Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, 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

Need help

I created an article and need help expanding it. Thanks. here is the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Note_%28Upcoming_Film%29 Thebestisyettocome123 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

how to deal with potential copyright issues

Hi again. I'm back with another question about the proper way to proceed as a new editor with some of the various things I'm encountering along the way.

Yesterday, I came across this article on the Buddhist Goddess Nairatmya. I thought it was troublesome, from a copyright perspective, and left the following message on the article's talk page.

"Copyright issues?[edit]

In the references of this article, it states: "This entry is a slightly edited version of the introduction to Nairatmya in Miranda Eberle Shaw's Buddhist Goddesses of India. Princeton University Press. 2006. p. 387. ISBN 978-0-691-12758-3." I checked the book Buddhist Goddesses of India, pp. 387-402, and this appears to be true.

For example, the first sentence of the third paragraph of this article, starting with "Nairātmyā's body is blue . . ." is word for word identical to the book (p. 387) without quotation marks or a reference. The rest of this article's third paragraph are indeed almost word for word lifted from the book without quotation marks or proper referencing, even though there is a note of this at the bottom of the page in the reference section.

My sense is that this is a copyright issue. And as a result, the entry needs to be rewritten. Since I'm so new to editing, I don't know how to handle this, or what the process is. Any comments, thoughts, suggestions? Thanks folks. Best, AD64 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)"

Today, though, I am considering that while this might be a decent way to deal with this, that in fact it isn't the best way. Yet, while I seem to be a bold editor for existing articles, I'm not so bold when it comes to things like reporting copyright. I also can't seem to find a clear page on what to do, and so was hoping for consensus from more senior editors before escalating, since I'm not 100% clear that this is copyright infringement; perhaps it's just that quotation marks and citation need to be added? So, my question is, what should I do now? Wait for a senior editor to take care of it? Edit it as if it were a minor mistake and just needs referencing? Report it myself as a copyright problem? If I do report it myself, how do I do this?

Thanks again for your ongoing support with the learning curve for a new editor. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello AD64, welcome back to the Teahouse. I agree with you that almost the entire article is a word for word copy. Guidance on how to handle this can be found in Copyright problems. One approach is to rewrite the material so it is no longer a violation. That might be difficult in this case. It's possible the content, although copied, is in the public domain. It's possible to blank the portion that may be a violation using {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}} and let others look into it. There are detailed instruction within Copyright problems. It's a bit intimidating the first time or two. Gab4gab (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Your entry on the article talk page can be a good option too. If there's no response then you can escalate. Gab4gab (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gab4gab: Did you intend to refer to WP:Copyright problems, rather than to Copyright problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2016‎ (UTC)

David Biddulph, did you intend to sign your post? ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Thanks for the reminder. End of a long day! Interesting that Sinebot sometimes tidies up after me when I forget, but this time didn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I often wonder why it sometimes misses unsigned posts too. In any case, your ping wouldn't have worked without you signing, which is why I didn't manually add the unsigned post template myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching my incorrect referring. Gab4gab (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your support here. Now, another question. I'm over on WP:Copyright problems and it's clear that I don't actually have enough experience to make a call on this and would indeed like to have specialist help. What I don't see is a link or section to list the potentially problematic article. Does it indeed go on WP:Copyright problems (and I just can't find the right place), or is there another place for me to submit this to be looked at? Again, thanks to everyone, AD64 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

david blaine born april 4 wtc opening day

is it good idea add small notice on db page april 4 1973 - wtc opening day

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1973#April_4.2C_1973_.28Wednesday.29

April 4 1973 (Wednesday)[edit] The World Trade Center officially opens in New York City with a ribbon cutting ceremony.

Born: David Blaine, American illusionist, in Brooklyn, New York.

911morningstar (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

See 9/11 conspiracy theories and the policy against original research. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That the WTC opened on the same day as David Blaine was born is not relevant to either article, 911morningstar - just as it is not relevant that on that day Pierre Werner extended the operating concession to Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion until 31 December 1995, or many other events. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@911morningstar: No it would not be appropriate to add a note (as you have already tried several times), the two events are entirely unconnected. Nthep (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

how should i keep my page safe?

what can happen if my page does not have a password?will someone grab to own it or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins otieno omondi (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Collins otieno omondi. I'm not sure what you're asking about. If it's a page in Wikipedia, then you don't own it, and nor does anybody else, so there is no question of a password. If you're talking about a page in something else, this is not the right forum for it, as this page is about help in editing Wikipedia. You could ask at the Computing reference desk; but if you do so, please give more information about what kind of page you are talking about it, and where. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If your question is about protecting your user page, which is the only Wikipedia page that sort of belongs to you, the answer is that Wikipedia user pages are very seldom vandalized, but, if your Wikipedia user page is vandalized, you can request that it be semi-protected. (You need a few more edits and two more days before you get auto-confirmed. In the meantime, be patient, because it is very rare for a user page to be vandalized.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this an example of vandalism?

Hi folks. As you know, I've been hanging around the Teahouse lately, and I really appreciate all your mentoring, skill, and support. I want to ask if what I'm seeing is considered vandalism. Since understanding what I'm seeing in the midst of the technology/formatting is one of my learning edges, I thought to bring it here to all of you to confirm or deny my understanding of the pages.

I got a notice that changes were made to the Samsara page. When I clicked the notification to "view this change", I was taken to this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saṃsāra&diff=next&oldid=718548212

I looked through, and further down, there was a single word "pig" in it's own box, after the edits changing the preceding reference. I don't think this is Wikispeak.

Thanks for helping me learn the ropes here. Best, AD64 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And, *if* it is vandalism, how do I know if something has been done about it already? Thanks again, AD64 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: Thanks for coming by to ask this question. Yes, that is vandalism. The vandalism was actually undone a few minutes later by this edit. The general process when you find vandalism is 1) revert the edit 2) check the contributions of the person who did the vandalism. 3) Warn them on their talk page to stop 4) If they are doing a lot of vandalism, clean it up and report it at WP:AIV. If you want more information about dealing with vandalism at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Jayron32: for your quick response. I now see that if I had clicked the 'next edit' link at the top of the page, it would have navigated me to the page you are referencing where the vandalism was noted as undone. It's good for me to see how this process unfolds. and good to have the links on what to do should I be the one who needs to take care of it. Best, AD64 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Conventions when writing about a district of a city: regarding public buildings and attractions (parks etc.) with other attractions (e.g. outdoor sculptures) on the yard / in the park

Hi, I'm new to editing English Wikipedia, and because I don't have enough information about the conventions used here, I thought I'd ask about the following, because I couldn't find information about it when I tried searching.

Recently I translated an article about a district (Alppiharju) of Helsinki, Finland, because the article consisted only of a couple of sentences, and had been requested to be expanded by translating from the Finnish Wikipedia. In the process, I also searched for sources to cite. After translating the article, I continued with expanding the article based on the information in the various sources I found. At one point, I created heading "Buildings and attractions".

Now comes the question itself: there are 7 outdoor sculptures in public places within Alppiharju. 3 of them are in amusement park Linnanmäki, 1 is in the yard of The House of Culture (Helsinki), and 1 is in park Alppipuisto — all of which have been mentioned under the heading "Buildings and attractions". 2 outdoor sculptures are located elsewhere in Alppiharju. Should I mention the sculptures when mentioning the places where they are located, or should I make a level 3 heading for the sculptures, and mention all the 7 sculptures there? Or should I make some kind of a list in the article? I'm completely at a loss here, and I would really appreciate some help.

At least I consider outdoor sculptures in public places to be attractions worth mentioning. Of course, if it's not a convention here to mention outdoor sculptures in public places located in a district of a city within the Wiki-article about that district, I won't mention them in the article. But if they are considered worth mentioning, I would like to know the convention here in English Wikipedia, so that I would know what to do (both now and in the future) when translating and expanding articles about districts of Finnish cities or towns.
—Ylva Carennah (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ylva. As usual, it comes down to references. If you have a published source that thinks it worth mentioning the sculptures (not just listing them) then they should probably go in the article. If you haven't, then putting them in the article would be original research, and not appropriate. (Articles about places and districts often have a great deal of original research in them, unfortunately; but that is not a reason to compound the problem). --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You might also look at other district articles (see Category:Districts of Florence, Category:Districts of Paris, Category:Districts of Berlin, Category:Districts of Milan) and model your articles on similar ones that are older and have seen the participation of many different editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The source I have is the official website of Helsinki City Art Museum. The website offers several ways to find information about public outdoor sculptures in Helsinki, including looking at a map with the sculpture locations marked, and various other search methods. Each sculpture has its own separate page, with a (copyrighted) photo or couple of the sculpture, information about both the sculpture and the sculptor (e.g. the year it was placed or moved to its present location, description of the sculpture, and the sculptor's style in general, sometimes even a bit more information about the sculptor and their style, or the history of the sculpture). So even though it is not an article, it is not a list either, but a searchable database, with information provided about both the sculpture and sculptor — sometimes with a more detailed paragraph, sometimes with just a couple of sentences mentioning the most important things. Does that sound reliable and noteworthy enough? —Ylva Carennah (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the best way to report inappropriate content on a page? The page that prompted this is Albertus_Seba,

What is the best way for a general Wikipedia user to report seemingly inappropriate content on a page? On the page for Albertus_Seba, currently (as of 5/4/16) the last sentence under the heading, "Career," reads: "In 2015, 279 years following Seba's death, Australian students nation wide appreciated his constipated face as he proudly points down at the products of his efforts which his laxatives caused him to excrete on the dunny. It was widely believed that Sebafirst discovered he was balding when gazing soon his portrait. This true such hero will be remembered for centuries to come following this début in the HSC English Paper 1 Exam." This seems to me not to be a serious contribution to the article. Thanks 209.220.66.188 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself. This was as easy as clicking on the history tab, and after using the radio buttons to check that this childish vandalism was made in the last edit to the page, clicking on the date before the last edit, clicking edit, then saving the page with an edit summary like "revert vandalism". You could also have used the "undo" button here, though it is limited and will often not work with older edits.

Additionally, it is always good to warn the vandal. See WP:WARN for various template series that can be used for that purpose. Lastly, you can report obvious and persistent vandalism for a block from editing at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and generally the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

First, when reporting something inappropriate at a forum such as this Teahouse, it helps to provide a link to the article. The article was Albertus Seba. That particular edit has been redacted by an administrator. It obviously was vandalism. More generally, if you encounter obvious vandalism, and that was obvious vandalism, you may revert it yourself, and you may report the vandal to the vandalism noticeboard. However, since this is a widely watched page, by asking here, you caused action (the reversion and redaction of the vandalism) to be taken. Thank you for your attention to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Online Age Verification - a new article

I am thinking about creating a Wikipedia page on the topic of Online Age Verification (OAV). Currently, this term leads to several historical and specialist players rather than proper explanations concerning the issues. The UK Government is going to be bringing in legislation to mandate OAV in mobile web services as part of its child protection initiatives and there will shortly be a new British Standard to be published by BSI that could be implemented in the legislation. There are also issues regarding OAV and the European Audio-Visual Directive which will need to be presented with a neutral point of view. Are there any experienced Wikipedia editors and contributors who would be interested in assisting me in creating this topic over the next few months? AlistairKelman (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it is easier to find collaborators if you post a notice like this on the talk page of a related WikiProject where you will encounter editors who are interested in the same subjects. This is a very specific topic but you might try posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business although they don't seem particularly active right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Query on deletion of Proposed webpage

Hi all, I have been trying to create the page " INDIA JURIS" which is a wikipage about our law firm and a basic introduction about the firm. The Article has been deleted thrice. Any help regarding how i can rectify my draft page is appreciated.

My proposed webpage can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INDIA_JURIS SrastogiIJ (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi SrastogiIJ - Wikipedia isn't for advertising. To get an article on the site, the subject first must meet certain notability guidelines. Those can be found at WP:GNG, and since yours is a business, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH would also apply. If it meets those guidelines, then it has to be written from a factual POV, without any promotion. In addition, you have a conflict of interest, which needs to be disclosed. COI editors often have a difficult time writing articles without promotional tones. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, SrastogiIJ. Writing about your own company is strongly discouraged. Persisting in trying to create an article makes it look as if you are here to promote your company, which (like all promotion) is absolutely forbidden.

If your company is Notable, in Wikipedia's special sense - i.e. several people who have no connection with the company have published substantial writing about it - then Wikipedia may have an article about it. The article should be based nearly 100% on what these unconnected people have published about it - Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a company says about itself, or even about what it does unless independent people have described that. The article is required to be neutral in tone, which may be hard for you to do because of your Conflict of interest.

If despite this discouragement, you are determined to try and create the article again, you need to read all the links I have provided above, and also your first article; and if you are employed by the company or are otherwise recieving remuneration for editing the article, you must disclose your status as a paid contributor. --ColinFine (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The page has been deleted six times, including three times today and once yesterday, and a draft article has also been deleted today. The title has now been "salted", so it cannot be recreated, and a request for undeletion has been refused.
If you really want to try again, you can still use the Articles for creation wizard, although there is currently a 2-3 week delay in reviewing completed submissions, so you need to be sure that you have read and understood the links above, and your article complies with our requirements, or it will be refused. - Arjayay (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I will only comment on two things. First, using Articles for creation will not get your ad into article space, for several reasons. It is rare for draft articles to be deleted. They are usually declined. However, the fact that yours was deleted suggests that it was so promotional that both a reviewer and an administrator thought that it wasn't worth saving even as a draft. Even if the draft isn't tagged for speedy deletion, it will be declined. Also, even if the reviewer were to try to accept it, it can't be accepted, because it has been salted (in my opinion, appropriately salted). Second, you have been warned about repeated submission. Don't keep on doing it, or you will be blocked. There are five million articles in the English Wikipedia that you can edit constructively. You just may not promote your law firm. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of a short article

Hi all,

Can someone help me an review this short article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Small_Foot which is about a company which produces inflatable snowshoes. I would appreciate any comments and advice.

All the best, Nikolay StoyanNT (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi StoyanNT: My impression would be that you have done a good job at keeping the text generally non-promotional, but you haven't sufficiently demonstrated the type of notability required for coverage of companies or organizations. Quoting from the summary at the top of that guideline page, " An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." You provide only two sources; one of these is the company talking about itself (thus not independent), and the other merely demonstrates the existence of a kickstarter campaign (which says nothing about notability whatsoever). See if you can find coverage in newspaper articles, gadget magazines, review blogs, etc.; if no critical mass of such sources can be found, then the subject may very well not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

New proposed Wikipedia web page

HELP, HELP, HELP

I was the first on the internet with swing dance related web sites: SwingDance.com (1995), LindyHop.com (1995), DanceCorner.com (1996) and RetroSwing.com (1998).

