Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SchrumpflinH (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 10 February 2016 (→Contested Deletion?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

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

problem with image file on site

I uploaded and obtained permission for an image on:

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

It was working fine, but suddenly disappeared and I can't figure out how to fix it.Gaw54 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page gets deleted for the second time

Hi am Abhishek Pathy, i created a page for myself as to showcase my project as well. It is unfortunate that even after correcting the second time my page is deleted stating 11G as reason.Kindly help me get this done am not clear where am going WrongAbhishek Pathy (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Where you are going wrong is trying to create a Wikipedia page for yourself to showcase your project. The purpose of a Wikipedia user page, for users who are here to improve the encyclopedia, is shown at WP:user page. If you wish to create a web page to showcase your project, there are plenty of web-hosting sites on the Internet, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to comment

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me with a small problem. We are doing a course in university and we are asked to leave comments under one another's blogs, I was wondering if you could give me advice on how to do this? Many Thanks Tellegee (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are included in the list of University of Sterling students referred to in the section immediately below. Please read and follow that advice - and please note Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a blog - Arjayay (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


my content can't be viewed

For my class I am supposed to write a post under my talk section. I wrote and published one, but when I search myself my post does not come up. I am worried by teacher won't be able to find it. I am also searching my classmates usernames and nothing us coming up. What am I doing wrong?

Kacollins95 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find your contributions at Special:Contributions/Kacollins95, accessible via the "Contributions" link at the top of any page. To find contributions from another user, change your user name to theirs. If you are using the Wikipedia "Search" facility, by default it looks just at articles, not at user talk pages; you would need to change the search option to look in a different namespace, see Help:Search.
It does cause some confusion to have such content on your user talk page, as that is intended to let other users contact you about your contributions to the encyclopedia. It is unfortunate that your teacher hasn't read Wikipedia:Student assignments; it might be wise to point that page out to him/her. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hi Kacollins95. Your content can be viewed. Look to the very top of this page and you will see certain links, including "contributions" and, next to your username, "talk". The talk link will lead to your talk page where you've posted the content. The contributions tab, will show you ever page you've ever edited, and in this case, will also provide a link to your talk page, where this content is posted. However, this content appears entirely related to the goals of Wikipedia, and might be speedy deleted as misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost, or after discussion referring to WP:NOTWEBHOST. Can you please advise if there is a central education page where we can see the assignment and where your teacher might be contacted? Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This search finds 35 of you, presumably all from the University of Stirling. You will probably want to read the section #Contested Deletion? as several of your colleagues have had their user talk pages deleted for inappropriate use. Your teacher needs to address this urgently. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - thanks for coming in on this. I'm the instructor involved. This is the first iteration of the exercise. The ide is that students are not encouraged to use the wiki as a blog or free host, but the exercise in question is a way to encourage use of editing, wikimarkup, as well as the key principles of civility and free exchange of ideas. Hence the edits are restricted to user talk pages for the moment.
There are 3 further exercises of this nature - very modet, 2-3k character posts, plus comments to aclimatise the students to the editing process, before we launch a discrete project in Wikibooks (now in its 3rd annual iteration) next week.
Please advise on reversion for posted content. Thanks. GregXenon01 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you look at Wikipedia:School and university projects, read the associated advice, and add your project to the list.
I do not know how that project prefers to work, but if this is an exercise, it might be better if your students used their own individual sandboxes, which are meant for experimenting with mark-up, rather than talk pages, which are for other editors to leave messages on. - Arjayay (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated filter blocks from creating a page

Hello everyone! I'm trying to create a company page to wiki for informative purposes and getting blocked for possible autobiography. I've gone through the policies and as far as I can understand my writing is complitely from neutral point of view; I'm writing what the company does and including its highlights in history.

I've included references to wikipages that clarify the information and have external links to the networks the company uploads inform to.

I see that the other companies alike have shorter biographies, which could be the solution for this page; removal of large part of the information and only submitting the company information and it's history + links.

Any ideas? Pivatic (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pivatic. The edit filter which warned you regarding your article states that if you do still want to save the page you can "scroll down and click "save page" again." - it was only a warning about writing autobiographies, automatically detected because your username is the same as the name of the article you were trying to create; it shouldn't have stopped you from clicking save again. That said, the article you were trying to create read like an advert, and did not cite any third party reliable sources of information. If you're going to recreate the page you should make sure to cite such sources. Sam Walton (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam, scrolling down I'm only seeing "Dismiss" and "Try Again" buttons, no "Save page". "Try Again" returns me back to the "save your changes" window.

I've removed whole lot from the article, all that's left is short summary of what the company does & when/where it was found, what industries are connected & the company history.

The company is a global manufacturer which is why I thought it should have English & Finnish (founded in Finland) wikipages. Here's the Finnish one that got throught ( https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivatic ), English version is exactly the same with free translation. Pivatic (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Finnish article has no references to sources independent of the subject. Under the rules of the English Wikipedia, the article will not be accepted unless it meets English Wikipedia's definition of notability, requiring that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a number of useful links to your user talk page. You need to read WP:Your first article, and also WP:COI, WP:Paid, and WP:CORPNAME. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Deletion?

Hi - my name is hannahfaire667. I've only been a member of the Wikipedia community for a day and already I've been told that my user:talk page has been flagged for potential deletion because I posted irrelevant content and I haven't contributed to the Wikipedia community. Unfortunately, I'm part of a University class. The articles we post on our user-talk pages are answers to questions posed by our professor and we're supposed to use them to learn formatting and discuss the material in class with ourselves and others. The way I'm supposed to use the user:talk page (according to my professor) doesn't look like it would ever be deemed exactly 'relevant'.

What should I do? I'm nervous my page is going to be taken down and I've only had it for a day. I can't fail this class because one person thinks my page isn't good. I'm not bullying or posting crude material or doing anything that would break one of the 'Five Pillars' - I'm just answering my assignments the way I'm told.

Please help? I can't afford to fail this class because my page is flagged for deletion. Would it be wrong of me just to unflag it and move on? Hannahfaire667 (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hannahfaire667. Do not remove the tag from your talk page. Instead, remove the content that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a social network for chit-chat about playing video games. Although friendly banter is allowed on talk pages, it should be banter that is clearly related to writing, expanding, improving and referencing encyclopedia articles. So do your best to complete your class assignments in ways that help build the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cullen328 Great thank you. Hannahfaire667 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hannahfaire667. It sounds as if you're saying that your teacher is expecting you to do something in Wikipedia that is against the policies of Wikipedia. If that is the case, then I'm afraid you're in a difficult position. I suggest you look at WP:School and university projects to see what is allowed (and what is recommended), and go back to your teacher to see if you misunderstood or whether they are not aware of how Wikipedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine and RHaworth. Thank you for all your assistance, but I do recoil a bit at the word "sinful". I was just doing what my professor told us to do, which was "comment on each other's postings" on our user:talk pages. I wasn't aware there was a different way of replying to people's conversations. I'm incredibly sorry this whole debacle started. I was only trying to complete my assignment the way I thought it was assigned. I will research and talk with my professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahfaire667 (talk • contribs)
RHaworth As our pages are delete now - is there any possibility to get our source text again? As I've seen the history was cleared as well and I am wondering if there is any chance to keep track to it? SchrumpflinH (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given permission to a picture

Hello Community

I am writing my first page and I wanted to use a picture. I have emailed the owner of the photo and asked for permission to post their picture. There responded and said yes. What copyright tag would I use to validate my use of the photo. He has not explicitly said that everyone could use the photo but I am sure he would. What copyright tag should I use?

Chariot Rider (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The permission needs to come directly from the copyright holder, not from you. The process is described at WP:Donating copyrighted material. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chariot Rider, please be sure that the copyright holder knows that if they donate the image to Wikimedia Commons, anyone can reuse the photo any time for any purpose, including commercial ventures, without asking for permission. Attribution is the only requirement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page gone weird

I was editing the Mahindra racing page and updating the formula e results when I had to add a new driver, this is when one of the columns went very tall and I tried everything to fix it. If anyone can have a look and let me know how this problem is overcome it would be appreciated Vulcan9919 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You had deleted the termination of the table ( |} ). I have repaired it in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for other users by name

HI! this is probably a really simple question but i'm stumped for some reason. How do we find other users by exact username? I tried searching them in the search box but it didn't come up! Thank you! Emily boston (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Emily boston. To go to a specific editor's page, type "User:" in the search box followed by the exact user name. So, entering "User: Cullen328" takes you to my user page. Similarly, entering "User talk: Cullen328" takes you to my talk page. Leave out the quotation marks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Emily boston. Strictly speaking Cullen's procedure searches for user pages. It works for Cullen and for you because you both have user pages. If you want to search for a user with no user page, you can use the dialog at Special:ListUsers. —teb728 t c 20:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen's procedure always works for "User:". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a post

I want to edit a post but I cant seem to get in back up. Is there any way I can bring it back up to edit? Spedlow (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spedlow. Assuming you mean something you have previously edited in Wikipedia, pick, the "Contributions" link at the top of the page. It will give you a list of all the edits you have made, and you can pick the link to the relevant page, and then edit it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse Spedlow. To edit a section of a page, you can click the [edit] link to the right of the section header. For example to edit this section click the [edit] to the right of "Editing a post" above. To edit a page without sections (or edit more than one sections at once), click the Edit tab at the top of the page. Is that what you wanted? —teb728 t c 22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to transfer my article from French to English

Hello,

I have an article written in French in Wikipedia French. How can I translate the article from french to English and transfer it to Wikipedia English site?

Thanks for your help,

Bah Lamine Bah 19:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Start by reading the WP:TRANSLATE guide page. If you need furthe assistance, you know where to find us. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) - Please note it is not "your" article, and assuming you mean Draft:Thierno Abdourahmane Bah I wonder if you have a conflict of interest in editing that article - please read and follow our guidance on conflict of interest here - Arjayay (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To get a translation of fr:Thierno Abdourahmane Bah for English Wikipedia, you or someone else would have to create a high quality translation. Your copy-and-paste copy at Draft:Thierno Abdourahmane Bah is a bad start because it has lost the footnotes from the French original. —teb728 t c 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How Do I Use Text As A Hyperlink?

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help me with making text into a hyperlink to something? For instance I want to mention a news article, and link it using the person involved's name. How would I do that?

Thanks!

KerryFromThePub (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, KerryFromThePub. You can create a new reference to the online newspaper article, and there are several different methods to do so, explained at Referencing for beginners. I use fill-in-the-blank Citation templates, which contain a preformatted field for the URL. We do not usually hyperlink text in an article to an external website, but rather to other Wikipedia articles. The exception is a section at the end of an article with appropriate external links. For example, an article about a notable company will have a link to the company website at the end. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Hello! I have tried to add a reference where I see arrows pointing up with a numerical order of the references. When I tried to add mine it didn't align properly with the rest of the references. 69.65.92.202 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi which article are you talking about? The edit above is the only edit made from that IP address. Nthep (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse 69.65.92.202. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. You add the footnote in a ref tag in the body of the article—not in the References section. —teb728 t c 21:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how to embed a video on an entry

Hello, which is the correct editing process to embed a youtube video on a wikipedia entry on my user talk page? Thank you in advance! Everynameistaken15 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everynameistaken15, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid what you're trying to do is simply not possible. Embedded YouTube videos are not supported; the only videos it's possible to include are ones on Wikimedia Commons, and the videos there must be under free licenses. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Howicus: thank you! I'll just post a link then :) Everynameistaken15 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Styles in user pages

Hi, I want create own section in user page about which pages I created. And I don't want, that be a simple style, I want that be a colorful, in short stylish.Music land - Lukaslt13 Come in my talk! 16:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Lukaslt13. Please take a look at the User page design center. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page The Cuckoo (song) has a footnote with an external link that has rotted. However, the external site has been archived to another site, so a replacement link is possible to the same content. What's the correct way to fix this?

