: either add an end page for the range, or remove the en-dash – then hit make citation and copy the code). This is more of a general note, but to the extent relevant remove any extra citations to less reliable sources where they are just added to give a veneer of more sources. That detracts from articles, makes them more difficult to review and is actually a red flag for reviewers that often correlates to non-notability by overcompensation for lack of reliable, in-depth sourcing existing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I'll check out those references (seems they are considered more reputable) and remove some of the less notable ones as you suggest. Cheers, -- JonathanCross (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Wei Dai is certainly notable enough for an article. Jaldous1 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

He seems notable to me too. He's relevant for several things, which means a separate article may be preferable over mentioning him in another article (on a topic he is relevant to). Avoiding media in itself doesn't mean he can't be notable; there seems a lot of coverage anyway, and he doesn't necessarily need to be the main topic of reports, as long as his role in the main topic of those reports is significant. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability per WP:BASIC. Gap9551 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia support javascript...

...or html5? I think there is a way to use javascript, but I'm not sure. does <script></script> tag work? Also, does it support HTML5? I have never seen any animated pages except for those which used GIFs. Frank (User Page) (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frank, I think you would get a quicker and more accurate answer if you asked at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) instead. That is where all the tech-savvy editors hang out. :) w.carter-Talk 10:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Imfrankliu:: <script></script> does not work. A wikitext page cannot load JavaScript but there are special JavaScript pages ending in .js and not associated with specific wikitext pages. Some js pages like MediaWiki:Common.js are made by administrators and run for all users with JavaScript-enabled browsers. Some js pages run for users who have them enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Some only run for a user who made them for their own account, or others who choose to load them from the account of another user. See Wikipedia:Customisation and Wikipedia:User scripts. Wikitext only allows a limited subset of HTML. See Help:HTML in wikitext and Wikipedia:HTML5. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How to improve a page so it is not a candidate for speedy deletion

Hello,

I am new here, and am trying to create an article for a World sporting event. However, it was flagged for speedy deletion. I don't know why, the info was all factual, it wasn't "sales-y" and certainly not spammy or inaccurate. It was an event that reached 700,000 people on Facebook and continues to be very popular, so it's not like it's a "made up entity". Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Figure_Championship

Any advice on how to fix it up (and how to get rid of this tag) so it is not a candidate for speedy deletion would be great! :) I read the info but don't quite understand. Lakeplacidskater (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lakeplacidskater: If I were you, I would move the draft to the main page.
Your page meets the R2 criteria for speedy deletion: "Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces."
I am a new editor, too, so I hope my advice can be helpful. If not, please don't be mad! *sniff *sniff

Template:Newbie-biting

Frank (User Page) (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lakeplacidskater. On a personal note, I visited Lake Placid in 2003 and have fond memories of the Adirondacks. That being said, your article is completely lacking in references to reliable, independent sources, devoting significant coverage to the topic. Your only source is to the website of the event itself. That is not enough to keep the article. By the way, we don't care about how many people "like" anything on Facebook. Not a bit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Another factor to consider is that there is already a fairly comprehensive article at World Figure Skating Championships. Does your new article add anything new that is not in the existing article? If so, we should consider whether the best approach is to merge the additional information into the existing article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that World Figure Championship is now in mainspace, as a redirect to a draft. That can't be right. If I were at home with a real computer instead of on holiday with a flaky laptop, I would try to fix it. Maproom (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the mainspace redirect and cleaned up the draft and added one independent source. There's local coverage to be mined from the Lake Placid News (though not much else I found). But there's quite a few of them. There's the one I found as well as this, this, this. this, this, this, this, this and this. Lakeplacidskater: using sources like these for expansion information (not for their copyrighted sentences) and citing to them is a good way to go to make an acceptable article. You might emulate the citation form I placed when I cited to one article from this source for others. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, the upload a picture is blocked by "ContentKeeper" on my chromebook, any way around that?

I wanted to upload a picture of myself but it was blocked by ContentKeeper. Any way around that?

Starbomb is awesome (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Starbomb is awesome: Welcome to the Teahouse!