Please see my proposed Wikipedia web page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeonRaper/About_you

Please refer me to a human being at Wikipedia and not just another Wikipedia web page.

I have a great deal of computer experience including 5 patents in computer circuit design. I designed circuitry in the computer in the Minuteman Missile. I also developed circuitry for the first digital organ for Allen Organ Company that was later stolen by Japan.

Hubert Leon Raper

Hubert Leon Raper 07:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

Hello, LeonRaper. I'm sorry, but you seem to have a misapprehension that Wikipedia is a way of promoting or publicising things: it is not. Wikipedia may not be used for promoting or publicising anything: it is only interested in subjects that several people unconnected with the subject have already published substantial material about (the jargon for that is that the subject is notable), and an article on any subject should be based almost 100% on what those independent sources have said about it.

If there is substantial published material about you, by people unconnected with you (which excludes material based on interviews or press releases) and published in reliable places, then Wikipedia may have an article about you. You are strongly discouraged from writing it (see autobiography), but if you are determined to go ahead, please read your first article, use the articles for creation process, and expect to have your work rigorously reviewed. You need to read referencing for beginners as well. --ColinFine (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Leon Raper and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a web host for storing your CV/ list of achievements. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ecoscraps

I reviewed Draft:Ecoscraps and declined it, saying that it read like an advertisement. Its author, User:BC1278, then posted to my talk page:

Hi Robert McClenon I've written many articles for Wikipedia. See: User:BC1278 for a partial list of articles I originated. If the subject of an article qualifies as "notable" but you find that specific language or issues need to be fixed, then as per Wikipedia policy, the article should still be approved, and the issues addressed individually, as per WP: Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'd note that this company was featured as a cover story for Inc. Magazine, one of the largest circulation independent business magazines in the United States. [1] and has the subject of in-depth features stories on CNN Money[2], Forbes magazine[3] and Reuters.[4] These are all A+ level sources that have written in-depth articles about the subject. And there are several other in-depth stories from less well known, but still independent sources, such as Cool Hunting[5], BYU Magazine [6] and Biz Journals.[7] In all, there are nine feature stores specifically about this company from prominent independent sources. I think this level of independent sourcing is more than enough to establish notability. So, can we first please address the "notability" threshold and then circle back to any neutrality issues individually? I have re-cast the lead so it more immediately captures why all these news sources wrote long stories about the company. As to tone, I personally find it to be suitably neutral. There's no puffery or promotion of products that I can see. The names of the products aren't even mentioned. I just summarized the sourcing that I found most relevant, specifically the history of the company. I didn't omit anything negative -- there's nothing negative that I found in my research. But I'd be pleased to go into specifics and change anything if you can cite examples to help me understand your objections. BC1278 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

First, I agree with the author that notability has been established. I will take issue with the apparent claim that notability requires that the article be accepted. The policy says that notability means that a topic is presumed to be suitable, not that it must be accepted. Second, as the user’s user page notes, the author is a paid editor, and I have tagged the draft as conflict of interest. That does explain why the author is asking for very specific comments; COI editors often ask exactly how much promotion they can get away with and how much they have to revise. Third, I personally won’t accept the contribution of a paid editor based on my own review only, without another reviewer. Fourth, I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors . Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User: Robert McClenon, as per WP:COI, I revealed at the time I submitted the article for review that I was a paid consultant to the subject on the Talk page of the Draft Article, not just on my user page, where I also make a general disclosure. I'm not asking for specifics to see how far I can push promotion: I'm asking for specifics because i don't agree that there's any promotion in the article as defined by WP: PROMO. Every sentence carries a citation to a reliable independent source; none of the language is puffy or subjective. I have merely summarized the sources. You might argue WP:UNDUE if you think there's overemphasis on some section or another, but that's not the issue you raised. You rejected the article as reading like an advertisement, using a predefined template that challenges whether it is notable, if it's statements are backed by independent reliable sources, and if the language is neutral. I believe none of those things are the case in this draft. The sources include multiple in-depth profiles by top tier publications - the cover of Inc. Magazine, CNN Money, Reuters, Forbes. And five other in depth profiles by other reliable independent publications over a period of years. This company was written about a lot because they found a way to turn restaurant garbage into a consumer product, saving landfills, reducing methane emissions, and making money from other people's garbage. What I do in the article is summarize the sources. I've tried my best to be neutral in doing so, though I remain open to any and all feedback that I should redraft language. But you don't point out anything that fails the neutrality test. Subjects that are notable are indeed presumed to justify articles unless they fall under WP:NOT. The exception in WP:NOT that Robert seems to have in mind is WP:PROMO. This is the policy: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." I believe Draft: Ecoscraps follows this policy carefully. I understand that User: Robert McClenon might not feel comfortable reviewing an article where there is a declared COI. But I think the proper course, then, should have been for him to not review the article rather than decline it as being advertising. In the AfC process, if you find an article is notable but falls short, you should work with the submitting editor to fix any issues. I'd be pleased to do that. BC1278 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

Welcome to the Teahouse, BC1278. I have read your draft and agree that there is no overtly promotional language. The references appear solid although I have not studied them in detail. I understand the stance that Robert McClenon and many other editors share about paid editing, and have my own deep concerns about promotional editing of all types, the worst of which is undeclared. AFC was created, at least in part, to allow declared paid editors to create content. It is legitimate to take this route and it is legitimate for AFC reviewers to pass on reviewing such drafts. I hope another reviewer will take a fresh look at your draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's my comment. If I were ever to hire a paid editor, I would expect them to be more familiar with Wikipedia's policies than BC1278 is. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

First, I basically agree with Robert McClenon's views on reviewing articles done by COI, especially paid COI, editors. I think his cautious approach in wanting to have another editor take a look is laudable. And I also agree with Maproom's comment above. Out of respect to Cullen328, I'll take a look at it. Like other reviewers, I don't relish reviewing articles from COI editors, which can have some of the most contentious and tendentious commenting back and forth. Even the above back and forth with BC1278 is tiring. Robert is being very patient, imho, personally I don't have time to put up with such wikilawyering. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed this entry and what concerns me is the lack of current information about the business. Ecoscraps is now part of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a major company. The proposed entry, through historically correct, clearly gives a very partial account of the company which does not assist in determining whether the establishment of Ecoscraps was a significant event in environmental protection measures or a lost cause that went nowhere and which ended up in a corporate bureaucracy. This suggests that Robert McClenon's view that this entry should be declined is upheld. A rewrite which overcame these criticisms might be acceptable since it would ensure that the entry was truly notable in the Wikipedia sense. AlistairKelman (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

AlistairKelman There is a story in an independent reliable source about the company and its products from January of 2016. I've cited to it. I only included highly credible sources in the first draft. But I can go back an include a series of sources, reviews and updates from the gardening/trade press all through 2013-2015 based on your comments. BC1278 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

AlistairKelman, I have now updated the article with sources from every year until now. They do indeed have some very interesting information about the environmental impact and growth of the company. e.g. saving 9 million tons of methane emissions in 2013, composting 50 million pounds of food scraps as of 2015; collecting the food waste for Walmart and Costco; available in 1700 Targets. I consider all of the new sources, with the exception of FWx (part of Food and Wine at Time Inc.), to be second-tier, which is why they weren't in the first draft. While I wouldn't include them in the mix to establish notability, I think they seem reliable enough for secondary facts and provide exactly the context you requested.BC1278 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

I was surprised to see the emphasis on Dan Blake. He is repeatedly mentioned in the article as the founder. References 1 & 2 both mention co-founders. The other co-founder gets late mention as one of two other students. The COI disclosure mentions being a paid consultant. It doesn't mention who is paying. Gab4gab (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Gab4gab Sorry for the omission. I am a paid consultant to Hawthorne, which owns Ecoscraps. I updated the Talk page to reflect this.BC1278 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

Regarding Dan Blake, I am summarizing the independent sourcing, which discusses his role extensively. The other founders are mentioned as people he brought on board, but I found nothing that discusses what the other co-founders did. Just their name and school.BC1278 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

Help Issues

Hello Wikipedians!