The current reference at the end of the page reads: 

 "The Cuckoo". Folkinfo. June 8, 2006. Retrieved 2009-01-02.
  1. Silently change the link destination?
  2. Change the destination, lose the information that the destination is part of the now-defunct "Folkinfo" site?
  3. Add a few words noting that the site is now archived at this other link?

And what is the correct style for making the change using the {{cite}} syntax?

Thanks,

Eac2222 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eac2222. That citation uses the template {{cite web}}. If you click on that linked template, you'll see it has documentation. Under Examples, see the documentation for Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "dead-url") for webpages that have been archived. See also the later section under URL. If you have any problem after reading that, please ask. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit -- thanks! I hadn't thought of looking for doc in the template. I think I've got the page right now.
Eac2222 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating article on username talk page - word count?

Hi all, new to Wikipedia :) Just wondering if it is possible to see a character count when writing a new section on your username talk page? Any help much appreciated Lyndzcmedia (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lyndzcmedia. I know of no native ability to do this, but you could always hit preview, then copy and paste into a character counter such as this one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether this is what you're looking for, @Lyndzcmedia:, but if you go to the "View history" section, it shows how the character count of the page changed with each edit. So when I look at the history entry related to your question above, it says (+319)‎ - you added 319 characters in that new section.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Lyndzcmedia, might sound a bit silly bit you could copy and paste the text to a word document and check it there. KerryFromThePub (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please suggest how can I modify my work that has been declined previously?

My article was declined by the reviewer. I appreciate the decision and want to make my article more appropriate for wikipedia. Need your assistance in this regard. If you please highlight the words and phrases which I should change, it would be easier for me to edit. Thank you in advance. Drabantika17 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. It is always useful in such questions if you give a wikilink to the article in question. In this case I guess that you might be referring to Draft:Ranajit Das? One of the problems is that although you have a list of bare urls in a "References" section, you haven't given any indication as to which parts of the text of the article are supported by which of the "references". We do that by footnotes, and an explanation of how to do it is given at WP:Referencing for beginners. One example of unencyclopedic and promotional language is "A poet, not just a poet, rather to say an activist of words and thought, Ranajit has bought a unique genre in Bengali poetry of modern era. His non-fictional prose pieces are popularly accepted for the content, diction and analysis as well." Another is the whole of the section at Draft:Ranajit Das#Philosophical and Political thoughts:. I have added a number of useful links to your user talk page, and in particular you should read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drabantika17: you have uploaded an image of a book cover, claiming it as "own work". The photography may be your own work, but I doubt that the book cover is. I fear that this image may have to be removed from Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to move sandbox content to another from a newly established account?

How do one move their sandbox article content to another page? Sedique (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Sedique If this is about User:Sedique/sandbox, Wikipedia already has an article on that subject at Maker culture. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. One of the things it teaches is to check first that there is not already an article on your subject. —teb728 t c 09:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author of book

Hello! I wanted to know if authors get written a biography in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.35.7.27 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they are notable – in the secial sense we use that word to mean the world taking note of a topic by writing about it substantively (not just mere mentions) in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic. See also WP:AUTHOR for a subject-specific guideline on notability of authors (though I personally believe all the subject specific guidelines should be deleted). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a disambiguation page?

Help please! I need to make a disambiguation page with the title "Trampolene" so that people searching for the band Trampolene can be directed to "Trampolene_(Band)" instead of "Trampolene" a song by Julian Cope, which they are named after. I have read articles about how to write the page but please can someone explain how I would actually start the page and redirect the song so that searches don't automatically go there. Stripeyjane (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stripeyjane. We actually already have a disambiguation page for trampolines, at Trampoline (disambiguation). Does that do what you were looking for? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: No, they're talking about Trampolene (the song) and Trampolene (band)- they want Trampolene (band) moved to Trampolene I think (or Trampolene to be a disambiguation page for the song & the band).
Personally I think the best thing to do is move Trampolene to Trampolene (song), redirect Trampolene to Trampoline (disambiguation), and add Trampolene (band) to Trampoline (disambiguation). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No! It's Trampolene spelt "Trampolene"! It's 1) a band 2) a song - both spelt that way - not the bouncy thing!! Thanks for your reply though Stripeyjane (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since both listings are variant spellings of a word that has multiple meanings, and one is already on the disambiguation page, I will add the other one to the Trampoline (disambiguation) page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and someone may object, I've created Trampolene (disambiguation) as a redirect for a non-implausible misspelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joseph2302's idea. Trampolene as a misspelling of trampoline may even by the primary topic and its redirect should be pointed directly to Trampoline but I think pointing it at the DAB page is a good compromise. For the moment, I've added a hatnote to the article on the song capturing the misspelling and the band, but that would have to change if this was implemented.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, even if it's really confusing with the spelling. As long as people searching for the band page can get to it!! Stripeyjane (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia wants to delete my entry

They say it doesn't follow some bloody guidelines or another. All this bullshit is a bit too much for my brain to decipher, so if they want to delete the bastard, then so be it .... and history goes direct to the rubbish bin. I won't bother with this fn site anymore. Run by a bunch of geek brained wankers !!! Majicbooma (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for speedy deletion and then deleted as a hoax. If it was history and not a hoax, then you can discuss it with the nominating editor, User:Everymorning, or the deleting administrator, User:CactusWriter, or you can request undeletion at requests for undeletion. If it really is history and not a hoax, it probably needs more references, and should be submitted via Articles for Creation. If you want to create articles that are not true, there are other sites for the purpose. Please do not vent anger here. This site is for friendly discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ashwinbhajan/sandbox

I reviewed User:Ashwinbhajan/sandbox and declined it as lacking in adequate references. One of the references is the company’s own, and the other two didn’t appear relevant. I also put a copy-edit tag on the article. I now have a malformed comment on my talk page from User: Ashwinbhajan. It doesn't ask anything specific, but I assume that he or she meant to ask why the sandbox was declined. Can some other experienced editor review the sandbox and either explain to its author why it needs improvement, or explain to me why I should have accepted it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined as individual not notable enough