Wikipedia doesnt have anything to do with the nannyware installed on your computer. The reference desk might be able to point you to some sites that have hacks that let you violate its controls. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Starbomb is awesome, and welcome to the Teahouse. ContentKeeper seems to be a third-party program, probably installed by the educational institution that provided your Chromebook. See here for more information, since Wikipedia does not yet have a ContentKeeper article. On another note, is there some educational use that a photo of you would contribute to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia; it is not like social media sites where you create a profile page. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors like me who disclose their real names often also post photos of themselves on their user pages (or Teahouse host profiles). I am 63 and self employed, and have relatively little to lose. Younger editors, and those who value their anonymity, should think very carefully before posting photos of themselves here. The internet can get ugly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's true, Cullen328, but "editors like you" also have years of contributions towards Wikipedia and have established that you are here to edit the encyclopedia. A photo on the user page of a newer editor with comparatively few contributions to their name is less likely to be appropriate, just as it's inappropriate for users to spend more time editing their user pages than editing articles. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, GrammarFascist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GrammarFascist I disagree with the thinking behind your contention above. There are (or should be) no second class editors here. if it is acceptable that I have my picture on my user page (and I do, and did have years ago, before I was nearly as experienced as i am now -- in fact I posted it when i had been editing for less than 6 months), then it is acceptable for a brand new editor to have his or her picture there, if such an editor duly chooses to have it after being warned of the implications. If a user does nothing but work on a user page there may be a case of WP:NOTHERE, but a new but productive editor should not be pressured to refrain from things more experienced editors do. DES ^(talk) 01:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think I was proposing a strict delineation of first-class and second-class editors, DES, my apologies that I didn't make myself more clear. When I said content such as a photo on a user page "is less likely to be appropriate", all I meant was that it was less likely — not that it was categorically inappropriate. And it is customary to advise visitors to this page against treating their Wikipedia user page like a social media profile; that's all I meant to do. Again, sorry that my intended meaning did not come across. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that all of the experienced editors commenting here have made valid points, that there are no easy answers, and that improving the encyclopedia must be the main motivation for any productive editor. Thanks to all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist, Cullen328, DESiegel, and Starbomb is awesome: While caution should always be exercised on the Internet, the Template:Infobox Wikipedia user, currently used by over 4400 editors, contains options for photo and many other personal data. The template has been in use for nine years, so I assume that the parameters have been vetted and deemed appropriate and within the guidelines of the WP. I have seen this template on many new editor pages since it is easy to use and resembles what people are used to in social media. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is owner and controller of Wikipedia?

Yes, I know, it's the Wikimedia Foundation, but who controls it? There must be some boss or so. --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Like all American non-profit and charitable organizations, it has a board of trustees. Please see Wikimedia Foundation#Governance - Arjayay (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ueberwolf (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ueberwolf. The executive director of WMF is Lila Tretikov, but the WMF has no day-to-day editorial control over Wikipedia content. That is in the hands of volunteer Wikipedia editors like you and I. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, thank you, but there are e.g. administrators and bureaucrats who have to control the WP e.g. that there are no lies in WP, but only the truth aso.. --Ueberwolf (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Ueberwolf, but our administrators and bureaucrats are just volunteer editors who are trusted with additional powers. They are not paid. The responsibility for maintaining accuracy though verifiability is the job of all editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but buraeucrats e.g. cannot be degraded anymore and if they are for whatever reason blocked they can unblock themselves. So they have a major power, don't they? --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't they? --Ueberwolf (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Follow up to "Blacklist/blocked-link error in error?" question yesterday

Hi PrimeHunter and JohnBlackburne Thanks for helping me investigate. I have had to post a new question here because I was stopped from "editing" / adding a reply to your responses again with the Blacklist/blocked-link error. The last page I tried to edit was Cravath, Swaine & Moore just to delete "Swaine2012" in order to fix the cite error which I think you will see there presently. It is not always the same page but I don't recall the other pages in this moment. I don't believe I have tried to add templates (not sure I know how). I will meanwhile check for possible malicious code on my machine. Thanks! remando (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look and had no problems fixing it by changing the names of both definitions so they were distinct. There is probably a more elegant way to do it, as the refs are almost identical differing only by a page number, but it fixed the error. I did not encounter any problems such as you described. I am just an autoregistered editor like you so you should have been able to make the same or a similar edit.

To be more particular over what you might check it could be a rogue browser extension or plugin. They are used to do things like ad-blocking but can do almost anything including things you don’t want. They operate within the browser which might explain why you are seeing a problem just editing. You might also try using another browser to see if it makes a difference.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The template {{Rp}} can be used, to give a page number after the reference. It would look like this.¹ It's far from ideal but it is one solution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

Thank you JohnBlackburne and Rich for helping with my troubleshooting! I am on different machine this afternoon to see if it makes a difference. I was just blocked again from editing in this space a few minutes ago using the same browser as before (Chrome) but now I am trying with a new browser, so fingers crossed you will be able to see this message from me. remando (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC) It worked! Thanks again! remando (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. for anyone else with this issue, I removed all Chrome extensions and can successfully edit via Chrome now. remando (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:TAFI -->Comedy horror

I am posting here on behalf of the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject, calling out to any newbies who would like some genuine editing experience under the guidance of some experienced editors. This collaboration sees a group of editors come together to work on improving one article over a week, and is a fantastic opportunity for any Wikipedian. The current TAFI article is comedy horror.--Coin945 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Bukarester FC

Can someone help me with this German Team ? Draft:Bukarester FC ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks