Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, 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

What shall I do after delete discussion and the draft is to "keep"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hongchi_Xiao&redirect=no Shall I wait for the picture issue to be resolved or submit now? Is there anything else that I can do to improve the draft? jdxzhu 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing a Tag

Hi, I have just copyedited an article. It had the tag or banner saying it needed copyediting at the top of the page. Should i remove it (and if so how) or do I leave it in place? Janifrax12 (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

hello @Janifrax12: and thanks for copy editing!

you are correct that the banner needs to be removed manually. at the top of the page will be something in braces, called a WP:TEMPLATE. It probably looks like {{copyedit|date=May 2015}} just remove that.

You may also be interested in joining the WP:Guild of Copyeditors-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Janifrax12, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for copy-editing articles! It looks to me like you did a good job with Ashley Reed, so I took the tag off for you. In future all you need to do is remove the {{copy edit|date=November 2015}} (or whatever date is included) tag from the top of the article. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Southwest University, U.S

I submitted a page with the above title but it was deleted by JMHamo. I need assistant on how I can resubmit the same page with some modification. NomsuNomsu (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Nomsu: - welcome to the Teahouse.

The three things I would recommend are:

Utilize the WP:Article Wizard to create the article. It will start out in draft space rather than live space and will generally not be under such scrutiny so that you can get help to make it appropriate.

The second is to head the advice of why the first version was deleted. We are writing an encyclopedia, not hosting free advertisements.

The third would would be to read the basic requirements for having a stand alone article and the Cliff's notes version and ensure that the subject of the article and your draft meet those requirements.

(and the semi optional fourth which may or may not be applicable): read and follow the conflict of interest policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nomsu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I recommend that you use Wikipedia:Article wizard in order to create any new articles. I see that the previous version was deleted for using overly promotional language, so you should probably read the relevant section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style to get an idea of what kind of wording to avoid in your next draft. You will also need to cite sources for any facts in the article which someone might question, and it's best to use secondary sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles which discuss the university, or coverage in a published book — the university's own website, as a primary source, should only be cited for facts which you can't find a secondary source for. This guide to formatting references should help.

Once you think you have everything you need in the draft, submit it using the button at the top of the page. An experienced editor will review the draft, and if necessary point out areas which need further improvement. The draft and review process prevents new articles from being deleted when you're still working on them. Just make sure you address any issues raised by the reviewer(s) before you re-submit it, if the draft is initially declined. And of course feel free to return to the Teahouse for any further help you may need. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Timing of BLP PROD

This is more a question of Wikipedia etiquette than strict rules, I think. Looking through new pages, I often find stubs that are BLPs with no references, such as Josh Schache. The rules say I must BLP PROD these. But a couple of editors have suggested (always in the nicest possible terms) that it would be better to give the authors some time to finish working on the article before doing this, as dealing with the PROD is a distraction that takes time and effort away from the job. But how long should I wait - a day? A week? A month? Or should the rules be carried out as written, and raise it straight away?Gronk Oz (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

if they haven't made an edit to the article in an hour, or even 30 minutes then its appropriate. You want to catch them while they are still here. Even better, if they are still editing go to their talk page and let them know whats going to happen if they dont take action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

For a brand new article, it should not be marked "reviewed" until it is BLP PRODded or sourced. The PROD itself includes a 7-day waiting period. I agree with the TRPOD that sourcing BLPs should be a priority and can't reasonably be called a "distraction" unless it is done minutes or seconds after the article was created. VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If the rules didn't say BLP PROD, there would be a lot more than the 3,300 currently sitting in this pile. CV9933 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Searching Google News yields plenty of recent sources for Josh Schache. Often, it is better to do a quick notability check and add a couple of sources than to PROD an article. Our first choice is to save articles, not to delete them, if the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: John Zurier

I reviewed Draft: John Zurier, and declined it as a BLP lacking in-line citations. I then received a message on my talk page from User:Smokyhallow, saying that he or she had added footnotes and resubmitted the draft, but that User:Cult of Green had then similarly declined the draft. It appears to me that the current version does have in-line citations, so that maybe Cult of Green meant that they were not enough to establish notability. I am bringing this here to discuss with other experienced editors what can be done to improve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon - to clarify my review please see WP:MINREF and you will see the minimum standard for inline citations. The draft article does have some inline citations however it doesn't meet the minimum standard. Best wishes Cult of Green (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Smokyhallow - Please provide more inline references. I think that the subject is notable but it is up to you to establish that. A few editors go beyond the call of duty in building up an article to where it can be accepted. Maybe you can ask them for help, or maybe you can add the references to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Although the draft has a variety of problems, I think that it is clear that this artist is notable. He has had a solo show at a major museum and many solo shows at respected commercial galleries. He has been the subject of significant coverage in Art in America. And so on. It is better, in my opinion, to give the primary author help and suggestions for improving the article than to keep declining the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

adding a link to verify a person on a bio page

Help - I just created three new pages - all for writers and story editors for the NBC sitcom Undateable. But they've all been flagged to be deleted because I didn't cite a source. Can someone tell me how to edit the page and insert the link to the official NBC website that lists these people as writers on the show?CatBrewer (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CatBrewer, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added one for Laura Moran, you can use it as an example. Please read Referencing for Beginners for more detail. DES ^(talk) 23:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC) @CatBrewer: DES ^(talk) 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ack - I feel so out of my element --- I just updated the site for Laura Moran and Terrell Lawrence but not sure I did it correctly. I don't understand how to look at your revisions :( Sorry CatBrewer (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@CatBrewer: click the History tab at the top of the page and then click the radio dial buttons on the 2 versions you wish to compare. Also, it is a much better idea, particularly for new editors, to create new articles in your sandbox work space and via the WP:Article Wizard as you will have much more time to make the content "ready for prime time" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me if I did it correctly for Terrell Lawrence? thanks! CatBrewer (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@CatBrewer: you added a link that validates the existence of a person, but it does not address the concern that noted in the template that there is a credible claim of notability. See this link for the basic criteria required for a stand alone article.

And then you may wish to see WP:REFB for how to properly format the links. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I didnt look at the link, but apparently it doesn't mention Terrell, so no, apparently you did not do it correctly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I made a reflist and ref section on this article. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@CatBrewer:, you say that you created three pages, but looking at your history I can only find Laura Moran and Terrell Lawrence. I checked, and I can confirm TRPoD's comment - Terrell Lawrence is not mentioned on the link at www.nbc.com/undateable. There is a Bill Lawrence mentioned as one of the three Executive Producers, and I see that in an earlier version of the page you clarified that they are not related. But there is no mention of Terrell.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

from the notice on their talk page, i believe the third was Chris Luccy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see - I didn't know that deleted articles would also vanish from the editor's list of contributions. Now that I have learned something for today, I'm happy. Thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi all,

A few days ago GrammarFascist so nicely found some articles for me.

The Michigan Daily, which is a university paper but may be one of the few of those which counts as a reliable source; I encourage other Teahouse volunteers to share their opinions about that. The Michigan Daily - Nov 11, 1996 and The Michigan Daily - Nov 19, 1998 are the articles in question.

I'm not sure about this source, either: Virginia Medical Monthly – 1990 It's published by The Medical Society of Virginia, but I can't tell how much fact-checking or editorial control are in place.

I wanted to know if anybody else has thoughts on if they are reliable sources? And if so what other college Newspapers would be considered reliable? Major college newspapers?

Thank you all for your input! And thanks again GrammerFascist for finding these!

Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you're getting two issues confused here, Aagreeny4. College newspapers are usually considered reliable sources for verifying facts, but they are not particular well regarded when it comes to establishing notability. I'm sure that these sources are perfectly reliable on the topics they are reporting, but whether they establish its notability is not so clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Would the two from the Michigan count for his notability because they state information about him and his work, in addition to others opinions about him? Or do the opinions not count toward notability? Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, the article concerned is Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green, as discussed below. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Aagreeny4. In my opinion, the Michigan Daily sources are weak for establishing notability. In effect, they are fairly brief and formulaic descriptions in a student newspaper of a speaker appearing on campus. They do not offer extensive biographical details about the person, and in my opinion, they do not rise to the level of significant coverage. As for the Virginia Medical Monthly source, the snippet I can see is so brief that I can express no opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Having done some searching, I've found many mentions of Mike Green - mainly in events listings - but a lack of in-depth coverage. Has a newspaper or magazine ever published a detailed article about your father, Aagreeny4? That would definitely help in establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The only newspapers would be college newspapers. There are some from a couple local newspapers in New Jersey. He does have notable mentions in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Scholastic coach which I have in my article. There are some other articles in "Athletic Management" but I am having trouble finding that source since it would be an older issue. I know he was also listed among the outstanding young men of America, and I am thing to find and article about that and his work, I think they either have a book or release that would describe his work. Aagreeny4 (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

When is "on" grammatically correct when it preceeds a month and year date?

Example: "On May 2015, the Philippines expressed interest in acquiring a number Lockheed P-3 Orion from Japan, which the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) is planning to retire within a few years time." I was told by another editor that "ON" is correct instead of the "IN" that I supplied. What is what here?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Srednuas Lenoroc. "On" is correct for a specific date, as in "On 5 May 2015". "In" is correct for a month without a specific date, as in "In May 2015". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be in the course of my correcting this grammatical happenstance of those that claim without reserve that "on MONTH YEAR" is correct.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that "On May 2015" is without question grammatically incorrect. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point but I have never said that "on MONTH YEAR" was grammatically correct but that there have been some editors who believe so.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I know, Srednuas Lenoroc. I'm confirming that you are correct! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected a heap more instances of the same error in the same article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been going through a search "on MONTH YEAR" from 1500 to 1920 to review these instances to see if they are grammatically incorrect and have corrected those that I believe are. Then I have been working by month from November 2015 backward to review and correct when necessary so unless an article has "on MONTH" (say "on April") then I do not get to that review until that particular MONTH/YEAR come up. That way I can somewhat cover all the instances that pop up. So for those articles that I have already for any particular "date" reviewed there could be more present. This may seem a tedious way of doing it but then I do concentrate on an absolute identified through the search rather than a potential merely because through happenstance with another date it has appeared in the search hits. It seems that the presence of "on MONTH YEAR" appears where it was intended to supply a DAY but never was done. Whenever it has been found please feel free to edit.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Cotton Family

This may be a bit weird. This one is based on Eastenders. Nick Cotton and Dot Cotton are in the same family but went don't people make a page for this family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobbs (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kobbs, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not every aspect of every television show is notable and ought to have an article on Wikipedia. Have any published independent reliable secondary sources discussed this fictional family in depth? If so, you could start an article yourself. If not, no article would be appropriate. DES ^(talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question is undoubtedly yes, DES. In fact, Kobbs already created a stub article at Cotton family before posting this question, but Deb redirected it to Dot Cotton. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of making a definite statement about a particular article not being developed, maybe it would be best to leave it open to when it is appropriate that an article be developed when the appropriate sources are available and notoriety is present. That way the idea of a particular article is not now and forever deemed unnecessary. Some times people "offer" a course of action that does not undertake the changing nature of subjects and need for additional articles.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This point is sort of covered by Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary, but I don't think anyone is saying that this topic will never be notable. In fact, given how long this family has been in the programme, there are already likely enough sources to establish notability. I'm not convinced that there is much value in having an article on the family though, given that articles about some of the individual characters concerned already exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I didn't make any definite statement that an article would not be appropriate, except that it wouldn't be appropriate unless there were sources to establish notability. If there are such sources, then an article could be created, but whether to do so is a matter of editorial judgement and, ultimately, community consensus. If there is not much to say on a topic, or what there is to say is better included as part of another article (here Dot Cotton) then there is no requirement to create the article, but there is no rule against it, either. It could be discussed on Talk:Dot Cotton, or on the talk page of the redirect. That one editor converted a stub into a redirect need not be the final outcome. An article was boldly created, another editor has converted it to a redir, in effect reverting the creation, and now, in accord with the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, it is time to discuss the matter among interested editors. All Wikipedia articles (and other pages) are always works in progress, and whether to change an existing one or create a new one should pretty much always be open when such action seems appropriate. One method that is often followed would be to add sourced content to the existing article (here Dot Cotton) until there is enough that a split seems like a good idea, and a useful spin-off article can be created. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Absence is just as impactful as calling attention to standards and guide lines so temperance probably offers more perspective about fleeting interest and considerations of longer endearment.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Bethesda Urban Partnership

I reviewed Draft: Bethesda Urban Partnership, and declined it as not providing evidence of corporate notability. I suggested that it be merged with Bethesda, Maryland. The author, User: SunshineState 1, then posted to my talk page: "Hi - For my first new page I tried to keep it short and factual with links to online articles. Where did I go wrong? Thank you!" My own thought is that the draft is too short and doesn't indicate notability. What is the advice of other experienced editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You could explain to SunshineState that they did not "go wrong" – the problem is that the subject lacks any notability, and there is nothing they can do about it. Maproom (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a game of someone wins and someone losses. This is a very tenuous situation. Opinion is a very subjective action. This reminds me of a school assignment where we were all asked to locate and critique sources of information about various subjects/incidents. There came in the assignment a particular subject that was five sentences long in another work. When asked what was the best available work on "X", what is your answer. We all made mention of the existence of the work in question but no one said it was the then best available so we all got zeros when all we had to do to pass was say "X" is the best available work although it is only five sentences long. Not every subject can stand alone as a complete article but certainly there should be every opportunity taken to at least make mention in a article on a wider scale than a subject specific article. WP will never be perfect and to exclude something on the basis that by doing so makes WP more perfect is basically giving credence to an action that in short-sided. The worst thing you can do to understanding a subject is skewing the content. As for being able to not do any thing about something seems to discount public opinion.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's really not as complicated as that. The article simply lacks sufficient citations to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Srednuas Lenoroc, no one has excluded this subject or indeed this draft from Wikipedia. it has not been deleted. Robert McClenon has said that it is not currently suitable for the main article space, and he is correct as the draft stands. He Maproom has also given it as his opinion that sources to establish notability do not exist, but that view is not final until one has done an exhaustive search for sources, which is well beyond the normal scope of an AfC reviewer. SunshineState 1, or you, or I are all free to search for additional relaible sources that might help to establish notability and meet the guideline for notability of organizations. Anyone may add such sources to the draft. Wikipedia does run on more absolute standards than "the best available work". If a topic cannot be shown to be notable (in Wikipedia's rather specialized use of that term) it will not have a separate article. Whether it should be included as part of a larger article is a judgement call, with no single answer being correct in every case. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now added several sources to Draft: Bethesda Urban Partnership. I don't think it is yet at the point of fully establishing notability, but I think it may get there. DES ^(talk) 22:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As well as sources, the article will need to say what the "Bethesda Urban Partnership" is, not just what it does. Maproom (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully agree. If an organization is notable for what it does, than what it is is simply an organization that does those sorts of things. In any case this is a minor addition that will easly be added once more sources, and content derived from them, have been added. DES ^(talk) 23:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about implementing Third Opinion recommendation

Hi, I'm here to ask for help making edits recommended via Third Opinion. Another editor suggested I post here, since I have a financial COI and don't want to make the edits myself.

To summarize the situation, I've been working on behalf of The Wyss Foundation on the Hansjorg Wyss article for the past few months. Recently, another editor and I disagreed on the amount of information that should be included in one section. I posted to Third Opinion to get another editor involved. You can see the conversation here. The third opinion was that the section should be reduced, but the editor didn't want to make the changes and pointed me here instead. Would someone be able to help or tell me what I should do next? This is the first time I've used the Third Opinion process. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN and WP:ANI

The posts in the pages are similar. Under what circumstances users visit WP:AN not WP:ANI. The Avengers (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The explanation at the top of WP:AN says:

• Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
• If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.

In some cases the boundary is rather blurred, but that is the guidance. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess i was in the right place, when i wrote on AN yesterday to ask about administrative practices that might help to address bullying behaviors, but instead of an answer, i got shut down, ridiculed, derided, insulted, called stupid (Dunning-Kruger effect) and dark motives imputed to me just for asking about this, and then they closed the discussion. It was not a good response. I had wondered if i was posting in the right place. I suppose i was, but i think something is broken about Wikipedia if i ask about how to address bullying and i get bullied for asking. SageRad (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing this tangent per comments from Liz. I, JethroBT drop me a line

I have not been following the underlying case closely, so my response is based entirely on the closed thread you linked to. You did get answers, several of them, some of which could not by any stretch of the imagination be construed as bullying. "Dark motives were imputed" because you appeared to be asking for alternative remedies in a case already before ArbCom (and in which it seems you did not participate by giving evidence or proposing solutions) which you have been around long enough that you should know was inappropriate. Sometimes behavior can feel to the person affected by it like attack even when it is not; I was recently involved with an AfD case involving a BLP whose subject was noteworthy in part for having been the victim of concerted bullying, and who therefore reasonably — but incorrectly — interpreted the article's nomination as more bullying. You may be experiencing a similar situation. The editor who closed the WP:AN discussion noted in closing it that you had moved on to another forum, so I don't see how closing the WP:AN discussion was unfair to you. I also see that a decent amount of discussion went on before it was closed. Just because you didn't like all of the responses you received doesn't mean there wasn't any appropriate response, and characterizing what happened there the way you have done here does make you look somewhat unreasonable. I can see I'm not the first to suggest you reconsider your own approach. Hopefully my advice in that regard will not be in vain. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Oh my god. There you go again. There is no "underlying case". This was a question about admin methods in general. Can anyone not ask what are methods for addressing bullying behaviors without getting ulterior motives imputed as you just did right here? And you think that someone who has a bullying history toward me saying simply "Dunning-Kruger effect" is not bullying? It's an insult that says "You are too stupid to know you are stupid." Yes, dark motives were imputed. I asked how i might address bullying behaviors and i get a long diatribe that i am probably "forum shopping" and such things. I was seriously asking for how to address bullying behaviors and i got the opposite to a good answer. I got "Go home you good for nothing stupid devious jerk!" in so many words! The editor who closed the WP:AN discussion did so wrongly, because i had *not* moved it to another forum. I had posted an idea at another forum for an anti-bullying task force, in part because of the very bad response i got at WP:AN that made me ask "where can one go to address these behaviors?" All of what you wrote, do you really believe it to be true? Are you really not able to hear me honestly? You again are saying that i am unreasonable for asking how one can address bullying behaviors in Wikipedia. When i do so, i get more bullying behaviors. In fact it seems like people take it as an invitation to pummel upon the person who asks. I say ENOUGH!!! There is a breaking point and this is ENOUGH!!!! This is a toxic editing environment and there is nowhere anyone can go for remedy to bullying! This is a very real problem. I have seen good editors say things like "I don't even edit in that topic area anymore because of the toxic editing environment." Just yesterday, i stood up for one user who was being seriously railroaded by a bunch of people and made to grovel, when their editing was actually friendly and good when i looked into it. It was a kangaroo court, and this user who was doing good work was about to leave Wikipedia for good. It was a new user being bullied and misrepresented and ganged up on by admins and editors, and blocked, and then made to grovel to be unblocked... it was NOT good. I stood up for that user and they said "I was about to leave Wikipedia altogether, but you gave me hope that it may be worth it." That is the sort of advocate that some people need. Someone who will stand up against ganging-up bullying behaviors. SageRad (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Considering a similar discussion here, Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Anti-bullying task force, it is not wise to start conversations on the same subject in more than one location. Focus the discussion in one forum rather than spreading it to several noticeboards and talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC) This is not the same subject. One is an idea for a new thing that might help to fill the gaping void that is apparent because the arbitrators noticeboard seems to be doing the exact wrong thing. Please listen, this is not the same thing in two places. It's a question about current methods to the AN and then when that resulted in pummeling me for just asking the question, i posted an idea to the ideas lab. Do you think that is wrong when i explain it this way? I've also asked a question to many of the candidates for ArbCom about how they might address bullying. I am free to speak in more than one location at once. SageRad (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC) No. You weren't in the right place, User:SageRad, at WP:AN. You either weren't asking for admin action, and didn't supply diffs, which are the basis for admin action, or you were asking the community at AN to override the ArbCom. If you had a complaint about being bullied about genetically modified organisms, the proper venue was ArbCom. You didn't enter any evidence at ArbCom. You did go to a reasonable place to Village pump (idea lab). However, you weren't in the right place You haven't provided concrete evidence that you were bullied, and you haven't provided concrete evidence of anyone else bullying anyone. We are aware that sometimes there is bullying in Wikipedia. In my opinion, many complaints of bullying are unfounded, but those that are substantive are usually based on article ownership behavior. You weren't in the right place. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Robert, the answer here in the teahouse says that AN is the place for "discussion of administration methods" and i was asking for help in what methods exist for dealing with bullying behavior, in general. If i had posted about a specific incident, then i would have gone to ANI and would be correct according to this explanation here. Let me refute again (for i have already refuted and you either didn't hear or chose not to listen) some things you say in error above. I saw not asking the AN community to override ArbCom. Not at all. I find that suggestion to be derogatory especially after i have clarified over a the AN discussion already. I never said that my question related to genetically modified organisms. I did not in my question to AN about general methods provide evidence of bullying, because i was asking a question about procedure and methods in general. Did you not get that? I believe that AN was a very reasonable place to ask about what methods exist to deal with these behaviors. You imply that it's not. I think you're actually in a bullying mode right here and now, and you were also in a bullying mode in your response to me at AN. Why are you being so pushy, so hostile, so oppositional, so derogatory, and so accusatory to me? Was i not in the right place to ask about methods and procedures within Wikipedia? I don't understand why the pushing away. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with my new article, what is wrong?

Hi. I sent in my article draft:kresten bjerg for review. He is more or less the only psychologist in denmark to talk about "domestic psychology", and has a lot of publications behind him. I have a source for everything i wrote, but it keeps getting declined. Do you have any ideas to solve that matter? BR Magnus bjerg (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You need more third party sources i.e. ones which are independent of the subject. Just glancing at it, you've provided 4 references, one is a Facebook page, which doesn't establish notability as anyone can set one up, the second is the subject's own website, which suffers the same issue as Facebook, the third seems to be written by a family member of the subject. You need to find references which people not affiliated with the subject have written. Valenciano (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi valenciano. When writing who his parents are, isn't a page written by his mother the best source? Magnus bjerg (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Magnus bjerg and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at your article and found that the text was copied from a website. That is a copyright violation. If you want to write an article you should do it with your own words, provide good and accurate sources for all the facts and preferably not in the style of the hoax you created at Chocolate pudding. w.carter-Talk 08:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The copied text was list of his book publications. What is wrong with copying them? Magnus bjerg (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Magnus bjerg:You can use the facts from the list, but not copy the text as it is with comments and all, since it is copyrighted by the person who wrote that. Look at how the publications are listed in Peter Høeg for example. w.carter-Talk 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Kresten Bjerg. I would suggest that the original poster should read the conflict of interest policy before creating any more drafts about members of their family. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rupert Loydell

I reviewed Draft:Rupert Loydell and asked whether more references could be added, neither accepting nor declining. User:Annabluebell then asked me on my talk page whether I meant that more references could be added to what she had already written or whether the article should be expanded. I meant that I was asking whether she could add more references to what she had already written. However, expanding a draft article is usually welcome. I would like the advice of other experienced editors as to whether I should go ahead and accept the article, which looks good enough to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. The sources, well, I'm not familiar with British poetry magazines but they seemed to be reliable in nature and cover Loydell broadly. The article has wikilinks, which a lot of the drafts seem to lack. The article could stand to be expanded, of course, but that could be done after it's moved to mainspace. In my view it's good enough to accept. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 03:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that would be good to do, but I don't know which ones need to be done before accepting it:

1. Check the close paraphrasing between the "Personal Life" section and his staff profile at [1] - I think that needs to be resolved first (another common rookie mistake).
2. It would be good to add his birth year (1960), from the Shearsman Books reference.
3. I had to work hard to restrain myself from using reFill to convert those bare-URL references, but that wouldn't be polite, would it...
4. Most of those "External links" should not be there. Some are already used as References, and should just be removed (e.g. "2005 interview with Rupert by Dee Rimbaud"). Consider which of the others should be References, if they support material in the article, or removed.
5. Finally, only the first word in headings should be capitalized.

Hope that helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Gronk Oz (and others) drafts are not WP:OWNed any more than articles are, and there is nothing wrong with filling in citation metadata, whether through a tool such as reFill or manually. (If you do use refill, please modify the results manually. It has a nasty habit of sticking things in the title= parameter that really should be separate.) Similarly, correcting formatting such as section title case is fine. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, DES, I agree - and yet I also remember how frustrating it can be, especially as a new person, to have other people "helping" all the time. Part of the review process is to help the new editor learn, as well as producing the article at the end. So my own philosophy (at least for now until I change my mind) is that I am happy to do things like that if they will give the new editor an example to learn from, without making them feel that somebody else is "taking over" from them. BTW, I couldn't resist, so I did fill in those references - they look much better now, and I did have to make several adjustments to reFill's suggestions.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How to set a speedy delete after another deletion proposal

I saw this new page, Raniel_(angel) and noted it had been tagged for possible deletion, but it's a duplication of Ramiel and should have been tagged for a Speedy as a duplicate. I removed the original delete & tried to place the speedy, but the system won't let me. Help?  :) JamesG5 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor set this as a redirect, it's taken care of. Thanks! JamesG5 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that you intended to refer to Ramiel (angel), not Raniel (angel), hence the redlink in your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

correction to an article

> The table of winners in the article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporting_News_Executive_of_the_Year_Award shows 1962 > winner Fred Haney as representing the Los Angeles Dodgers of the National League > when, in fact, it was the Los Angels of the American League. > Per your article about Haney: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Haney "Then, the following year, the American > League granted an expansion team to Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Angels, and its owner, Gene Autry, chose Haney to operate the team and its organization for him. While the Angels usually struggled on the playing field during Haney's tenure as GM from 1961 to 1968, they did finish a surprising third in 1962, and contended for the 1967 pennant as well."79.176.148.187 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The two articles disagree, but neither article has any references supporting this information. Any baseball fans out there know of a suitable reference that can resolve this?--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Found it in the "Baseball Almanac", in External links of Sporting_News_Executive_of_the_Year_Award. LA Angels it is - I have made that change to the article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, anonymous IP editor. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How to start my 1st Edit-a-thon

I'm a Wikipedia newbie and a part-time employee of a literature & history educational nonprofit. I've been asked to help organize an edit-a-thon, and I'd like some advice on getting started. (1) Is it better to create a Wiki page for the event, or a Meetup? (2) If I create a Wiki page, is it a good idea to make a sub-page under the GLAM Wiki? (3) Since User IDs aren't supposed to be shared, will there be a problem if I create the edit-a-thon page with my own user ID? Does the organization I work for have to have an institutional user ID--or is such a thing even allowed to exist? Thank you! Grindall Reynolds (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Grindall Reynolds. I suggest that you start by reading How to run an edit-a-thon, which should answer most of your questions. Wikipedia accounts are for one individual person, so no, the institution should not have an account. Since you are editing in connection with your job duties, our Terms of use require you to disclose your employer.

I have attended lots of edit-a-thons. I recommend that new articles be written in draft or user sandbox pages, and only moved to main space when they are developed a bit, and have several references. Otherwise, the risk of speedy deletion is high, and that can be disheartening for new editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

world's richest country in 1900

Why Has the British empire depleted it's monetary to become one of the poorest country's in the list of richest today as they were in the 1900 2.24.72.227 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to learn and ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Could you please explain the issue you have in a bit more detail, such as whether your comment relates to a specific article? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have a general question like that which is not about editing articles, you should ask it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and they will try to answer it for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Want to Create a personal-info page

I am an actor and I likely to create one here on Wiki like other actors do. Plz help me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Upasanamohanty/sandbox Upasanamohanty 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upasanamohanty (talk • contribs)

Hello Upasanamohanty, Wikipedia doesn't have "personal-info pages". It has articles, about notable subjects, that include information derived from reliable sources. It strongly discourages autobiography and other articles where the contributor has a conflict of interest. If you have been covered at some length in newspapers, magazines, or comparable web publications, then an article could be written, but User:Upasanamohanty/sandbox isn't even a good start for such an article, I'm afraid. For one thing, an actual article about an actor would give the actor's real name, or stage name, or most likely both. What you have linked might be appropriate for a facebook page, or some other personal site, but not, I'm afraid, for Wikipedia. See WP:NOTWEBHOST. DES ^(talk) 18:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You have obviously misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not here as a website which you can use for advertising and promotion. Please read the advice, and various links, on your user talk page. I see that you have told another editor that you want to advertise yourself as an actor. You therefore need to read Wikipedia's views of autobiography and of conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit to correctness.

How do I correct a narrative with a source that is not commonly known but historically accurate. There has been extensive Edit wars with the Blue Lantern Wiki page and all I have asked is correct citations as to the origibnal artist and narrative as Geoff did NOT draw or wriote this name or character first as I was both the author as an early comic aficianado. I know it was a bit part and not a national publication but ACCURATE. Can you review and have citations locked when there is vandalism and edit wars by thise who are stubbiorn and IGNORE the truth and accuracy. I just ask the three publications be noted and not ciited to an erroneous source in the interest of accuracy. It is not about legal rights as it is the truth or the name and drawing that does morror the Comic character of the 1960's/ Please help as I would like this to stop and those who choose to ignore the issue and waste my time reverting improperly blocked and the narration frozen to a correct narrative, Thanks. Dan H (Spiffiest)Spiffiest (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Spiffiest, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several issues here. Foremost, it is not clear from the source you have been trying to introduce to Blue Lantern Corps that the comic strip published under the Dan Hatem byline in 1980 dealt with the same Blue Lantern Corps that is a DC Comics property; since only a small preview of the page is shown, it's impossible to determine whether the same organization was depicted as in the later DC Comics publications, or if it is a mere coincidence of name. (If it is the same organization, then Dan Hatem — who may or may not be you; we have no way of knowing — may have violated DC Comics trademarks, which are distinct from copyright, in creating the strip.) Another issue is that Boston Heights newspaper, as a college rather than a community newspaper, may not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia sourcing. Even if it was, the link in question is to the comic strip itself, which makes it a primary source, and for any information which may be contentious, Wikipedia generally requires secondary sourcing — something like an article in an independent newspaper or magazine, or a chapter in a book, stating that Blue Lantern was first published in 1980. So while the actual proof of publication may be of the utmost value in proving a claim as to who originated character(s) in a legal setting, on Wikipedia, it's pretty much beside the point. I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Feel free to ask any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(copied from GrammarFascist's talk page by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC) )

I see the link referencing the publication being discussed and am glad that you have taken the time to review the dispute. Your reference to require a secondary source is patently absurd as even DC comics published once and is done for characters. Their own reference does not make the reference any more valuable for historic references. Both DC publication and the Heights are referenced in the Library of Congress, so publications both have secondary sources unlike high school papers. IT IS this reference you yourself seem to think makes it inclusive to Wikipaedea. For this reason there should be an inclusion of this character and timeline as the sources are supported for both and origination as stated as the earlier date referenced. Not every book is referenced by its source and even the Bible that has been republished almost an uncountable amount of times does not require the original author to be referenced by a secondary source. I consider your guide like the Overstreet guide as a reference to only commercial publications but not all publications of character or storyline. Spiffiest (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(copied from GrammarFascist's talk page by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC) )

Spiffiest, I have moved this conversation back here from my talk page for two reasons: first, to keep the discussion all in one place, and second, to make it easier for other Teahouse volunteers to help explain Wikipedia policies to you so that there's no mistaking what I say for merely one editor's opinion. Requiring a secondary source is not "patently absurd"; it's how things are done at Wikipedia. Whether a periodical is referenced by the Library of Congress is also not a deciding factor as to whether it is considered a reliable source as Wikipedia defines that term. (Tangentially, the Bible was a poor choice of example, since in fact the vast majority of its authors are agreed to be not merely unknown but unidentifiable.) You're free to hold any opinion you like, but the information you want included in the Blue Lantern Corps article will continue to be removed by other editors unless and until you provide a source that is both reliable and secondary by Wikipedia's definitions of those terms — I bolded the links to the relevant policies this time in the hope that you would read them. There is no amount of arguing with me or anyone else that is going to change these policies, so I recommend you study them, and either find an appropriate source to use on this site, or take the source you have elsewhere. Another policy you might benefit by perusing states that "You might think that [Wikipedia] is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that's not the case." I'm sorry if this is disappointing, but I would be doing you no favors to hold out false hope. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Spiffiest - Hi, please take time to review GrammarFascist's well-provided links. There are some pretty good reasons why Wikipedia has its guidelines in place, and this is one of the best, to require reliable, secondary sources when something contentious is added. Grammar's analysis of the sources is pretty spot on. If the information you have is accurate, it must be out there somewhere in a reliable independent source. If not, it probably will continue to be deleted. Hope this gives you a better understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Spiffiest I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by a secondary source, and why it is needed. I think you are also misunderstanding what constitutes an acceptable reference. For example, "Heights Boston College 1980", which you inserted as a citation in this edit is not an acceptable source, as a) it is not a publication, and b) does not give such details as volume, number or date of publication, nor any author. Wikipedia is not the place to do original research which includes analysis of conflicting sources. Instead, we cite secondary sources who have already done such analysis, and who are not directly connected with the topics being written about. This helps provide a level of objectivity and distance (although it is surely true that some secondary sources are biased). Wikipedia only uses primary sources with care and for limited purposes, and not to support controversial or contested statements. The demand for secondary sources is made on every article on Wikipedia, this article is not being singled out.

I gather that you are claiming that the original version of the Blue Lanterns was drawn in a college newspaper as a comic strip, and only later appeared in the publications of DC comics. This is a somewhat extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. At a minimum, we would need a critical review or analysis published in a reliable source that is independent of the creators of the comic, saying both that a comic by the name of "Blue Lantern" had been published at that time and place, and that the characters or content was recognizably the same or similar to the later DC publication. It is especially that last conclusion that Wikipedia must not draw without a source. It is not for you or I or any editor here to decide that the earlier comic is the same as the later, better known, DC publication; even if we had the entire run in front of us. We need a published reliable source that says so, and a proper citation to that source.

I also note that you, and someone editing without logging in, who may well be you, have been Edit warring to insert this content, and to insist on particular details of format and wording, at least one of which seems to be an error of grammar. ("he Blue Lantern Corps ... is an organization appeared in the Heights , a Boston College Newspaper...") Please do not engage in any further edit warring on this (or indeed any other) article. Edit warring is disruptive to the project, and can be a reason for an editor to be blocked from further editing for a period, or indeed indefinitely should the editor persist in warring. Instead follow the Bold, REvert, Discuss cycle, and once there is a known conflict, use the article talk page to discuss the matter and, I hope, reach consensus. If consensus cannot be reached through such discussions, then please use the avenues of dispute resolution.

If I or other experienced editors can be of help, feel free to post on the Teahouse, or to use {{help me}} to attract assistance to a particular talk page. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Creating an article

I wish to create an article on the physicist René Wurmser. However, I do not know whether this article is needed or not. Is there a place where I can discuss this with other Wikipedians? The Pokémon Fan (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You could ask at WP:WikiProject Physics. However, in searching Wikipedia, I see that several articles refer to him. If you have reliable sources to construct a biography, please create it via Articles for Creation and, if it is good, it will probably be approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, The Pokémon Fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether René Wurmser is an appropriate candidate for a Wikipedia article depends on whether he met Wikipedia's Golden Rule — that is, whether articles and/or books by reliable publishers have discussed him and his work in some detail. A quick look in Google showed several possible sources, but most of them are in French, which I can't read. The good news is that references cited on English Wikipedia can be in any language so long as they are both relevant and reliable sources.

If M. Wurmer was indeed notable enough (as Wikipedia defines notability), then you can create an article so long as you cite sources which demonstrate his notability. I see that the French Wikipedia already has an article on René Wurmser; if you understand French well enough, you're welcome to translate some or all of the content of that article for an article here at English Wikipedia, though you would have to attribute translated content properly. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects explains how to do this. There are only two sources cited in the French article, which is generally not enough at English Wikipedia unless one of the sources is a book entirely devoted to the subject of the article. But those sources may be useful, if you can access them (there are no links to them at French Wikipedia, so they may not be available online; offline sources are also allowed, though online sources and sources in English are preferred). Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia, and feel free to return with any futher questions you have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Pokémon Fan, A quick books.google.com search [2] suggests a definite likelihood that there are enough sources even in English that discuss him to merit an article and if one has access to French sources, too ... well! In addition to the Articles for Creation mentioned earlier, see also Wikipedia:Your first article -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

from what I see in the previews, it looks like he might be more of a physiologist than a physicist so you might want to try at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Colourful names

Some editors have colourful names in Talk Pages. Eden's Apple (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eden's Apple, you can get a colorful name yourself by going to Special:Preferences and changing your signature there. Be sure to check the box that says "treat the above as Wikimarkup", or it won't work. For a full description of what's allowed and disallowed in signatures, see WP:SIG--some colors, particularly very light ones, are not allowed because they are too hard for others to read. Hope that helped you. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 14:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eden's Apple and welcome to the Teahouse. For customizing your signature you will find information at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature, there is also this page: Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial on how it's done and where you can find examples of signatures. When you have entered the new signature at "Preferences → User profile", the four tildes will automatically create the signature when you type them and click on save. w.carter-Talk 14:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What is "hasten the day" in Wikiculture?

I have heard this phrase a few times "hasten the day" most recently in that one candidate for Arbitrator was called a "hasten the day" candidate. What is the meaning of this phrase? SageRad (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi SageRad, welcome to the Teahouse. "hasten the day" is an English expression and doesn't have a more specific meaning in wikiculture. wiktionary:hasten#Verb means to make something happen quicker, and "hasten the day" means to make it happen on an earlier day. I think it's usually used by people who consider the anticipated event to be revolutionary, whether in a good or bad way. At Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Gamaliel/Questions#Question from DoggySoup, the poster indicated what they meant in the next sentence. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, but i guess i don't understand your answer because i don't see the explanation of what was meant there in the poster's question. Hmm... i have surely heard this term around within Wikipedia recently, a couple times. Thanks for the try. SageRad (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, as I've seen it used, it's a philosophy that the arbitration committee needs to come to an end--perhaps to be replaced by something else, perhaps not--and so their preferred candidates are the ones they believe would be most disruptive to the committee either because they are viewed as opinionated, intransigent or because they wouldn't work well with other members of the committee. It's an approach you can see in the essay WP:DYNAMITE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: I saw the talkback on your talk page, and came here from that. Actually, the answer is a little different from what other editors here have said. There is a very specific meaning that has arisen in Wiki-culture, but it mostly arose at other websites, not here. (Poor me, I've been on Wikipedia so long that I know about this.) It is primarily a slogan that used to be used on forum board discussions at Wikipedia Review and continues to be used at Wikipediocracy. It is used there, often by people who have become very alienated from past experiences as Wikipedia editors, to denote "the day" when the English Wikipedia and all the Wikimedia projects (and not just ArbCom) go out of business, when the websites go dark. It is used pejoratively with respect to Wikipedia. One typical usage would be that when someone trolls on Wikipedia, they are doing something good, because by harming Wikipedia, they are "hastening the day". Another would be, that if so-and-so gets elected to ArbCom or becomes an administrator, or if some particularly odious decision is made by ArbCom, that it will contribute to the downfall of the project, proving that the critics of Wikipedia were right all along. If you look closely at the GMO PD talk page, you will see that one editor made a post, lambasting the PD, and referring to "hasten the day" in the sense that the editor thinks a bad decision will hasten the downfall of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

should i create this article ?

Xiamen university Xiang'an campus .It is second campus of xiamen university.Its quiet big and there is no information about it on wikipedia.Dr. Pankaj Sharma (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Pankaj Sharma, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and consider, has this campus been written about in several published independent reliable sources that are not merely local, with significant coverage, say at least several paragraphs, in each? This means not blogs, not publications of the university itself, not directory entries, and not purely local newspapers. It means publications with editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. In other words, is this topic notable? If and only if the answer is "yes" should you consider an article. In which case please also read Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners. Alternatively, the campus could be included in the existing article about the university. DES ^(talk) 12:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag

My first submission was tagged - Speedy Deletion. No understanding of why. Not sure it was submitted correctly in total or whether references were adequate or correctly inserted.

Subject matter Chadwick Mobile Digital Mall explains new patented mobile digital technology. Can someone help with 2nd attempt? Robertson Drew (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Robertson Drew, I'm not sure that you have correctly understood what a reference is in this context. The references section of Chadwick Mobile Digital Mall contains a list of e-mail addresses. References should list the details of sources for the material in the article, such as newspaper articles, books, etc. While the article you created has not yet been deleted, I would suggest having a read of Wikipedia:Your first article and perhaps following the procesdure for creating an article that is outlined there. That will take you via the drafts process, where you can get feedback on your proposed article and not have to worry about speedy deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this question, Robertson Drew, to remove the e-mail references, you just need to edit the article and delete that content from the edit window. Instructions on how to insert proper references are given at Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That said, a Google search returns no results for "Chadwick Mobile Digital Mall", apart from pages related to the Wikipedia article. That doesn't bode well for the availability of references, Robertson Drew, unless a different name is being used? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, Robertson Drew, but I have deleted this as being excessively promotional. It also violated WP:CRYSTAL in that it was about a product not yet released, without any evidence of significant outside discussion on the planned release. In fact, it read like a press release. If you want to try again, I urge you to first read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, then if you think the article can establish notability of its topic, assemble a list of independent reliable sources that have covered the topic in some detail. Then and only then, use the article wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. This allows the draft to be improved without being subject to all the deletion criteria until it is reviewed and accepted by an experienced editor. DES ^(talk) 12:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft Lleyson Hopkin Davy v2

Added a couple extra references here. Comments/ constructive edit welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the draft is Draft:Lleyson Hopkin Davy. —teb728 t c 09:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Davymi. Without getting to your draft yet, let me give you some mechanical advice:

• To start a new section at the Teahouse please click the blue "Ask a question" button at the top. This will post your question at the top of the page. At the Teahouse the questions at the bottom of the page are old questions. I moved your question to the top for you.
• Please enter a link the page you are asking about: That will save hosts from having to look up your contributions. I linked it for you above but entering [[Draft:Lleyson Hopkin Davy]].