Hi there, you kindly offered to lend a hand as I'm totally new at this. I'm trying to submit an entry about The Vice-Dean of Chester Cathedral and was told he isn't notable enough. He is a very senior priest and reverend canon within the C of E, and the Dean, already has an entry. What am I doing wrong? Many thanks.DevaWerburgh (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DevaWerburgh:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Within Wikipedia, the term "notability" is used with a particular meaning, as described in the article WP:NOTABILITY. Basically, it all depends on being able to provide in-depth coverage of the subject in several independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia articles live or die on the strength of their references, so you should start by collecting articles about him in newspapers, magazines and journals, books written about him, television and radio coverage (where it is verifiable) etc.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) - Convenience link Draft:Peter Howell-Jones
Hello DevaWerburgh - As it clearly states in the reason for refusal"
"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule"
So far, you have cited no references whatsoever, you have added an external link to [http:www.chestercathedral.com], but that, clearly, is not "independent of the subject"
Which reliable, independent sources have given Peter Howell-Jones "significant coverage" - not just mentions in passing or inclusions on lists? You need to find these sources and cite them (see Help:Referencing for beginners for how to cite references.
If he has not received such coverage, he fails the golden rule and there cannot be a Wikipedia article about him - Arjayay (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template or Note to add for reference URL that leads to unrelated site?

Hello,

I just noticed a reference section URL link that leads to a website unrelated to the article content. What is the correct tag/flag/note to add so that readers are aware of the problem and/or editors can address the problem? (And where should that be added?)

The article is One Direction, the reference is #105. It looks like the reference should link to a page devoted to an event; instead it links to a jewelry broker's site.

Thank you for your help! Laatu (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The URL in question is http://www.1dday.com/ which is supposed to link to a site about "1 D Day" - a day dedicated to One Direction fans - but instead is about a jeweller. I would be tempted just to delete the offending reference, since there is already another reference to support that statement.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an archive link. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David Biddulph, that is very helpful. For future reference & to help me learn how things work, IF an archived page for that reference were not available, what would the correct procedure be...delete that reference? add a flag (and if so, which one)? other?
Laatu (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Link rot tells you what to do, including where to place the {{dead link}} tag if necessary. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful. Thank you ! Laatu (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing help

please help editing the article at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenal_Literature:_A_Global_Journal_Devoted_to_Language_and_Literature Prinshukr (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of help?
Looking at the article, I see that you need to cite multiple, unaffiliated, non-primary, professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources describing the article's subject. In other words, you need to cite some books or newspapers that describe the journal. Anything by WordPress fails our reliable sourcing standards, and nothing affiliated with the journal can be used to demonstrate that the journal is noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prinshukr: You can also link an article faster by writing [[Example]]. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tag removal

Hi, what does one do when a non-admin user other than the user who made a page removes CSD tags without addressing the issue with the page? Should this be discussed first, or should the tag(s) be reinstated, and it be discussed afterwards? Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 09:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Rubbish computer. Speedy deletion is a process for uncontroversial deletions. If a CSD tag is removed by someone other than the creator, then the matter is clearly not uncontroversial. There should be a deletion debate. Although improving the article is wise and advisable, it is not mandatory. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 11:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Thanks! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noad Lahat's location of birth

Can someone take a look at the talk page of Noad Lahat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noad_Lahat I asked the question and was about to make the change myself, but then I checked the page history and found there has been a low intensity edit war going on. Noad Lahat's location of birth is "Alfei Menashe, West Bank" (a settlement that is), but is listed as "Alfei Menashe, Israel". Can someone solve this? Thanks in advance! ImTheIP (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, ImTheIP. Please be aware that the Arbitration Committee has imposed discretionary sanctions on all editing pertaining to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and anyone who engages in edit warring concerning such matters risks being blocked. Regarding the specific issue, I think that the precedent set at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem should be followed. Jerusalem is obviously much larger than Alfei Menashe, but neither should be described in the infobox as being part of Israel, Palestine or the West Bank. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Jerusalem straddles the border of the West Bank and Israel. Alfei Menashe is entirely within it. The page for Alfei Menashe says itself that it is in the West Bank, it is just Noad Lahat's page that is wrong. All media sources I've found about the fighet says he is from the West Bank: http://www.timesofisrael.com/mma-fighter-invokes-shoah-after-win/, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Noad_Lahat.html, http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/72445/israeli-ultimate-fighter-leaves-san-jose-for-gaza-operation/ Also because I've started a discussion on the talk page and no one has been willing to refute my arguments, doesn't that mean I am allowed to change the text? ImTheIP (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari

A little bit of history: I created a page for an individual known as Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari, however as I didn't want to forget my username for this project, I inappropriately used a username that connected me to the subject. I even admit this in a conversation with an administrator when using the ahmedsaad.ihsaninstitute username. Anyway, the account has been rightly deleted

I still feel there should be an article on this chap so I have re-written it (previous attempts used too many references from the chaps website). Please let me know what you think. I am trying not to make it promotional, however I feel there needs to be an article on him due to his media appearances and influence in combating extremism. I have also been made aware that I have used rotting links, however I am trying to reference the BBC's program called 'Doha Debates' which Ahmed Saad appeared on, however the link is dead, and the only refereces that seem available are from you tube. Shall I just stick to the you tube links when citing the doha debates?

Feel free to give me any other advice.

Thank you for your time. Please also see the logs under the blocked username ahmedsaad.ihsaninstitute Imran 108 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, should the administrators become satified with the validity of the article, could you please offer any advice in suggesting how the article can appear among the top hits on google? If i type 'ahmed saad al azhari' in google, there is a load of stuff om him, however it all seems promotional, therefore I was hoping that a well referenced, unbiased article would be needed among those hits.