I have been working on this draft for the last 3 years Draft:Alex Gilbert. I keep on updating it with sources. Coverage is actually over 3 years. I can't even do anything with Alex Gilbert as the title is salted. Can this be unsalted? It was salted because it was deleted in 2014. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert. I really don't understand what I am doing wrong. I have added 2 new sources at Draft:Alex Gilbert which include [1] and [2]. Some other sources include [3] and [4]. I am sure this draft has passed basic notability. Am I wrong? All of these sources are from TVNZ, Huffington Post, Mirror and SBS Australia. I don't understand it? Really if this article goes onto the mainspace will it get deleted? Will someone really nominate it for deletion? What for though? Please actually look at the sources before commenting, people really don't look at them at all. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

First, you aren't helping your case by insulting other Wikipedians by saying "people really don't look at them at all". Second, you make a statement and ask a question that don't really both make sense in the same paragraph. On the one hand, you state that the draft has been salted, but at the same time, you ask what will happen if the draft goes into mainspace. If the title is salted, the draft cannot go into mainspace. However, if the title is not salted, then, if you move it into mainspace, it almost certainly will be nominated for deletion. Articles that are declined at AFC and are then moved to mainspace almost always are nominated for deletion. If you think that AFC is a painful process, you haven't tried AFD. Third, I do have a comment. If the title is salted, it should be unsalted, and should never have been salted. The two deleted Alex Gilberts do not appear to be the same person, and this Alex Gilbert is a third person. I haven't reviewed the sources, but I am not commenting on the merits of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You Robert McClenon. I am sorry for what I said before. I just don't know what to do anymore! I will just keep the draft up and running for the time being. I just want to know why the title can't be unsalted or why people think the article is not notable. I just don't believe that WP:BIO1E is relevant for this article now. Old sources, yes and that is understandable but the coverage has been going on for 3 years. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello DmitryPopovRU. Actually, the second AfD is the same person, though the first isn't. I looked at the two recent references you added. Those are interviews that consist mostly of Gilbert's own words and therefore are not independent sources that would establish notability. My personal experience is that it is unlikely that an article about this person will be accepted any time soon. By pushing too hard, you have created bad feelings about the topic, and the sources are weak. People seem to think that you are here only to promote Alex Gilbert, and react poorly to that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen³²⁸. I understand that the bridges have been burnt. I do! But with all the other sources? Also the Article has been cut down and cut again. I guess I will just keep working on the draft. Yes the new ones are from his own words. Or what about this one? [5] or [6]? no? Does sources with the subject actually talking in them don't count at all? Even though the websites are reliable? What am I doing wrong? For example; If this article goes into the mainspace, do you personally think it will get nominated for deletion? That is what I am wondering about. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If the article gets moved to main space, DmitryPopovRU, I think the chances that it will be nominated for deletion exceed 99%. It is on many editor's watch lists and many people have long memories. The best thing you can do is build the article based solely on what independent, reluable sources say. Rigorously exclude all else. Even so, that may not be enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, look. Thank You so much for your help! User talk:Cullen328. You are a great editor! Thanks for your advice. Nothing much I can do! I would love to see what would happen if it went through another AfD now. I think it would last! I believe it has reached borderline notability or at least it will in the future. Can nobody unsalt the article? Thanks anyways! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

DmitryPopovRU: You write "I really don't understand what I am doing wrong." Maybe you aren't doing anything wrong. Please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes and that is what I am struggling with Maproom. That nobody can actually help me with this, really. With the old article being unsalted. I guess that won't happen anytime soon. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

DmitryPopovRU ignore the deleted article. If the draft is accepted at some point then Alex Gilbert will be unsalted. That salting is a red herring in this discussion if the draft is about a different person. Nthep (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you! Nthep --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

How do I use template for citing liner notes?

Hello! I can't figure out how to use the template on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_AV_media_notes when i copy & paste it into the source edit page in my sandbox,& fill in the blanks, it just shows up as text, like this: (Media notes). {{cite AV media notes}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

If you look in my sandbox, you can see it in the section "Career & Associates"

Thank you very much!Nadnie (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nadnie. You had surrounded the template with nowiki tags instead of ref tags. I have corrected that for you. Nowiki tags are intended to display the raw wikicode for learning purposes. Ref tags must be used for a template to function as an actual working template creating an inline reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

culture of timing between posting something in article's talk page and making the edit

I have posted on the talk page of an article (categorized as high-importance) that has had some intense discussion and reworking recently. My proposal could be understood as a major change to the article. It's applies to an entirely different section than the intensely discussed section, yet does shift the structure of the article. I'm proposing moving something from being a subsection to it's own section (and going forth with the content creation that would be appropriate for such a change). In this case, what is the considerate amount of time a graceful, and very new, editor might wait before making such a change, should no one reply to the proposal on the talk page? I'm ok with being WikiBold and with the ensuing conversations and potential reversions that could entail. Thank you for any wise advice or insight you might provide. AD64 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, AD64. When asking a question about a specific article here at the Teahouse, it is always helpful to wikilink to that article. You have been working on several articles related to Tibetan Buddhism, and I am not sure what you are referring to.

Here is my own operating principle: If the article is infrequently edited, I will boldly restructure it as I see fit, always willing to discuss and compromise with other editors if anyone objects. On the other hand, if the article is actively edited, I would not restructure the article without creating consensus with other interested editors. If no one comments, you can always neutrally ping the most active editors, or initiate a Request for comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and very helpful response Cullen328. And for the reminders about always linking the article in question. I'm learning every day. Your own operating principle sounds wise and useful. I'll wait a few more days to see if anyone responds to my query on the Padmasambhava talk page and then ping a couple of folks and see what they might say. Again, the suggestions and advice are most welcome as I find my way here. (I promise to figure out how to link to your username as just 'Cullen' instead of 'Cullen328' in the form of a ping before long too). Best wishes, AD64 (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

p.s. I am most grateful for the link to RfC. I just encountered this for the first time today and am happy to know more about this process. Best, AD64 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As I review the Request for comment page and consider the various uses of an RfC, I have a question about the culture of using one. I can see how using an RfC could be a a kind of "escalation" when used to help resolve disputes. Does it have the same flavor for folks when used to ask for help or support with content? Is it a kind of red flag or does it read more neutrally for editors in the context of support for article content? Is it better, or more part of the culture here, to ask individual editors for support (when possible) or to initiate an RfC? Thanks again and best wishes, AD64 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that I have ever initiated an RfC myself, though I have participated in many of them. One of the great advantages of RfCs is that the process draws in fresh faces and new participants, since willing editors are bot-invited at random to participate. The downside of inviting individual editors to participate is that people are incliined to invite input from friends and allies, not opponents. This is called canvassing and is completely contrary to Wikipedia cultural norms. Respected editors function as individuals, not as leaders of cliques. Call me an idealist if you want, AD64. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Would like to understand better what constitutes a reliable source

My recent edits to Paul Caplin were rejected because the British Sunday Times newspaper and the MusicBrainz database are apparently not reliable sources.