—teb728 t c 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Davymi, there are a couple of newspapers/journals cited - the South Australian Register and the London Mining Journal. Is it possible to add article titles and page numbers to these? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I am in the process of tracking these down. . bit tricky being so old, but the Mining Journal still exists and I have made enquiries. Fingers crossed they will be added shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, but can I ask how you know what the sources say if you haven't seen them, Davymi? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have digital screenshots of the txt excerpts (several contempory newspapers) referencing the information, but not the page numbers from the original journal entry. As you say I need to go back to the original journal to get the page no.s etc. to cite correctly - this is in train. Cheers davymi. 20.25pm 24/11/15 std. East. Time Aust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 09:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Captcha

I have opened an account, still i have to enter captcha while editing. This is time waste.Eden's Apple (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Eden's Apple. Your account is a little under two days old. When it is four days old, you will be Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed and will not have to enter captchas. —teb728 t c 08:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Eden's Apple:, As teb728 says your account is a little new. When your account will be four days old and have at least 10 edits you will not have to enter captchas again in future. Please read more about Autoconfirmed users here. Have a great time on Wikipedia Happy editing. Regards Singh^{talk to me} 15:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Change in format and content to pages like /wiki/November_2015.

Pages like /wiki/November_2015 used to give a detailed description of each day in the month. It is now being redirected to a section within the year.

Considerably less info.

Where can I find the "old" page. Hard to believe it has been dropped...

TIA

ZermattMan (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey ZermattMan. For a discussion of this issue, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles. If you want to check whether there used to be an article for any particular month, e.g., January 2013, when you navigate there and are redirected to 2013, you will see at the top of the page, just below the page's title, "(Redirected from January 2013)" Click on that linked (blue) text to access the redirect. Once there, access its page history and click on the revision before it was redirected. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

matchpoint nyc

i wrote an article about a local sports facility that I use after noticing it does not have a wikipedia description but it was flagged for speedy deletion, although i did not advertise any sales just a quick description of the place . what needs to be corrected in order for the page to remain active? Stanislavzarubin (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stanislavzarubin, you will have to provide a couple of reliable sources, like articles in newspapers or magazines about that facility, to be able to keep the article. See WP:SOURCE. Also, you can read some other resources like WP:Your first article to get an idea of what you need. From my scan of the article, I can see that it doesn't have sources and may not meet notability. If it's a popular facility in New York City, however, it probably meets notability and what you really need are sources and a more formal tone in the article (also see WP:Tone). White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Stanislavzarubin. Please understand that on Wikipedia, "promotional" does not mean just commercial advertising (although it surely includes that) but also any text intended to talk up or push or advocate for an entity, product, cause or concept. Also, You must not simply copy content from other sites unless explicit permission under a free license has been given, and even then it is usually a bad idea. DES ^(talk) 00:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Autism Parents Association of Trinidad and Tobago

I declined Draft:Autism Parents Association of Trinidad and Tobago, citing inadequate references and so failure to demonstrate corporate notability. I was asked on my talk page by its author, User: Bordeglobal, why I had declined it, with the following note: “I am confused why this has been rejected. You have a similar organization listed in the SAME format and yet is listed: here I put the government act it was approved by as well as the news article telling about the organization and its notable inclusion (see External links) perhaps you missed that? I will please need a specific reason rather than general. APATT has a general News page to show their impact here but I do not know if you accept that.”

I ask for the comments of other experienced editors, but I don’t see any independent coverage of its notability. It also appears that the reference to Autistic Society of Trinidad and Tobago has two problems. First, it is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and because one article is in article space does not mean that the first article or a second article should be in article space. Second, the cited article has been tagged for seven years as unsourced. I will be tagging that article for Articles for Deletion. Comments?

I will also note that the article that I declined had been in article space, was then tagged for speedy deletion and was then speedy-deleted, so that my assessment in draft space is consistent with the assessment in article space (not ready for article space).

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User: Bordeglobal, you need to provide references that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. In the meantime, I'll take a look at Autistic Society of Trinidad and Tobago, if that's the other article that you are referring too. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have done a quick rewrite of Autistic Society of Trinidad and Tobago, based on reliable sources. You'll see that the society has been covered in third-party sources including a book, User: Bordeglobal. That's what you need to demonstrate for the Autism Parents Association of Trinidad and Tobago if that topic is to be judged notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a place for help on leads?

Hey guys! Name's DannyMusicEditor. I mostly edit articles strictly related to music, mostly rock and metal at that, but there are exceptions. Recently, I have been wanting to help Thirty Seconds to Mars' third album, This Is War, become a GA article. However, it has a very poor lead, and I would like to know how to get some help to fix that (I'm just as poor at writing them). dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: welcome to the teahouse!

The guidance for lead sections is at WP:LEAD. Essentially the first sentence should provide the Who/what/Where/When essentials about the subject of the article (not necessarily the Why because that can get too complicated to work into a simple sentence), and then the rest of the lead should summarize the rest of the article (The Why can be detailed here). Often times the content we have for singles and albums does not necessitate anything other than a "lead" - artificially creating a "body" that merely is section bloat. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome indeed, DannyMusicEditor. There is a good summary essay on creating leads here: WP:CREATELEAD initially created by a Wikipedia editor BullRangifer to help other editors cut through the more official MOSLEAD guidelines. It has a handy table for creating a lead too. A lead is supposed to include elements of each section of an article in summary form. Encyclopedia sentences are easy to write: e.g.- John Smith drove his car to the store. No need to get flowerly. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Checkingfax for the WP:CREATELEAD mention above. I updated the Wikipedia:Tip of the day/November 24 tip accordingly. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Information to include (or not) in an article to comply with WP:BLP

Hello, Teahouse colleagues. I was going to post a longer explanation of this situation here, but my question got "eaten" (did not post) so I'll be brief. This article, which Checkingfax, long-time IP user 71.41.210.146 and I (among others) have been working on, includes some information I'm concerned may not properly belong in the article, based on WP:BLP, particularly the sections on Presumption in favor of privacy and People who are relatively unknown.

One piece of information regards an indictment against one of the suspects, years before the shooting and unrelated to the shooting, which did not lead to a conviction; the other is an allegation that the surviving victim threatened one of the suspects prior to the day of the shooting, but there is only one witness claiming the threat was made (though multiple media outlets have reported this claim) and the victim has not been charged with making any threats.

Short answers here are welcome; more involved analysis might more properly belong at Talk:Shooting of Jeremy Mardis#Allegations about living people: How careful does WP:BLP require us to be? (or be included both places). Thanks in advance to all who help sort this situation out. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I think there's supposed to be a source noted at the end on every part of the content on wikipedia but quite often I ran into paragraphs that are not necessary correct and without any source marked.

Please advise if I got it wrong. For example, on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina , there's no source cited at the end of the first paragraph. Is that allowed? Thanks for your time in advance! Rounder (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rounder and welcome to the Teahouse. You are right in that generally speaking every information that is likely to be challenged should contain proper sources (usually at the end of the paragraph). The one exception however are the very first paragraphs before the first section (so, the text before the section "Origin of the expression" in your example). The very first paragraphs of an articles are called the "lead" of the article and they intend to summarize the main points of the article, that are already made in the body of the article with proper sources. Every point in the lead should thus be found somewhere below along with the source for that information. Sometimes, some information in the lead is not repeated later in the article (typically technical details that are not discussed in detail, such as the proper pronunciations in Deus ex machina), and in that case the source should be present in the lead. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Rounder. There is no requirement to cite sources for any content on Wikipedia (subject to the quote below), although preemptive citing may be advisable to avoid reversions or heavy editing. Early articles on Wikipedia had no references period.

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space

‍—‌Citing sources

If you know something is wrong, fix it. If your fix is likely to be contentious, cite it. Talk about your concerns on the Talk page of the article before or after your fixes. If the content is unfixable and damaging to the encyclopedia, remove it. Otherwise tag it for somebody else to fix if you cannot fix it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

How does one insert a superscript number, say "1" at the end of a sentence and then provide the reference data, in this case a PNAS paper form 1979?

In attempting to create a biographical page, Michael R. Lerner, I've run afoul of various wiki rules. For starters, references are needed. How does one add a superscript number at the end of a sentence, or even better, at the end of a specific word within a sentence? Next, how does one create a reference list and add references? By way of a specific example, there is a wiki article titled "snRNP". In it there is the name "Michael R. Lerner". If the name is clicked it takes you to the page I'm attempting to construct. Within it, there is the word "snRNP". That has now been linked back to the snRNP page. However, I also want to add a reference to snRNPs as superscript [1} with the references being: [1] Lerner MR, Steitz JA (November 1979). "Antibodies to small nuclear RNAs complexed with proteins are produced by patients with systemic lupus erythematosus". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76 (11): 5495–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.76.11.5495. PMC 411675. PMID 316537.

Thank, Mike Lerner BurOak496 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi BurOak496, and welcome to the Teahouse. The procedure for adding references is described at Help:Referencing for beginners. However, I would warn you that creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged, per Wikipedia:Autobiography. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, BurOak496, and welcome to the Teahouse. I recommend you read User:Yunshui/References for beginners.