Also, I was thinking on adding a picture - can you direct me to some instructions where I can add a picture of him?

thank youImran 108 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re your Google and image questions: we really aren't concerned with Google rankings, we are here to build an encyclopedia.
  • If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
  • If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.Template:Z40--ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Imran 108: in answer to your question about YouTube: It is sometimes acceptable to link to a YouTube video, but only in limited circumstances:
  • Only if it is clear that the video in question does not contravene copyright. Many videos on YouTube are clearly copyright violations, and Wikipedia articles may not link to them. It looks to me as if "The Doha Debates" Channel on YouTube is an official channel for them, and so the videos are authorised by the copyright holders; but I couldn't find a clear statement to that effect. If you can show that they are authorised, then it is permissible to link to them.
  • Assuming that the copyright question is satisfactorily answered, then there is the question of how you are going to link to the video. The use of external links in articles is quite limited, except for links to sources for references.
  • It is permissible to cite an interview, but please be aware that that is a primary, non-independent source, and can be used only to support certain kinds of information. It cannot contribute to notability.
Finally, I acknowledge that you say that you are trying not to make it too promotional; but asking about Google rankings suggests to me that you are here to tell the world about Al-Azhari. That is what "promotion" means. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about anything or anybody: it is here to summarise the telling-the-world that has already been done about a subject by people unconnected with the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a draft of a work in progress - can I communicate the below to reviewers ?

Hello, I submitted a draft of a work in progress several days ago. In the meantime, I am continuing to work on the project. I submitted a work in progress so that I can apply any corrections or suggestions before fine tuning the work. The lead paragraph is a final draft. The the rest is a work in progress. Can i ask reviewers to just look at lead article and the headings and references for now? How do I do this. Thank youCarrieruggieri (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that your draft contains content that has been copied and pasted from another encyclopedia, this will need to be rewritten in your own words very quickly or it will be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
can I please have back what was deleted? I had made a lot of edits. I was using the draft section as a work space... I had no intention to use copy/paste material - It is there for my information only. Is the draft section not to be used for a work in progress? Should I be working in the sandbox?Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What was deleted is still (for the moment) available in the article history, but it may soon be subject to revision deletion as a copyright violation. Neither in draft space nor in the sandbox is copyright violation permitted. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's always wiser to copy copyright material onto your own computer so that you can refer to it there. It should never be stored in Wikipedia, even in your own user space, because Google will find it, possibly resulting in a contravention of American copyright law. Using draft space is fine for a work in progress. Dbfirs 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

creation of new article

I would like to know if I'm able to create articles about 1. fashion brand 2. nonprofit charitable organization.

Thank you for your response. Karlos muradyan (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Karlos muradyan. The answer to you question depends on whether the subjects are considered notable in the sense that that term is used in Wikipedia policy. Essentially, we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, on which to base articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Karlos muradyan: Beside the subject's being notable in the sense that the coverage exists, the article would have to demonstrate the notability by citing the coverage, and it would have to be written from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teb728 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Karlo muradyan. I would always advise any new user to spend significant time learning about Wikipedia by improving some of our five million articles, before ever trying the difficult task of creating a new page. I also advise reading your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone,

So I wrote an article and it has been reviewed. I don't know it has been published or not but it was a biography of a person but another user has removed the photo saying it violates copyright.

Now this person is a chairman of an enterprise and I picked the photo which is used by all mainstream newspapers. So How did I violate copyrights when everyone seems to be using the same picture. I have also given references of external link.

In case this is not possible, please tell me how to put up a photo on the biography because he is a big shot and I can't really go and take a picture of his. What should I do in this case?

Thanks. Editninja16 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editninja16, and welcome to the Teahouse. The onus is on the editor to find out who owns the copyright to the picture they want to use. If that photo was used in newspapers, then most likely they paid the photographer for it and you can't just steal it to use here. The only way you can use a photo is if the copyright owner chooses to release it. If you take a photo yourself then you can release it; otherwise it is up to the owner to decide whether they wish to release it or not.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Editninja16: Hey Editninja. Images generally need to be released under a free license; I'd suggest trying to do a search for freely licensed image using Google or using Flickr Otherwise, for this specific image you've mentioned, you can contact the photographer if you have their information and see if they will agree to release it under a free license. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Editninja16: A photo is nice to have on an article but is not essential. You might contact NALCO and ask if they can provide a photo of T. K. Chand. Tell them that Wikipedia requires photos to be licensed for reuse by anyone for anything including commercial use and derivative works. —teb728 t c 07:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for welcoming me Gronk Oz. Thanks for explaining the things to me . I hope I'll be able to contribute better in future.

Thank you for the tip I,JethroBT I'll certainly search for free licensed images.

Also teb728, thanks for the great tip I'll also try contacting NALCO for the same.

Thanks guys for helping me out.

Editninja16 (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the writer's husband instead of her's

The article on Agnes_Boulton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Boulton), as seen in my cell phone, shows the image (photo) of Eugene O'Neill (Agnes' husband) on top of the article. Is there a way to fix it? The same article, in my computer, shows no picture... ClementinaOrea (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a pic of her husband in the mobile version. No pics have been uploaded to the article, so there would be no pictures displaying if everything is running correctly. Are you using some sort of app to view it instead of your phone's web browser? I'm not seeing how or why any picture would be showing up in her article otherwise. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I forgot to say I was using the app Wikipedia by Wikimedia Foundation, obtained via Play Store on a mobil device with Android ClementinaOrea (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a surprise. I too am seeing that picture in the Wikipedia App for Android, on my HTC 816 phone. It is the same picture that appears at the top of hubby's WP biography. Though I'm typing this on my Windows desk machine. Something odd is happening in the app. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is being brought in via the template {{Eugene O'Neill}}, towards the bottom of the article. It may not show for some PC users if the box is collapsed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not an image at the top of a file, it looks like the app mindlessly brings in some other image from the page. It display O'Neill's photo also on his mother's article and his son's (but not his father's or his daughter's, who have their own portraits). —teb728 t c 07:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On my desktop computer, it does show Eugene O'Neill. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