I thought that they would be considered authoritative since one is a major newspaper of record and the other is a moderated music database used as a primary reference by the BBC.

I cited both MuscBrainz and the artist's own website as evidence of release of two music albums, both of which are still widely available. If these sources are not believed as evidence of this, what kind of source would be?

Confused and grateful for any guidance.

Creativecontroller (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Creativecontroller. The MusicBrainz page that you cited is clearly a mirror of the Wikipedia article Zeeteah Massiah, and so shouldn't be used per WP:CIRCULAR. I don't really see the problem with the Sunday Times source. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Jytdog, who made the reverts. Can I ask what is wrong with that source, Jytdog? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

First this user is a blatant SOCK/MEAT that has a COI but what the heck I will answer. I see you identified musicbrainz as a wiki that copies from WP so it is out per SPS/wiki and CIRCULAR. Where do you see a cite to the Sunday Times in this this dif? Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There are two references to the ST Tech Track 100 in that edit, Jytdog. This is one of them, if you want to check. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is my thinking: The two Sunday Times sources are annual lists of 100 tech companies. In effect, it is a passing mention in the form of a directory listing without any significant coverage. And the subject of the list is a company that Caplin founded but no longer owns. It says nothing about Caplin himself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

He owned it at the time that the sources were published, though, and the coverage doesn't need to be extensive to be considered reliable. Looking at Creativecontroller's contribution history, there does appear to be a conflict of interest here, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh crap! I missed it that the Tech Track 100 is put out by the Sunday Times. My bad 100%. I will fix that. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you create wiki page

Can you create your own wiki page, not just the user talk page, or can you only contribute to the wiki communityFreshies203 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Freshies203. What do you mean by "your own wiki page"? Do you mean a Wikipedia article about yourself, or a user page such as the one you have already created at User:Freshies203? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean can I create a page about somethingFreshies203 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can, Freshies203, if the topic is notable, as demonstrated by multiple reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Your first article for instructions. However, it might be a better idea to get some experience editing existing articles before you try to start a new one. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest using the Articles for Creation process to have your drafts reviewed if you do choose to try to create a page. However, bear in mind that creating an article, with proper references, is difficult, and that there are other ways that you can assist Wikipedia, such as by editing, that are less difficult than creating new articles. If you do choose to create new articles via the AFC process, you will get feedback on your submissions, and, if a draft that is submitted for review is not up to Wikipedia' standards, it will normally be declined (sent back to you for more work) rather than deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

How can I change an incorrect Wiki page name?

Our business name is The College Basketball Experience. How can I get the "The" added to the page name, so it's not listed as "College Basketball Experience," which is incorrect?

Cl3314 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cl3314. This entirely unreferenced article has been tagged for speedy deletion. You need to deal with that issue first, and I suggest that you start by reading Your first article. Whether to include "The" in a title is discussed at WP:THE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Cl3314. Another welcome to the Teahouse. Certainly TCBE has gotten a lot of mainstream press in reliable sources over the past nine years? Because on Wikipedia notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, the article will be fine. But, it would behoove you to bring forward some of those sources so the notability is not again challenged. Cheers! (cc to Cullen328)

I have also created a redirect page so readers can land on TCBE by using The College Basketball Experience as their portal. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation of registered trade marks with new meanings and obsolete meanings

I am trying to work out how to insert a Disambiguation page so that three separate meanings can be given for the term "SafeCast"

• SafeCast (software protection) was a registered trademark for Macrovision's legacy software protection system. The mark was abandoned by Macrovision and their trade mark registration ceased.
• SafeCast is the registered trademark used for headcodes that enable the automatic filtering of video and image content by online age verification systems in television, web, tablet and mobiles
• SafeCast Org Safecast is a website that aggregates radioactivity data from throughout the world in order to provide real-time hyper-local information that people can use to make their own informed decisions

Can someone give me a link to a possible template I could use? AlistairKelman (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AlistairKelman. As far as I can see, we have an article only on the first of these, so a disambiguation page is not appropriate: DAB pages should distinguish the subjects of articles, not things that are not covered in Wikipedia. If you think the other two meanings are notable, then see if you can get articles written about them, and a dab page will then be appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I plan to create stub pages for the second two meanings of SafeCast since they are both notable topics which are going to increase in importance over time whilst the original Macrovision meaning of Safecast is going to decline into a historical topic. But without a DAB page it will not be possible to pull all these things together AlistairKelman (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Creating articles

What type of articles can I create On wiki and What should be the content in that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambhuraje ghogare (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Hello, Shamburaje ghogare, and welcome to the Teahouse. My first response to your question is to ask, what is your hurry in creating articles? Creating a new article is one of the hardest jobs on Wikipedia: why not apply your energies to improving some of our existing five million articles (many of them need a great deal of improvement). This will also give you a chance to learn how Wikipedia works and how best to edit it.

If you do decide to create a new article, the most important thing is what we call Notability: this doesn't mean quite the same as it does in the real world. Put simply, you need to be able to write the article based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it in reliable places. If you cannot find such independent sources, then there is no point in trying to write an article. Please read your first article for information about this and other topics, including how to use the articles for creation process to create a draft to work on. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Shambhuraje ghogare. That is a very wide questions. The very short, triaged answer is only articles on topics that do not have existing articles and are notable. That means in turn that after you have searched that an article does not already exist, you would perform searches (such as using Google Books and Google News) for reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail—say at least two paragraphs dedicated to it—and only then consider writing an article. For the balance of your question, I think your best bet is to explore Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:your first article, and if you have more narrow questions after doing so, to return here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Why I cannot edit the article on frame-dragging, which is a subject I have and I am actively contributing to?

I am Lorenzo Iorio, a physicist working in general relativity and gravitation. As such, I have published so far dozens of articles in many different peer-reviewed international journals, which are gaining lots of citations (look at the freely available databasa SAO/NASA-ADS). Why some adminsitrators which manifestly are incompetent to judge on them (one is a retired electrical engineer and the other one is a..broker), vandalized the article devoted to frame-dragging by removing solely my references? One of them has even blocked me from editing that article page!L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You can edit the page, nothing is stopping you. You were advised by Spinningspark that editors with a WP:conflict of interest should not be directly editing articles that intersect with their conflict of interest. When you add references to your own research it appears that you are pushing your own research. -- GB fan 16:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.. I have read what you have written in several places, and much of what you say is quite persuasive. Since I have no formal physics training, I will refrain from commenting on the technical aspects. However, I encourage you to realize that this is a collaborative project, that anyone can edit any unprotected article, and that you are expected to assume good faith of other editors. Adopting an indignant and combative attitude simply does not work well on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

1) An administrator blocked me from editing the article page: I cannot edit it

2) Well, all other encyclopedias in the world usually invite researchers active in a field to write articles on it: in wikipedia it is the contrary; they are banned to do so and are called sockpuppets! Quite ridicolous!

4) Simply, Spinningspark and the other guy (a financial broker!!) do not have any competence to destroy articles in those way without any discussions with other people by abusing of their powers, or to judge if my papers are mainstream or not, if my positions are minority or not, if my peer-reviewed articles, highly cited are pertinent or not! L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I am still blocked to edit the article page by the administrator who is a financial broker..L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason your user page has been nominated for deletion is explained at User talk:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.#Speedy deletion nomination of User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It did not explain absolutely anything. It should have said plain and explicitly what was wrong and how to correct it.