You can also, while editing the page, put your cursor where you want the ^[#] to appear, then click "Cite" in the blue bar at the top of the editing window, then click "Templates" in the second blue bar that opens. Choose from Cite book, Cite journal, Cite news or Cite web based on whther you're citing a book, academic journal, newspaper/magazine, or a website that's not any of those. This opens up a handy fill-in0the-blanks form that will format the citation for you. Note that in the edit window, it won't look like ^[#]; it will look like

<ref>{{cite something|author=Somebody|title=Something|url=http://example.com|date=sometime|page=#}}</ref>

Good luck, and don't hesitate to return to the Teahouse with any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User.css and User.js

Hi Teahouse, I am a very new editor on wikipedia and I want to know how to create a User subpage with the user.css and/or user.js tag.Zyc1174 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zyc1174. If you click on any of the following you will be transported to the relevant pages: Special:Mypage/common.css, Special:Mypage/common.js, Special:Mypage/skin.css and Special:Mypage/skin.js. The first two will be where any code/script added will apply to any skin you have set, even if you switch between them. The second two will take you to your CSS and JS pages for the particular skin you have set currently, but will not apply unless using that skin. If you wanted to go to these pages without the special pages, alias "trick" I used, you would just need to recognize that a subpage is any page where some title is added after a forward slash. For the user: namespace, that will always be User:Zyc1174/SOMETHING Then you would just learn the normal name form of these special types of subpages and then create them. For example, by saving or previewing a red link to User:Zyc1174/vector.js (if you use Vector). See Wikipedia:How to create a page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving an image to Commons

Hi, in the article Oliver! is an image, that I would like to use in another language Wikipedia (File:Oliver Theatre Royal Bill Board.JPG). For over a year this image is marked for transfer to Commons, but it still hasn't transferred and I don't know how to do this (all my tries went wrong). Is there any person who would be so kind, to do that, so that it can be used in other language Wikipedias? 84.188.73.33 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am working on it now. I'll give a holler when done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

All done. I tweaked the name slightly to lowercase the JPG. It's at File:Oliver Theatre Royal Bill Board.jpg. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm in a hurry at the moment, but tomorror I will use it in the German Wikipedia. Thank you! 84.188.77.150 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have integrated it into the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia now. Thank you very much again. 79.224.78.84 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Making an article live in search engines.

Dear Representatives, I'm Trying to write a information flowing article of my Idol (Local Actor/director) from Nepal. And i guess, i made it up with good contents too, but when i search it in search engines like Google or Yahoo i couldn't find the listing of the particular article. Hope you will guide me in a ease way, Wikipedia Article name : Arpan Thapa Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpan_Thapa

regards, Nikhil AkhilThakuri (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AkhilThakuri. Wikipedia has no direct influence on how Google or Yahoo will display search results. They determine that with their own algorithms. In my experience, a Wikipedia article will usually display high in an online search. The most likely way to make a specific Wikipedia article display higher in search engine results is to improve and expand the article.

I live in California, and when I search Google for "Arpan Thapa", the Wikipedia article about him is #7 on the search list. That isn't bad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The way to link to a Wikipedia page is to provide a wikilink; [[Arpan Thapa]] renders as Arpan Thapa. Your question about Google and Yahoo needs to be addressed to Google and to Yahoo, not to Wikipedia, but you may find that it will take a little while for their databases to be updated. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi AkhilThakuri, when I search with Google for Arpan Thapa from Sweden the article is right there on the first page. As Cullen328 points out, the time it takes before the servers in a country pick up on a new article varies. I'm sure it will pop up in Nepal soon. Also, when David Biddulph wrote about a Wikilink, that link has nothing to do with Google or Yahoo. It should not be in the article itself (I have removed it now) it is the way other articles in the Wikipedia links to the article. w.carter-Talk 10:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi AkhilThakuri, when I want to find something quick on Wikipedia I go to Google or Bing and type in:

Arpan Thapa Wikipedia, or if I'm feeling lazy I type in: arpan thapa wiki

Your actor shows up #2 on Google this way. Arpan Thapa is indexed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikipedians for all the suggestion and effort that you have made to lead my article with a proper guidelines.

Hope for future talks, regards, AkhilThakuri (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But let's not forget that we don't really care about search engine rankings. We are here to build an encyclopedia.--ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Uploading pictures that are on other Wikipedia languages

Hello dear Teahouse hosts, :-)

Even though I have quite an edit count I never really properly learned how to upload pictures, as I never really went after it. There are several pictures on another Wikipedia (Azerbaijani) which are crucial for several articles of mine here, but I have absolutely no idea how to (re-?)-upload them so that I can use them here on the English wiki!

Could anyone help me with this procedure, aka uploading them from that Wiki on the English wiki? This is one of the pictures I'm referring to. If someone could help me with this, I'm sure I can do it myself in the future afterwards.

Yours sincerely - LouisAragon (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LouisAragon. Uploading images is quite complicated, unless you own the copyright and are willing to freely license the image. If the image is no longer copyrighted, it should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. In this case, relying on the not-always-accurate Google Translate, it looks like the photo is claimed to be free of copyright because it was published before 1923. If that is accurate, then the photo can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for free use by anyone for any purpose. The year 1923 is kind of a "magic date" in copyright rules, as copyright has completely expired for anything published before then. To me, it looks highly likely that the photo was taken before 1923, but what is the evidence that it was published before 1923? Family photos in an album or hanging on the wall are unpublished, and copyright starts when they are first published. So that needs to be verified.

If you intend to use the photo in a biography of the person in the photo, and if the person is dead, then another option is to upload it here on English Wikipedia for use only in that biography, as fair use of a non-free image. Please read WP:NFCI #10 for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that 1923 is a magic date only in the US (and on English Wikipedia because its server is in the US). But for a file to be regarded as PD on Commons, it must be PD in both the US and in the country of first publication; so 1923 is a magic date on Commons only for works first published in the US. —teb728 t c 11:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

small edit to page name

Hello,

I'm editing a page, and I would like to add a dash to the page name. It's currently "coregualtion" and I would like it to be "co-regulation." Is this possible? I tried , to no effect. Thank you!

Amanda.norona (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Amanda.norona, you will have to do a move. Simply click the more button on the upper right corner of your screen and then click on the move tab which will drop down. You then type the correct title, an explanation of why the page needed the move, and click 'move page'. That's all! White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly is correct, Amanda.norona, but you can only move a page once your account has been autoconfirmed, which requires you to have been registered for four days and to have made ten edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thanks for pointing that out. It appears that Amanda.norona was already autoconfirmed and did the move. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Amanda.norona is not autoconfirmed yet, but Theroadislong moved it. Keep making good edits and you will soon gain this right, Amanda.norona. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What makes you say that Amanda.norona is not autoconfirmed yet, @Cordless Larry:? It looks to me as if she would have been autoconfirmed before she asked the question here. If you were expecting to see the autoconfirmed right in the user list to which you linked, I think you'll find it wouldn't be listed there (see, for example, your own user account). - David Biddulph (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A late night confusion of the words autoconfirmed and autopatrolled, David Biddulph! Apologies for the confusion, all. I did think that it looked like Amanda.norona had met the criteria, so wondered why "autoconfirmed" wasn't showing up in their user rights when it appeared to do so in mine. I must have just been reading "autopatrolled" as "autoconfirmed" with my tired eyes. Apologies again. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the help, everyone!

Amanda.norona (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Creating a new article

Hello fellow wikipedians! I'm a newbie here and I created a new article called "Portuguese Romanesque Architecture". I wanted to make it as reliable as possible by adding citations and truthful sources. That article was marked for speedy deletion and I wanted to know what I can do to avoid that. Thank you for your help PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@PedroLopFonMarAlves: the speedy deletion issue appears to be taken care of. however, the issue of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia still needs to be addressed, and verifying claims by providing citations to reliably published sources . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm taking care of that now, if there's any other issue please inform me, as it seems I need to comply to a series of requirements that might escape me. Regards (PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey PedroLopFonMarAlves. I don't see a fix of the copyright issue (though a few hours have passed). Have you read the page TRPoD linked – and especially the section at the shortcut WP:PATT? In short, you will need to fix this with one or more dummy edits, providing copyright attribution in your edit summary, which links to the source of the copying and states that you coped material from there. You can emulate something like this. If more than one existing Wikipedia article was copied from, you can note each source of copying in a separate dummy edit (as to do a full job, you would not have room in the edit summary for more than one). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I do see this edit and appreciate that this appears to be an attempt to address the issue. However, the edit summary must link (a link is provided by placing a titles in doubled brackets like so: [[Architecture of Portugal]]). The issue is that the source of copying – where the list of authors is accessible from the page history, i.e., where those who own the copyright to the content you've copied – must be very directly made accessible in order to comply with the free copyright licenses [most of] the content here is co-licensed under.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I did it again, with the double brackets, but I don't know if I'm doing it right, nothing changed. It does appear in between "" but not a link. PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit, hi! I thought I had done it already, I did just like the tutorial: On the edit summary I stated the wikipedia page from where I copied the text. I will check that again. Thanks for the tip! PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

the above comment had inadvertently gotten placed in the wrong section, moved to the ongoing conversation about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey again PedroLopFonMarAlves. You did a good job. Thank you. Your new edit summary does indeed link to the source article. I'm not sure why you might have thought it did not but that diff comes from the page history where you can see all other edits and each edit summary used. Thanks again--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see it as well now too. Something related to page reloading. Thanks again for your help, if you check something out of order feel free to warn me. Cheers! PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings PedroLopFonMarAlves, I believe the article title should be downcased like this: Portuguese romanesque architecture or maybe like this: Portuguese Romanesque architecture. Per: Wikipedia:Article titles. You can do a page "Move" to change it if needed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax! I already did it, I downcased it like this: Portuguese Romanesque architecture", thanks for warning nevertheless. (PedroLopFonMarAlves (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

confirmation of copyright holder's permission

Hi. An article I submitted was recently deleted for copyright reasons. If I have direct permission from the copyright holder, how do I prove it and who do I prove it to? Liveorganic1 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liveorganic1, Please understand that the permission we need is not to give you permission to use their material here, nor for them to give Wikipedia permission to use their non-free copyrighted material (a "one-time license"). Rather the permission we would need is an irrevocable and permanent release of the copyright to the world under a compatible free copyright license or into the public domain.

The process is described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In short, they (the copyright holder directly, not you) would have to provide that release in a verifiable manner that demonstrated they were the copyright holder and the release would have to be specific, such as a change of the copyright notice at the website where the material is hosted, if applicable, or an email (with their domain name included in it showing some authority e.g, if this is about Fifty Wonders of Korea, then probably kscpp.net) containing a release not unlike that found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liveorganic1: another thing to consider is that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's purpose is different than most other writing in the world, and most other writing in the world, EVEN IF released appropriately under the proper copyright license (for everyone to use forever for whatever purpose they want for free) the text would almost never be anything like the appropriate text for an encyclopedia article and require major re-writing from top to bottom. So you can probably save yourself and the copyright holder time and effort by just paraphrasing and re-writing in your own words from the beginning. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your responses. They were very helpful. The copyright holder seems to agree that re-writing might be a better idea, so I believe that's what i'll do.