adding a name to an open list- please help

You have a page titled 'Wildlife Artists' it states this is a list for ANY wildlife artist. I added my Name Fiona Hayward & added a link to website - this was deleted by and editor Next I thought it would be best crate a small about me page and link this with my name on the list for any wildlife artist so that my name could then stay on the list. Again I was deleted and accused of vandalism. Finally another editor sujested I try Teahouse for help. So what is the criteria to add a name to the page that is a list of any wildlife artist? My intention is only to add my name to the list which given that it is a list for any wildlife artist is not unreasonable. I am a wildlife artist. I have no desire to ever edit other pages or articles and my computer skills are limited Newzealand007 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Apologies for the confusing wording of the preamble to List of wildlife artists. It is never practicable for that sort of Wikipedia list to include any person in that role. Such lists include those who are notable in Wikipedia's terms, which means that they have received significant coverage in reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. I have reworded the preamble of the list to include the word notable, and a link to the definition. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, I have had my art work published in the New Zealand Artist magazine and currently exhibit at a local government gallery, as well as been a finalist in notable art awards. Is this enough to be considered? Newzealand007 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is what I have given above. Dependent on ...significant coverage in reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion below. The creation of autobiographies in Wikipedia is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. If you are considered notable, someone is likely to write an article about you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As with most lists in Wikipedia, the inclusion criteria for that list appears to be having an article on the English Wikipedia - No article = No inclusion - Arjayay (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessarily true, Arjayay. An entry might be notable, as demonstrated by reliable sources, but not have an article yet. Otherwise, we would never have articles with red links. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I submit an article on a credible subject but that does not have enough published references?

Hello,

I am writing an article on an ancient healing method that is very effective and verifiable through standard medical reports. However there is not much in terms of published information available on the subject. There are however medical reports of practitioners that corroborate results.

How do I get this article published?

Regards, Vishakha 1.23.72.46 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. How is the effectiveness verifiable through standard medical reports if there is not much published information? Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Robert's comment, Wikipedia policy dictates that we are not interested in whether a "healing method" is effective, but rather whether it has been covered in some depth by independent, reliable, published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would reword that. We only consider a healing method verifiably effective if its effectiveness has been covered by independent reliable published sources. However, the original poster's question seems to be contradictory. If the healing method is verifiable through standard medical reports (reliable sources), how is there not much published information? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - though we could also have an article about an ineffective method, so long as it was documented in reliable sources. The point being, effectiveness isn't the issue but rather sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True. We have lots of articles on pseudo-science and quackery. However, to the original poster, there seems to be a contradiction between saying that there is not much published information and that the effectiveness is verifiable through standard medical reports. I would still like the original poster to clarify. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your response. It has helped clarify my thoughts better. To answer your question about my contradictory views on published material; I considered published material as articles etc.. that are published by say a book or journal. I did not know if practitioner's medical reports could be considered as published material. From the comments above it seems like these reports can be considered as references and that is heartening. I'd like to rewrite my article and back it with all the references I have.

Regards, Vishakha Atmayogachennai (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical records that doctors keep on their patients would not be an acceptable source, Atmayogachennai (and I don't know how you would have access to them). Only published medical reports (for example, in a medical journal) would be acceptable here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a post and like the idea of learning the forum rules

Hello. I am new to this area of Wiki... I first want to thank you for your kind invitation to learn. I suffer from lack of time to spend on such sites as I work two jobs. So, please forgive me in advance for any lack of knowledge that I currently do not posses on these matters.

I have a site that is almost all about "Events" and want to share the site on Wiki. So the first question is can I do that?

The next question is right up your alley. That is how to go about editing comments. Am I allowed to share the url here?

Kind regards, WolfieLoneWolf95665 (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wolfie, I'm not sure that your website would be regarded as a WP:reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, where we prefer to cite sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy published in print or broadcast by an established organisation. That's not to say that your website has anything wrong with it, just that we don't usually cite this type of source. When you edit articles, you should normally cite such reliable sources using a citation template or a similar format. Dbfirs 18:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that LoneWolf95665 is proposing to use the website concerned as a source, but rather to create a Wikipedia article about it. Is that correct, LoneWolf95665? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, now that I've read the sandbox, I think you are correct. We now run up against notability in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 22:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse Wolfie. In order to qualify for an article in Wikipedia a subject must be notable, which we define as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Has whatshappeningtoday.com received such coverage (like for example articles in the San Francisco Chronicle)? If not an article about it would not be accepted.
If that doesn’t discourage you, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Since whatshappeningtoday.com is your website, you are “strongly discouraged” from writing an article about it. Wikipedia is not for getting the word out.
If you are still not discouraged, please read Wikipedia:Your first article. —teb728 t c 23:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IN as much as I see the discouragement sent in your citations I do offer such legal and verifiable information as that which resides with the United States Trade Mark and Patent Office. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:pqu5j.2.1.

As for other sources of verification we offer also the registrar of Wild West domains on the who is.

Beginning March of 2016 we will begin running radio advertisements promoting the site with KVGCradio in Jackson California.

And as for conflict of interest maybe I should ask if a newspaper reporter from a small town would be able to write a non-biased, non-conflict of interest wiki. "Who wrote the one for Facebook?"

I am not discouraged as to my efforts in marketing the site. As I mentioned I wanted to see how Wiki was used and was forthright in the beginning as to being a novice.