I need to clarify one point after looking a little deeper. The article has been protected so that only editors that have account over 4 days old and with at least 10 edits can edit it. Your account is too new to edit the article. I also removed the speedy deletion tag from your userpage as it was not a valid use of the tag. -- GB fan 16:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your clarification. But, please, look at the 'motivations' provided by the financial broker, and also at his previous vandalizing actions on that article. Now, I have published 190 peer-reviewed articles which has gained more than 2600 non-self citations, and a financial broker must remove them from an article on a topic which I contributed to build? Or must he ban me because of 'sockpuppetry'? Are all joking here, folks? Really? Is this an encyclopedia, or is it a KGBpedia where the only thing administrator can do is screaming 'sockpuppet, sockpuppet, sockpuppet!!' exposing them?? L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You are not doing yourself any good and are doing yourself considerable harm by insulting administrators. You are setting yourself up for a real block (as opposed to semi-protection) if you continue your ranting; see the boomerang essay. If you think that your edits are mainstream, as opposed to fringe physics, I suggest that you ask for the opinions of other physicists at WP:WikiProject Physics. Just ranting won't help. Just insulting admins won't help. Your comments on sockpuppetry, when no one has suggested that you or anyone else is a sockpuppet, won't help, and just make you look like you are ranting. Try to discuss rather than ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I think that indefinite semi-protection is an over-reaction. Can it be shortened to, say, four days, after which he will be auto-confirmed anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions about WP:WikiProject Physics. But, in practice, how can I request their assistance on this matter? Is there a link/page like this to ask questions about pages? Please, let me know. Thank you. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ask at the talk page, WT:WikiProject Physics. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection is not an over-reaction. This article has been subject of COI editing and socking for years. There is a long, long history. Mr. Iorio is welcome to edit, especially with an account that clearly identifies himself. This is good for transparency. As others have said above, he should avoid linking to his own work, as that appears to be promotional. If he wants to suggest linking (referencing) his own work via the talk page and allows another editor to add the reference, that is permitted. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Shyamw1/sandbox and Draft:G. Parthasarathy

I reviewed User:Shyamw1/sandbox and declined it as duplicated by Draft:G. Parthasarathy. I then received the following on my talk page from its author:

All of the information I have in the article has been taken from reliable sources and as far as I can tell, I have cited the information appropriately. If something is not right, can you please give me the specifics instead of a general comment like "This article contains copyrighted material" which is not very helprul. I would appreciate it if I knew what line or paragraph contained "copyrighted material" so I can edit that section. Thanks.

Since I never referred to copyrighted material, which had nothing to do with my decline, this appears to be a canned inquiry ready for any decline. What I do notice is that two users, User:Shyamw1 and User:Wshyam, have submitted very similar drafts on the same Indian diplomat. Is this a coincidence, or is one person using multiple accounts, possibly due to a misunderstanding of how accounts are used in Wikipedia?

Why are you asking about copyrighted material, when I said nothing about copyright issues?

Do other experienced editors want to comment?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is an agency for creating articles. And one of its employees, on getting a rejection, used a template to create a response, but chose the wrong template. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a good-faith explanation, but occasionally a bad-faith explanation fits the facts better. If so, they are doing a bad thing poorly, and that doesn't earn sympathy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wanting to be given very specific instructions, such as what one peacock statement to delete in order to get a promotional article accepted, is characteristic of conflict of interest editors. Thank you for a cynical explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

I just read your comments. When I logged on to my sandbox page the day before there was a highlighted section on top that said "this article contains copyrighted material". I can't seem to find the comment any more. Shyamw1 and Wshyam are the same user. I may have created the Wshyam account long ago in an attempt to experiment with writing for Wikipedia but didn't get a chance to do it. I'm not very good with using the sandbox page and I tried my best to follow the guidelines for beginning users and would appreciate any help you can give me about editing the article I submitted. I am not a fake person - I genuinely am interested in writing this article for Wikipedia since the subject deserves an entry. Thanks. shyamw1Shyamw1 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Page blank and redirected

I just created an article but it was redirected and deleted to another page. How can I review my page and repost? LittleHelper8 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LittleHelper8. As you say, Bolloré Logistics was changed by SwisterTwister to a redirect to Bolloré. You can find your version by picking the link where it says "(Redirected from Bolloré Logistics)" at the top, then picking "History". Please do not just reinstate your version, but rather discuss with TwisterSister whether it merits a separate article or not. --ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have reinstated the article after deleting a paragraph that might have been thought of as too promotional. I hope it is fine now. LittleHelper8 (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The recreated article is not "fine", it provides no evidence that "Bolloré Logistics" is notable. Its references show that it exists, and that it has received various insignificant awards from its business partners, but there is no reason to believe that it warrants a separate article. It should either be deleted or merged into Bolloré. Maproom (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and have reverted back, and given the user advice on their talkpage. Also asked for semi-protection of this redirect to prevent the edit war. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for assistance on AfC submission by Jogi don

Draft:Hidaya Foundation I am asking for assistance because I have not found any lead story about Hidaya Foundation yet, might be it can be find someone other users, might be published in USA and else where, so I need their assistance in this regard to find citations , references of books, news, newspaper for Hidaya Foundation , and also expand this article so it can be soon shifted from draft to a full fledged article. Here are some useful news references to improve it This reference and This main link to news references ....Jogi 007 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "lead story" in this context, Jogi don. Perhaps you mean something that would constitute significant coverage, as required by our notability guidelines? Incidentally, Draft:Hidaya Foundation appears to have been deleted yesterday, so it is difficult to comment further on the sources that you found. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This draft article is requested for undeletion HERE..Jogi 007 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability for books and authors

Is it possible for a book to be notable but not it's author?*Treker (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. For an author to be notable, they must pass the general notability guidelines, or, they might be notable if they meet one or more of the criteria under WP:AUTHOR. If an author has a single book which passes WP:NBOOK, there is no inherited notability, so they would still have to pass either GNG or AUTHOR. So the book could be notable, but not the author. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is particularly possible in the case of old books whose authors are known only for their authorship of a single book - or may not be known at all, see List of anonymously published works. In the present day it could be that a book becomes a bestseller but the author maintains a low public profile by not giving interviews to the press or other self-promotional activity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Where do I find the answer to my teahouse question?

On 22 January 2016 I asked a question on how to edit an external link. This question was answered by Fuhghettaboutit‬ the same day. Where do I find this discussion (and how can I continue the discussion if needed). I want to change the external link in the English Simon Carmiggelt page to biography and bibliography to the page also used in the Dutch version (the page linked to in the English version is no longer maintained). I somehow do not manage. Best regards, Wim Wimke Kloek (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Here it is: [7]. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The easiest way for an average editor to find an old question they asked here at the Teahouse is to enter their own user name in the archive search box. So, when I entered Wimke Kloek in that search box, it told me that your question was in Archive 444. This works very well for editors who have participated in a handful of Teahouse conversations. Those like me who have participated in thousands need to use more sophisticated search tools. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I too need help fidning the answer to my previous question. I was directed to this teahouse page nby an email saying primehunter mentioned me here, but when I type "wild" or "irish" into the search box, I get 0 of 0. I've scanned this whole page and not seen my name... -Wild Irish Rose216.249.70.221 (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The account User:Wild Irish Rose was created in 2010 but has no edits and has not been mentioned by anyone. You were not logged in when you posted this so I cannot see whether you have another account. I mention a lot of users and don't remember whether one of them resembled "Wild Irish Rose". A Teahouse archive search did not find similar names. I guess you are User:Wild Irish Rose 2 but that account has not posted or been mentioned here. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Second sandbox was "patrolled" ... what does this mean?