Thank you~ Liveorganic1 (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green (again)

I reviewed the eighth submission of this draft. It had already been declined seven times. I declined it an eighth time, on notability grounds (as usual). I observed that, in response to a request to insert wikilinks to other articles, the author had single-bracketed them rather than double-bracketing them. This resubmission cycle has been going on for more than two months. I nominated it for Miscellany for deletion. The author, User:Aagreeny4, then posted the following to my talk page: "I have taken this paper to the writing center at my school, Eckerd College 4 times. Each time with the comments and suggestions after my declines. They are professionals and have written Wikipedia pages, and they can not see what the problem is and why I am being declined. I would like to talk to your supervisor to see why I am being declined and to discuss with them why you are treating me so rudely with your remarks."

First, we are all volunteers here, and no volunteer editor has a supervisor, but you are welcome to discuss with my peers. Second, as to the advice that you are getting at Eckerd College, I assume that when you say that they are professionals, you mean that they are professional writers and faculty members. The fact that they have written Wikipedia pages doesn't mean that they are experienced Wikipedia editors or how familiar they are with Wikipedia, only that they are Wikipedia editors. Maybe the pages that they have written have had to do with literary criticism or language, topics for which many reliable sources are available. They may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies as to biographies of living persons. You have been declined by multiple volunteer editors, so that presumably your question is addressed to multiple volunteer editors, not just to me. (I agree that I drew a line in the sand that they hadn't drawn by requesting deletion.) Some of them had commented that you weren't addressing the comments of other reviewers.

I welcome the comments of other editors (who, as noted, are my peers).

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to know if you went to college? Where did you graduate from what was your degree in and was it a PH.D. ? I would like to be contacted by one the cofounder of Wikipedia, if Jimmy Whales is available I would like to talk to him about this.

Aagreeny4 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert's educational background has no bearing on whether or not the article you are trying to write is based on writing which already exists in substantial, independent sources. If it is not, it will be declined again. If such sources do not exist, the article will not exist. --Jayron32 05:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Aagreeny4, any editor may contact Jimmy Wales - he gives details at User:Jimbo Wales#Contacting me. Your particular question seems to fall into the category of "General Wikipedia questions" there. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

First, as Jimmy Wales says, for General Wikipedia questions, go to the Help Desk or the Teahouse. We are here at the Teahouse. You can post to the talk page of User talk: Jimbo Wales, and you will definitely get an answer, but it may or may not be from Jimmy Wales, and it may or may not be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I understand your frustration. I find it hard to understand why some new editors ignore the advice they are given and continue submitting their drafts without correcting the issues pointed out to them. All the same, I'm not entirely certain that deleting the draft is the optimal outcome here.

It's a shame that the Chronicle of Higher Education source doesn't seem to be online; it might at least begin to establish notability, but unless someone who volunteers here has access to back issues, I don't think it would be appropriate to AGF that there is substantial coverage in this case. I've never heard of Scholatic Coach before, and I don't know whether it counts as WP:RS; several Wikipedia articles reference the magazine, but it does not have an article about it here.

I did some Googling for sources. Using newspaper search, I found a couple of articles in The Michigan Daily, which is a university paper but may be one of the few of those which counts as a reliable source; I encourage other Teahouse volunteers to share their opinions about that. The Michigan Daily - Nov 11, 1996 and The Michigan Daily - Nov 19, 1998 are the articles in question.

I'm not sure about this source, either: Virginia Medical Monthly – 1990 It's published by The Medical Society of Virginia, but I can't tell how much fact-checking or editorial control are in place.

I also found Toledo Blade - Oct 28, 1989, which is more than a mere mention, and the Blade is indisputably RS. It's not as meaty a source as would be ideal, but it does get us started establishing "Greeny"'s notability.

I think that if other editors consider at least one of the sources I found other than the Toledo Blade article usable for notability purposes, that would tend to indicate that there's a decent chance of there being additional usable offline sources. The draft creator's poor compliance with Wikipedia standards of behavior shouldn't lead to the draft's deletion if other, more experienced editors can establish the subject's notability.

So, I ask you, Teahouse colleagues: Do any of you have access to the offline sources already cited in the draft, and what do you make of the sources I found and listed above? Thanks in advance for your input. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 07:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Second, I agree that deleting the draft is not the optimal outcome. However, the optimal outcome is not one that we, the Teahouse editors, can achieve. The optimal outcome would have been for the original poster to accept advice from multiple reviewers and make improvements to the draft. It is obvious that the original poster is not paying attention to advice, and is resorting to arguments from authority, and is otherwise being tendentious. The question is whether deleting the draft is the least sub-optimal option available to use. Since I don't want to spend hours essentially blowing up the draft and starting over, which is what some of us are willing to do, it was at least a way to decide where to go from here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Third, the issue where some editors are willing to go above and beyond the call of duty is finding reliable sources. There are several problems with the draft. One of them is the sources. Another is the cruft (such as the Awards section). Another is the (recently introduced) need for copy-editing of malformed links (introduced because the original poster apparently didn't view the revised draft after adding the malformed links). As a result, the real question is whether we, the Teahouse volunteers, should essentially write a new article, because that is essentially what we have to do, since the original poster isn't responding to advice. I thank anyone who is willing to write the new article, but that is beyond the call of duty. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"They are professionals and have written Wikipedia pages, and they can not see what the problem is." Ask for their Wikipedia account names, so you can discuss the draft with them directly. Or ask for them to discuss on your talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth, or ask them to discuss here at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced that "blowing up and starting over" is needed here, although some additional work would be. I have determined that the Chronicle of Higher Education is held by a university library near me, and I am arranging to view or obtain a photocopy of the cited article. That will be a start. DES ^(talk) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have electronic access to the Chronicle of Higher Education via ProQuest, but unfortunately only from 1988 onwards (the article is from 1987). Thanks to DES for his efforts to get a copy. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Tone of Discourse

On the one hand, I would like to thank those editors who are making a special effort to find the needed sources for this draft. On the other hand, there is a tangentially related topic that I would also like to mention. I think that the original poster approached the repeated declines of his article with a non-collaborative attitude, coming to my talk page and demanding to speak to my supervisor and complaining about rude treatment, after having ignored our comments, preferring to seek advice from professors and then use them for an argument from authority. If an editor comes to Wikipedia to participate in Wikipedia as an electronic workplace, they will do well to work collaboratively with other editors. Editors who treat other editors with respect are likely also to be treated with respect, while editors who show that they do not want to listen often are not listened to, or acquire reputations as difficult editors. I would like to know whether other editors agree that Aagreeny4 started off with a non-collaborative attitude. I would ask AAgreeny4 to consider how their tone of discourse (and habit of ignoring suggestions) is likely to be received. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Robert McClenon. Asking to speak to your supervisor and asking whether you have a PhD is not the way to engage with other editors. It seems that Aagreeny4 has some fundamental misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works (and specifically its collaborative nature as a project). I would suggest that you do some reading about the project, Aagreeny4, perhaps starting with Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Five pillars. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I note that Aagreeny4 had not received a welcome message, so I've posted one that contains lots of links to help new editors learn about Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Aagreeny4's user name suggests a possible conflict of interest. Has that been enquired about anywhere? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I asked whether the article was an autobiography, and was told that it is not. However, I did not ask whether he had a close connection to the subject. Does Aagreeny4 have a close connection to the subject that would constitute a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)‎

First I want to thank those who are willing to help me with my page, especially GrammarFascist, DES, and Cordless Lary. Thank you fro the welcome not also. Thank you for going to research the Chronicle of Higher Education and for asking about others views on the sources you found to seek notability.

Robert, I have collaborated with everyone, who has declined my page. I have gone to their talk page and asked for advice, suggestions, and help or to clarify any questions I had. I have taken all of their advice except for one reviewer, who I thought contradicted others suggestion and advice. Each draft has changed significantly since the original. I have rephrased my wording, added many sources, cut out many of the primary sources, added more secondary notably sources, cut out more primary sources, and finally i trimmed down each section of the article almost in half. Can you tell me how any of this is not showing improvement, ignoring comments, and not collaborative? Also I tried the wikilinks, which are a type of citing I have never seen before. I made one small error that you keep fixating on, a simple mistake not putting in 2 brackets and only using one. You should have just stated it was wrong and how to correct it instead of insulting me and my writing by stating "you don't review why you are submitting". I would assume this mistake is common for new users. I feel you have not reviewed all my drafts and the changes I have made from each draft submitted, and how much of a change there has been from the beginning to this latest draft. Your comments to me have been rude, disrespectful, and unprofessional. If you want to talk about tone of discourse, I think you should look at yourself also. You have insulted me, my writing, and my college. That is the reason that I asked to speak to your supervisor. I have called Jimmy Whales and left a message and am waiting to talk to him about you. I also asked you a question on your educational background, which you ignored. Can you answer that question? And it does have bearing on the article, if you are going to make these comments and the way you make them I want to know your credibility to make them. Additionally you wanted to talk about conflict of interest. I think you have a conflict of interest with my article and should excuse yourself from commenting or reviewing my article, because each time someone has commented on this talk page stating they don't think it should be nominated for deletion, you come back and attack me. They make other suggestions and are willing to help with article and sources, you again tell them not to do this and attack me. And then you write about my discourse after the fact that others are willing to help. Without looking at your own discourse towards me.

Thank you to everyone for giving me advice that I will use in revising, and for your willingness to help me.

My father stayed up late last night and into the early morning talking with someone who had an alcohol problem. This is above and beyond his job, but that is the type of person that he is. He is the most notable person in his profession and had saved countless lives with his message. I want others to know about him and how much of an impact he has on others lives.

I have worked very hard. made changes, and taken advice from editors. I don't want to be deleted. I really want to create this page, that I have worked so hard on.

Thank you all for the help. I look forward to hearing what others think of the mentioned articles from Grammerfascist, and the others who are trying to access the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Thank you for helping, being nice, and respectful to my questions and concerns.

Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Aagreeny4 You need to understand some things about how Wikipedia works. First of all, all of us are volunteers, and none of us has a "supervisor", not even Jimmy Whales is a supervisor. Secondly, Wikipedia runs on displayed editing skill and citations provided, not on credentials. The academic degrees or qualifications an editor may have (or claim to have) are pretty much ignored, and it is generally seen as hostile to demand statements of such qualifications. Such demands are routinely ignored. Thirdly, while I have sometimes disagreed with Robert McClenon, including about the draft you started, he is a respected editor who puts in a great deal of time and effort reviewing AfC submissions (among other tasks), a generally thankless job. He sees a great many hopeless submissions, and a great many new editors who seem determined to get those hopeless submissions into Wikipedia.