This all smacks of "snobishness" and control of history and facts. Kind of like what is not shared here on what happened to the American Indians.. hmmm boycott.. wiki? Well.. I guess I do not need to donate the thousands any longer. So now I am not discouraged. LoneWolf95665 (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you appreciate the need for us to have some rules here at Wikipedia, LoneWolf95665. One of those is that in order to demonstrate that it is possible to write a neutral article about a topic, we need to have independent sources about it. A radio advertisement for a product or website is not an independent source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a Wikipedia Page/Adding to one

Ok so I'm obviously new to this Wikipedia thing because I'm not even sure how to reply to my own thread. I'm wanting to either create a Wikipedia page on "Effects of microbeads on Canadian lakes and environment," and I've been told it would be better to add to the "Microbead" page which already exists. I have written this paper myself for school, but it is encyclopedic and formal with all the requirements of a proper Wikipedia page. The information includes onlyl Canadian examples and research, which is why I thought it should be its own stub. It also includes the Federal and Provincial solutions and proposals to solving the problems of microbeads (all properly cited, of course). Should I just try and create this as a new Wikipedia stub/page and they will put it onto the already existing "microbead" page if they feel it should not be its own page, or is there a way I can try to just add my information to the already existing page? Thanks to all whole reply :) Aidannoval (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aidannoval. You asked a very similar question earlier, and I am not sure if I can say much new. It is wise in most cases for a new editor to spend some time editing existing articles rather than beginning new articles, because it is very difficult (though not impossible) for a very new editor to create a new article successfully.
The first question that comes to mind is whether or not this is really a discrete topic worthy of a separate article. Is the microbead problem in Canadian lakes significantly different from that in American lakes in adjoining states along the US - Canadian border? If not, have you just selected information about Canadian lakes and excluded similar information about lakes in other countries? If so, your article is probably original research which we do not publish on Wikipedia. Please read Your first article. Another thing that comes to mind is what you are describing is far more than a stub. In 2016, we should be striving to write articles that are far better than stubs.
I looked at your edit history and see no edits to a sandbox or a draft article. I am assuming that you are working on this possible article off Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that this is a collaborative project. If there was a draft somewhere here on Wikipedia, I could offer you far more specific advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To reply as part of the original thread you started, Aidannoval, scroll down to its heading, #Is my topic okay to go on Wikipedia? and click the "edit" button next to that heading. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
how would I add a significant but short addition to an article. Specifically the article on the song,"happy days are here again"'was used in 1932 asa campaign son by both FDR and Adolph Hitler. In the movie,"Triumph of the Will' Hitler and his entourage are shown singing the song on an airplane during his largely air born 1932 Nazi party campaign tour. If nothing else this seems an ironic coincidence. Tom Mulroy174.102.159.196 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post this information on Talk:Happy Days Are Here Again and give a reliable source. It is possible that the movie itself is a source, but the requirements to cite a movie are more detailed than what you would usually have.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hello!

I have been working on Draft:Alex Gilbert for almost 2 years now with constant issues. It has was approved last year but with constant deletion nominations it was deleted right away. I am asking for this to get reviewed again as it has been dramatically improved. My problem is that Alex Gilbert can only be created by administrators. I have written up detailed information on the draft to what the problems were in the past and also how the article has been improved. It has passed general notability. I just want this to go into the mainspace and left there. If another deletion nomination goes through then that can be decided then. A undeletion review, I have done twice now just resulted in 'no consensus'. Please can someone review this and place it in the main space and just leave it there? I have worked hard on this. With old nominations and deletions that are not relavnt to the subject now, this can be resolved? Thank You - DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I understand. You appear to be saying that the title is salted, so that it can only be moved to article space by an administrator, but you appear to be asking an administrator to move it to article space just because you ask. Please clarify. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon. The draft has been approved in the past. Actually at the end of last year. But once it was moved to the main space after approval. It was deleted. So I had to try restore all my work again. All I am saying is- can this get reviewed again and if it is approved, which I hope it will be! It's clearly notable. If it's moved to the mainspace, can it be left there. Not deleted or for it to keep going through more and more discussions. It should be sorted through a deletion nomination if someone doesn't want the article. Not through an Undeletion review as it has gone through. With no result. I just want the article Alex Gilbert to be refreshed with the new draft without any on going issues. Thanks! DmitryPopovRU (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one here or anyone reviewing draft articles can guarantee that an article approved for a move into mainspace won't later be nominated for deletion, DmitryPopovRU. The way to prevent it from being deleted would be to demonstrate notability (if that is the deletion rationale), both in the article in any deletion discussion. Draft articles are approved by one editor, whereas deletion discussions rely on consensus amongst a larger number of editors, so there will always be cases where approved drafts are subject to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, it is true that no one reviewing articles can guarantee that they will not be deleted afterwards. However, a reviewer who accepts an article is making a one-editor judgment that they think that it will survive a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cordless Larry. I fully understand that. Though the article Alex Gilbert has been salted with issues in the past. So the article was previously accepted last year. But within 5 minutes the article was deleted as it has to go through a deletion review. That is not what I want to happen. The Undeletion reviews just result in 'no result'. All I am saying is, if the article is approved again. To leave in where it is. Not have me having to go though on going discussions again. I'm over it really. I have improved and fixed this article, making it notable. Nobody can even create the page Alex Gilbert now! Just because of old issues. Thanks! DmitryPopovRU (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted as the result of two AfDs here and here. The deletion review last December did produce a result—just not the one you wanted; it endorsed deletion. As was pointed out at the deletion review, adding more references that he is notable for one event does not make him notable. —teb728 t c 22:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The single event issues is no longer valid for the article. Do look at the sources :)! Thanks! DmitryPopovRU (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, based on this discussion, that an administrator unsalt the title and let the article be reviewed, and accepted if the reviewer thinks it is appropriate, and declined and sent back for rework if rework is needed. That is my suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with unsalting the title: It was salted because the article was recreated seven times. —teb728 t c 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DmitryPopovRU: That’s just what you said (unpersuasively) in your deletion review request. The reviewers didn’t find anything totally unrelated to his search for his biological parents, and neither do I now. I am sorry that you have wasted your effort on this futile cause. Try again if he becomes notable for something different (like being elected to Parliament or appointed New Zealand ambassador to Russia). —teb728 t c 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this can happen that would be much appreciated! DmitryPopovRU (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring this based on the draft would turn process on its ear. It would be one thing if the last deletion review had considered whether the prior deletion(s) were problematic/improperly closed, and you were now, for the first time, requesting under WP:DRVPURPOSE a very different type of review of whether "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". But that is already what was considered the last time around. The draft had 29 sources when it was deleted at the AfD. At the deletion review it was exactly on the basis of new evidence – seven new sources – but it was endorsed and not restored. Deletion review is just where this needs to go, if at all, and not an end run around it. Indeed, from a technical standpoint, this is a copyright violation since the draft has lots of content that was created through deleted edits. The prior edits need to be restored if this is ever returned to the mainspace—so undeletion is required (it's still a technical copyvio as a draft, but not of the type we treat as delete-on-sight).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DmitryPropovRu. You wrote I have improved and fixed this article, making it notable in one of your above posts, but we as editors cannot make things notable through our editing improvements per WP:ARTN. Notability is not a question or how well or ho poorly an article is written; it has to do with whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability for reference). So, unless you are able to demonstrate that such sources now exist per WP:NPOSSIBLE it's going to be hard to convince the editors involved in the aforementioned two deletion discussions that "Alex Gilbert" now deserves his own Wikipedia article. One other thing to consider is that a number of the sources cited are not in English. There's nothing wrong with that per se and non-English sources considered to be reliable sources are acceptable per WP:NOENG, but these may be harder for English-only speaking reviewers to assess. You can help out a bit by using |quote= in the citation templates and translating those parts which are most relevant to showing that Gilbert satisfies WP:N. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have added full details on what I have done to improve the article. People are not looking at the sources clearly? I will keep working on the draft until move comes by and try again with the undeletion review again later on. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I'm reading the logs correctly, the protection is from 2007 and was for an entirely different person than this article (a rapper of some sort). I don't believe there was consensus to salt _this_ topic anywhere. Perhaps I'm reading the logs wrong? But I'd suggest unsalting at this point. The new sources clearly overcome any G4 (one of the ways to address BLP1E concerns is to show sustained coverage, and we've got years of it now). Hobit (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need some guidance