Hi. I created a second sandbox to hold some edits that I'd like to make on an entry. It holds a copy of the most recent section of material that I'm hoping to edit, copied directly from the article page.

I just got this email and I have no idea what it means. Is there something for me to do? Can anyone point me to some information?

"The page User:AD64/Sandbox 2 was patrolled by Username"

Looking on the history page for the sandbox and had no luck figuring anything out.

Thanks.

AD64 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Relax. It's all good. Some of us have new article/pending changes patrolling rights. Carry on. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  19:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi AD64, all newly created pages are checked (patrolled) for illegal content or major breaches of policy such as child porn or copyright violations. Someone checked the page and "tagged" it as "OK". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and the good news. AD64 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the proper way to reference an out-of-print book that may not be accessible online for a link?

I want to do this in the way that has already been worked out - IOW, this can't be the first time this issue has arisen, but I haven't seen the protocol.Iceteroid (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you are using the standard toolbar - Under "Templates" in the "Cite" option is "cite book" - Alternatively you should see Template:Cite book. Although cite book is more complex, it does explain what each of the parameters are, and what should be included. - Arjayay (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Iceteroid, if the book was issued by a reputable publisher it doesn't matter at all if it is out of print or if you can't link to it (though it can sometimes be helpful to other editors if there is a link); you can cite it in whatever way you are used to and comfortable with. There's no need to use templates unless you want to; your citation should end up looking something like:

Author (year). Title. Place: Publisher. ISBN 0000000000. Page 00.

though there's plenty of room for variation on that theme. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me get this straight. Wikipedia has been my primary first-read resource since its inception. Glad to be a User, Supporter, and now Contributor.Iceteroid (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Just want to know how I should post?

Hello I know I am new and just want to clear up a few things about posting and editing. I put the pro day workout numbers on the Chris Jones (defensive tackle, born 1994) page and someone took them off right after. I just want to know if I did something wrong or if I could have done something different. Any help on the matter would be great! Thanks so much. NFLDraftRadio (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Yankees10, who made the reversion, may be able to explain what's happening. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

Welcome to the Teahouse, NFLDraftRadio. It looks like you are adding external links to various sports websites in the body of the article (we don't do that), as well as linking to the full URLs of Wikipedia articles, instead of wikilinking. I suggest that you start by studying Referencing for beginners. Some editors may object to your username as well, since it may imply some official NFL status. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Cullen and Rich, thank you so much. Yes after reading about ref for beginners I do see I should have done a better job in that regard. Anything else? Feel free to bring anything that was not gold standard. NFLDraftRadio (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sandboxes

Is there any way I can have more than one sandbox? I want to work on more than one thing right now.*Treker (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, *Treker. Yes, you can have as many sandbox pages as you want. Open your current sandbox, and look at the top of the page where the URL shows. Place your cursor at the end of the URL, type a forward slash /, and then a name for the nrw page, like "Project 2" or something. Then hit "enter". You will get a message saying that the page does not exist, with an option to create it. Click that, and an edit window opens. Type something, save it, and you now have a new sandbox page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It worked. Thanks a lot. :) *Treker (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Taliefero

Hello I am crystal l Taliefero The photo that you have posted of me is not a fair representation of only crystal Taliefero and it should only be about crystal l Taliefero and no one else. Here is a photo I want to represent my image and likes. Thank you image1.jpeg

Sent from my iPhone

You will need to upload the video. See WP:Upload. Also make sure that you own the copyright, or that the copyright is released. See WP:Copyright. Then it is an editorial decision which picture to use.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

I think the existing photo is quite good. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be in order for an Admin to expunge this as Crystal has inadvertently revealed her IP address? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  19:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you.   Aloha27  talk  21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Question on copyright solutions

Hello!

I am new to all of this and a page I had a hand in creating/editing is now under review for copyright. However, I supplied updated text and the copyright issues have not resolved (including through deleting the parts that are supposedly infringing.) It has been well over a week and I am just wondering how to move forward. Shunterr2p (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful to know if the "supposedly infringing" text was actually infringing.

For example this report shows a lot of unattributed common text.

If you own the copyright to the text that has been copied, then you can release that text, using the WP:OTRS system, and resolve the issue that way.

If not, then the cleaned up article can have the tags removed, and the "temp" version should be deleted. If, however, the remaining text included un-attributed copy-paste then that should also be dealt with.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

There was no unattributed copy and paste. I think whomever flagged it was because the wording is similar. Unfortunately with the subject matter, there is only a few ways to word things. I cannot seem to even get at the text that is causing the issue (I do not see where I can actually edit it). The page is the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Feel free to take a look. thanks for your guidance. Shunterr2p (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Shunterr2p, Rich Farmbrough, the bulk of the copyright violation identified at Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has already been (correctly) removed by Wiae; the rest of the article will need to be checked. Shunterr2p, whether or not it was unattributed makes no difference – if it's copied from a copyright source, it's a copyright violation. Please see this comparison to see at least part of the problem.

Material was copy-pasted into the draft version of the article by Harry.murphycruise, who also appears to have a fairly evident conflict of interest in relation to that topic and to have created that page to WP:PROMOTE the centre. This seems to be as good a place as any for a plea to all AfC reviewers, 333-blue among them, to check thoroughly for copyvio before accepting submissions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I linked to a report showing some of the copied pieces of text for example:
  

international advisory board provides advice on strategy policy and management its members include policymakers diplomats and academics as well as leaders from the international human rights community

Any method that leaves 27 words in a row unchanged is as near copy-paste as makes no difference. It also runs the risk of being a "close-paraphrase" which can be a copyright violation, at least theoretically - or constituting plagiarism.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC).

My draft was declined several times

Hi, my Draft:Pankaj Naram was declined several times (reasons was that draft is not NPOV writing and it's lacking notability). How could I further improve article and show notability.

Also my images was removed from WikiCommons as not notable. E.g. I wrote: "Dr. Naram performed pulse diagnosis of Dalai Lama" and upload photo where Pankaj Naram is doing pulse diagnosis of Dalai Lama, why can't I use this photo? Buhram (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

To show notability it is usually enough to show that "multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject" exist. (There are many exceptions, but that is the main criteria.)

Breaking this down:

• Multiple more than one, and preferably more than two
• Independent not written by the subject, their close family, their press agent, etc.
• Reliable sources generally something with editorial oversight. Not random blogs, you-tube channels, most self-published material.
• Significant coverage a few paragraphs at the very least.

These are somewhat flexible.

As to the image, you certainly can use it provided you own the copyright and release it under WP:CC BY-SA 3.0. It may not be a good source as we have no way of knowing who the people in the image are unless we recognise them, as we will the Dali Lama.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

User talk

Hello more time, I want a quest. Maybe you know how make stylish user talk page? E.g User talk:Bgwhite? E.g book, etc? Very thank you, I will not remain indebted. Thanks.--... Koroshami _(talk) 10:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Koroshami

@Koroshami: i (maybe) know what you,re asking, Maybe you,re asking about User page not Talk page making User page stylish, is a good idea, i also love this and i think you,re thinking about Templetes. Many users on wikipedia use templetes on their User pages, you also have to use.