Also, you were asked about your connection, if any, with Mike Green. You have stated that you are not Green. Do you have any connection with him? If you do, what is it, (in general terms) please? DES ^(talk) 22:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

He answered that question, although not intending to answer it, and that answers that. He wrote: "My father stayed up late last night and into the early morning talking with someone who had an alcohol problem. This is above and beyond his job, but that is the type of person that he is. He is the most notable person in his profession and had saved countless lives with his message. I want others to know about him and how much of an impact he has on others lives." He is writing this biography of a living person for his father. It is not an autobiography, but it has the same flaws as an autobiography. I will note that, just as your father often went above and beyond the call of duty, some of the editors here have gone above and beyond the call of duty to try to help you (when you will not help yourself) to establish notability for your father. Give them a great deal of respect. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, conflict of interest has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia. Please read the conflict of interest policy. AAgreeny4 wrote: "Additionally you wanted to talk about conflict of interest. I think you have a conflict of interest with my article and should excuse yourself from commenting or reviewing my article, because each time someone has commented on this talk page stating they don't think it should be nominated for deletion, you come back and attack me." I do not have a conflict of interest, and Aagreeny4 does have a conflict of interest, but I will recuse myself from further reviews on the grounds of having become involved. Is that satisfactory? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I will not review your draft again. I do reserve the right to comment, and will probably do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aagreeny4, it may be that you haven't understood what "conflict of interest" refers to in the Wikipedia meaning of the term, but please refrain from accusing other editors of having a conflict of interest without providing evidence - particularly in cases such as this, where you have an acknowledged family relationship to the article subject, and hence a conflict of interest yourself. On the qualifications point, Robert McClenon does not need a PhD to interpret Wikipedia:Notability (people). In general, it is not considered acceptable on Wikipedia to ask other editors to reveal personal details about themselves. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DES, I understand that you all are volunteers and that no one has a supervisor. I learned that after Robert told me in the beginning. The only reason I mentioned supervisor after that is because he brought it up again, and I was explaining my actions. But thank you fro explaining that to me. I understand that the job requires a lot of time and effort that goes thankless. I do thank everyone who has helped me and for all their effort. Especially everyone who has treated me with respect, and have commented with suggestions, and put in care to help me. I have realized that editors don't like sharing their educational background and don't think it is necessary to be provided. However I think that should be changed to at least show that editor have some type of college degree or attaining it now, to show that they are knowledgeable on the subject and can critique others work. It just I don't know everyone's background what credibility they have, or if they are just a random person trying to make comments. Thank you for your responses to my statements and help.

Robert, i would like to state that I am a She, and I did intend to answer that in my response. I do give other editor a great deal of respect as long as they are respectful to me, which everyone else is. I have helped myself to establish notability, and others are adding additional notability, so I don't know what you are talking about. i think you do have a conflict of interest with my article, why else would you attack me and my work so many times? Even if you do not know me or my father it is still a conflict with way you respond so negatively toward me and repetitively. It is satisfactory that you will no linger review my drafts, but I do wish that you stop commenting also, unless you do it in a respectful manner. I would also like an apology from you for the way you have treated me and attacked me.

Cordless Lary, I did provide the evidence of Roberts conflict of interest, how he negates what others are say, and attacks my work and me. He clearly has some type of deep involvement in my work, or my article, that he needs to stay away from. I do recognize that I am related to the subject as he is my father. But I have had several neutral parties read my work so I can keep my own personal sides out. I have realized that editors don't like sharing their educational background and don't think it is necessary to be provided. However I think that should be changed to at least show that editor have some type of college degree or attaining it now, to show that they are knowledgeable on the subject and can critique others work. It just I don't know everyone's background what credibility they have, or if they are just a random person trying to make comments. Thank you for your time and i will take your comments into account when editing my article.

Thank yo to everyone who has commented, offered suggestions, and for treating me and my work with respect. I will use your advice in my articles. I look forward to hearing others views on the articles that GrammerFascist kindly found, and if others agree with their notability. And i look forward to hearing about finding the Chronicle of Higher Education in a library by DES.

Aagreeny4 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aagreeny4, the reason why Robert McClenon has made so many comments on your draft article is that he commits a significant portion of his time on Wikipedia to reviewing drafts. On your conflict of interest, it is not sufficient to say that you have asked some neutral parties to read your edits and that you will take our concerns into account. You need to follow the guidance at WP:COI. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It is clear to me that User:Aagreeny4, in accusing me of conflict of interest, doesn't know what conflict of interest is, since she has one and I do not, and there is no way that she can claim that I have one. Her willingness to go on with this claim after she is corrected implies that she doesn't really want to know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will interpret her argument as meaning that I am involved, and I have already agreed to recuse from any further reviews. If she really thinks that I have a personal non-Wikipedia interest against her, she is free to present it, but she should first read the boomerang essay and realize that idle allegations of conflict of interest, when she just means involvement, are personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several reasons why people edit Wikipedia. Most of us do so out of some sort of commitment to the concept of Wikipedia as a free source of knowledge. All of the regular editors here at the Teahouse fall into that class, even if we disagree on details. There are a few editors who want to cause trouble, vandals and trolls. User:Aagreeny4 is neither. She isn't trying to cause trouble, but she isn't trying to enhance Wikipedia. She is what is known as a single purpose account. Her only agenda is to get an article about her father accepted. As the Wikipedia policy on single-purpose accounts explains, single-purpose accounts are not prohibited, but are likely to be viewed unfavorably. I would like to thank those editors who are going beyond the call of duty to help an editor who won't help herself. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay Robert, by Wikipedia's definition it would not be classified as a Conflict of interest on your part. However in real life it would, something is obstructing the proper judgement of me and my writing. I don't know your reasoning, but it is clear in the way you have negatively commented, negate what others are saying, constantly try to offend me, and treat me rudely. Involvement is closely related to conflict of interest, as shown by the Wikipedia definition. "This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute". Saying that these are not personal attacks are wrong. Saying "do you even read your articles before submitting", claiming that I am lazy, or dumb. Fixating on my bracket error. Creating a section on my tone of discourse, that I am non-collaborative, again attacking me. Being at a college I know how to collaborate and work with others, taking their advice, which I have also done here and on my page. You stated "Editors who treat other editors with respect are likely also to be treated with respect", I have never felt respect from you whatsoever. You also attacked my school by saying that those helping with the article probably have not written this type and don't know anything. Finally you keep claiming that I won't help myself. Another attack on me, I have asked numerous users for help and take everything they say into consideration and use in my article. I have revised many times, and am constantly working on the paper, and always welcome others input that is said respectfully. Finally I am trying to enhance Wikipedia with this article. How do you know that I am a single-person account? You have no proof. I will work on other articles after this one is accepted.

Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But will you work on other articles even if this one does not get approved? Having one's own article deleted or not approved from the draft status are quite common and normal things for new users. Getting fixated on this article will not help you, if you want to keep contributing in the future. Many of the Wikipedia's common terms like "notability" and "conflict of interest" may seem rude at first but they do not mean same thing as in the common real life language. I think you should calm down a bit. These fine folks have been trying to help, and have even been trying to get their hands on the references you cited to check if your father is notable within Wikipedia's standards. Ceosad (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ceosad. Possibly. I don't think those terms are rude, that wasn't the problem for me. I know I have to find sources that show notability. I agree that they have all been trying to help and I really appreciate that, and am taking all their advice in working on my article. I think it is so nice that they are taking the time to help and even finding sources. The only person I have not taken into consideration is Robert because of his attitude toward me. I thank everyone again, and thank you for commenting and helping.

Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aagreeny4, the term is single-purpose account, not "single-person". I hope that there is only one person operating your account, as sharing of accounts is not allowed. Robert says that you are a single-purpose account based on your contribution history. If you plan to edit other articles, why don't you consider doing that now? It would show a commitment to the aims of Wikipedia and demonstrate that you aren't just here to promote your father. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Article title incorrect

How do I change an article title? My article about SAP S/4HANA recently went live but with an incorrect title of "4HANA". So the “S/” is missing from the title, the "S/" is important because it signifies that it is a “suite” of software. Some where along the editing, someone removed the "S/". The page should be called "SAP S/4HANA" (you will see the rest of the info in the text refers to it as SAP S/4HANA too). I contacted the editor (SwisterTwister) last week but still no response/edit, can you help make change it from 4HANA to SAP S/4HANA? Many thanks! Olivia0452 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Olivia0452

You will have to move it, Olivia0452. (Click here for more information) Frank (User Page) (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

But she won't be able to move it yet, as she needs more edits to become autoconfirmed. Note also that with a slash in the article name there might be slight confusion in regard to the talk page, see WP:NC-SLASH (in that Talk:SAP S/4HANA, if it existed, would presumably have a link to the non-existent page Talk:SAP S). David Biddulph (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we instead move it ot the "full" name of "SAP Business Suite 4 SAP HANA" which avoids the issues with a name containing a slash, and is less cryptic as well. Olivia0452, would you object to this? If not, I will do the move. DES ^(talk) 23:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Imfrankliu, David Biddulph, and DESiegel: What if we try to cover all bases and do the following as the title: SAP Business Suite 4 SAP HANA (SAP S/4HANA) . Would that work too? Olivia0452 (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Olivia0452

The key question is what is its WP:COMMONNAME? That's what should be used as the article's title per guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Olivia0452: That would have the same problem of containing a slash. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, I see that the article has been moved and Talk:SAP S/4HANA does now exist, but it doesn't have the spurious link to Talk:SAP S which WP:NC-SLASH suggests it would have. Does anyone understand why? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NC-SLASH says that "if an article has a forward slash in its name, its corresponding talk page may display a redundant subpage level-up link at the top". I'm not sure why it's may and what that depends on, but it seems that it's not the case here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:, so now that Talk:SAP S/4HANA exists the page has been corrected to have the correct SAP S/4HANA title? Am I understanding that correctly? Otherwise, I guess the name "SAP Business Suite 4 SAP HANA" would also be OK as a page title (although "SAP S/4HANA" is more commonly used but if it causes problems... then "SAP Business Suite 4 SAP HANA" is fine). Thanks for all the help trying to sort this out, appreciate it. Olivia0452 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Olivia0452

The article has been moved to SAP S/4HANA as you originally requested, and there don't appear to be any consequential problems, so there is no need to look for any less commonly used name. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)