I wanted to contribute to an article, and tried to restore productive content from other editors recently removed by an old edit-warrior. Reviewed page history, and tried filing it on a noticeboard. Did I do it correctly? JustAGal2 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've just taken a quick look. I assume you're talking about Clemson Tigers football? The article has now been protected as a result of your filing at WP:AN/EW. It looks like you're attempting to remove a few paragraphs of text in this edit and this edit, but your edit summaries imply the change is something else. That doesn't look good: editors should try to assume good faith, but many editors will take that as you trying to hide the changes you're making, and that makes it much harder to assume good faith. Further, I don't understand why you're removing the content – it looks (at a very quick glance) to be relevant and well sourced.
I'd suggest that, even after the page protection has expired, you try discussing any content you propose to remove on the article talk page before actually removing it, and if/when you do remove content, you explain why you're doing it in the edit summary. That's much less likely to result in further edit warring.
—me_and 13:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All I did in actuality was "re-add" earlier edits that were removed by the user I reported, before I continued to edit. Was I wrong to restore something also sourced, that was removed falsely by someone else in the prior edits? I put those diffs in the report. I guess I should have been more clear about what I was restoring, or "adding"? JustAGal2 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this edit, for example, which has an edit summary of "re-adding awards", you added a paragraph starting "Recently, in 2015, Clemson has had a Heisman Trophy finalist...", but also removed a significant chunk of text from the "Danny Ford era (1978–1989)" section, starting with "This sanction was enforced...". I believe that's what they're complaining about in this edit summary.
When you say all you did was "re-add earlier edits", do you mean you didn't mean to remove that content? As I said above, removing content without noting it in the edit summary looks duplicitous, even if it wasn't intended to be.
—me_and 11:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Liella King, Creator

Help. I am the creator. Been verified. Still held hostage in Stockton, CA 95210. Would u help me with an entry. Need press to get money released from USA. Going to new monetary unit. Richard Branson and everyone else trying. Dob 02-11-1953. Thank you. Otherwise returning home, space, with Ray Simons only. Thank you♡ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara Luella King (talk • contribs) 07:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barbara Luella King. I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about, but unless it is related to editing Wikipedia, this is the wrong forum for it, and there is unlikely to be any help for you. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and 3RR

A user is adding wrong wikilink in the lead of Sallekhana page. I reverted these edits considering it clear vandalism. I have reverted these edits more than 3 times. I haven't reverted the last edit. Will 3RR apply on my edits. Also, please revert the last edit, it is very much wrong. It is the first line of the page. -जैन (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user was repeatedly adding "suicide" word even though the discussion about it was going on the talk page.-जैन (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
जैन and GideonF both need to stop edit-warring. This is a content dispute, in which GideonF correctly took this issue to the Talk page, but you have not yet been able to reach consensus, so you should follow the subsequent stages of the dispute resolution process. But जैन, editing that you disagree with, however strongly, is not vandalism, and it will not help your argument if you call it vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you mean adding a link to the article "suicide" is correct? When no reference in the article support it.-जैन (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is very sad. You're supporting the addition of wrong wikilink in the very first line of the article and you think it's not vandalism. So a user who doesn't provided any source is right and everything else is wrong.-जैन (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
जैन, you need to read WP:Vandalism. GideonF clearly feels having the link is an improvement, so it is not vandalism. I don't see anything in ColinFine's response that says he supports the inclusion of the link. He says and I am saying that you are both editwarring and you both need to stop. You need to discuss it on the talk page or use other forms of WP:Dispute resolution to clear up the problem. -- GB fan 16:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to discuss it on the talk page, but the fact of the matter is that जैन is waging a one-man campaign to remove all references to suicide from an article about ritual suicide, for reasons that he is unable or unwilling to explain.GideonF (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a single reference I have removed. You haven't added any.-जैन (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead I removed unsourced content that explained why it is not suicide.-जैन (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who hasn't contributed to the article significantly, adds something (that too a link to wrong article) in the first line, without any source and then it is not considered wrong. Sorry, this is really sad.-जैन (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The new unsourced addition should be removed first and then it should be listed for RfC. -जैन (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=704275646"