On other hand you asked about User talk page, Talkpage is a page where we discuss and we talk to each other. Making Talkpage stylish is not a good idea (for me) but you add some templetes.--★Yes ji★ (★talk★) 10:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you give examples? Thanks.--... Lhealt _(talk) 11:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt

• There's some guidance at Wikipedia:User page design center. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
  

To create a new page

I am trying to create a new page but if don't know how to. Please help me with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreeya.m.p (talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Read -> WP:Your first article. Please.--... Koroshami _(talk) 10:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Koroshami

Disagree/need help to improve after refimprove/tone has been added

Hi, I recently created an English language article on The Danish National Centre for Social Research. It has been tagged with Refimprove and Tone by another wikipedian. I've created a talk-page and asked some questions regarding the refimprove-suggestion. The tone-suggestion I just don't understand.

Will the tagger be notified that I've created a talk-page with questions? I guess he must have some opinion on the tone issue? Groennek (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait a little, for ANSWER.Yes ji (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Groennek, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the editor who added those tags added the article to their watchlist, then they stand a good chance of noticing your post on the talk page, but if they didn't then it's unlikely. It might be worth posting a message on their talk page to get their attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Groennek, you can also "ping" the editor when you leave a question, as Cordless Larry and I did to you when we answered your question. There are several formats to do that, I find the easiest being: {{u|USERNAME}}. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Listing bilingual films in filmographies

What is the proper way of listing a bilingual film production in an actor/actress' filmography? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Pavanjandhyala and welcome to the Teahouse! While filmography is outside my area of expertise, I did find article Shah Rukh Khan filmography where there is a bilingual example at Fiction film table for the Hey Ram entry. If that does not look correct to you, perhaps you might ask your question at the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers; or search further at Category:Filmographies. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

How long after a new wikipedia page is created and verified will it appear in a Google search? Thank you

How long after a new wikipedia page is created and verified will it appear in a Google search? Thank you EdithWP (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That depends on Google's Web crawlers. I'm sometimes surprised to see that edits to existing popular articles appear almost immediately, and edits to well-established articles appear within a couple of minutes, but new articles will take Google's spiders longer to find. The process will be faster if the new article is linked from other articles or from other popular websites. Dbfirs 07:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This can never be predicted in advance, but in my experience, Google can be very quick to identify a Wikipedia article about a distinctive new topic. I have written well-referenced new articles about new topics, moved them to main space, and then continued researching those topics on Google. Sometimes, my new article appears high in Google searches within ten minutes of adding it to Wikipedia main space, if the title is unusual and distinct. On the other hand, if there are lots of other web pages devoted to the same topic, or a high degree of topic ambiguity, it can take days or longer for a new Wikipedia to be highly ranked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That depends on how Google runs things, which we have no control over. This blog post for what appears to be a PR business goes over the details some. Could be a few days, could be a month. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It used to be recommended to submit a new website to Google's crawlers, but this is now unnecessary because the crawlers will quickly find it from a single backlink. Dbfirs 08:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For me it can appear in seconds. I have saved new pages and gone to Google for additional detail, and found my text there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

Moving a draft to an article

How to move a draft to an article?PhysicsScientist (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do so if it has no reliable sources, such as Greek Veerudu (1998 film). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I suggest you copy Wikisource and upload in article.... Lhealt _(talk) 13:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Copying and pasting is not the correct way to move pages, Lhealt. See Wikipedia:Moving a page. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Thank you CordlessLarry :).... Lhealt _(talk) 13:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Trouble changing email address

I'm trying to change my registered email address from a gmail account to a hotmail account. When I go to the preferences page and scroll down to the email options, I can see the section to put in the new hotmail address. When I do this, I get an email at the old gmail account with the subject "Wikipedia registered email address has been changed" and listing the the hotmail account as the new address. What happens next is odd though. The second email, with the subject line "Wikipedia email address confirmation" and with the link to confirm the new hotmail email address is being sent to the old gmail account. When I click the link, it takes me to Wikipedia and confirms the old gmail account, not the new hotmail account. I double-checked and there are no emails in the spam folders on hotmail so there is no way to confirm the new hotmail account. Perhaps you can help me navigate this? Thanks for your help. AD64 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

p.s. I've tried to do this three times with the same results each time. AD64 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AD64. If you do not get an accurate answer here soon, please try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Friendly nerds most likely to be able to help you tend to hang out there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @AD64:. I'm an editor like you, and recently had the same problem. I eventually solved it, but failed to write down the exact steps. Here's what I think I did:

• Change the email address to your new address.
• Do not go to your old email address and do not click the link.
• Instead, go back to the Wikipedia Preferences page. In the Email options section, there should be a note saying you haven't confirmed your new address, along with an option to send an email to your new address. Do that, and go to your new email address. There should be a message with a link; click on it.

I hope this works! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Traveling Man:. Brilliant! That did the trick. Thanks for your help. AD64 (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reported this bug at phab:T134246. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

help with seeing a deletion and responding to another editor

Hello and thanks for being here.

I just received a message saying that information that I added to an entry has been deleted for potential copyright violation. When I look at the editing history, I can't see the material that was deleted. How can I find the right place to view this?

Once I take a look at this, I'd like to respond toe the editor, but can't quite figure out how to respond to the message on my talk page.

I've clicked around quite a bit and can't seem to get anywhere useful.

Can you help with either of these challenges that I'm having?

Thanks, AD64 AD64 (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright material such as you added to Sera Khandro cannot be kept anywhere in the Wikipedia system, so all versions that contained it have been removed by Diannaa. If you want to add the information again, you will have to refer back to the original source and make sure you recast it into your own words before proceeding. You can communicate with Diannaa by clicking here. Rojomoke (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, and the specificity. I understand about the versions being completely removed for copy right reasons. I was just hoping to learn from the "mistake" as well as see what the topic was so that I could rewrite it. I appreciate the link to the talk page too. AD64 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It was some content you added to the lead of the article, and it was copied from this website. Hope this helps. I can send you a copy by email, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. — Diannaa (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is all very helpful. Thank you for the quick responses and the helpful links. I'll activate Wikipedia email now and be in touch with you, Diannaa to get a copy. This then leads me to the next question of how do most editors work with this kind of situation? Do folks save various drafts somewhere so they can refer back? AD64 (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

According to the edit summary, AD64, some of what you added to the article was copied from the Rigpa Shedra Wiki. Any material you add, except for brief attributed quotations, must be your own original writing, which summarizes what reliable sources say about the topic. This website is a user edited wiki, so it cannot be a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is all very helpful. Thank you for the quick responses and the helpful links. I'll activate Wikipedia email now and be in touch with you, Diannaa to get a copy. This then leads me to the next question of how do most editors work with this kind of situation? Do folks save various drafts somewhere so they can refer back? AD64 (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Most people avoid this problem by not copying from other websites in the first place. Make sure everything you add to the encyclopedia is thoroughly re-written in your own words before you post it. People who repeatedly violate copyright law are blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I hear the warning as well and take it seriously. I appreciate you all bearing with me for the learning curve and being so helpful. AD64 (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Article creating.

How do I make my own article and share it so it's available to everyone?i — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon 123 MLG (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Simon 123 MLG. Wikipedia:Your first article guides you through creating a new article. It is often a good idea to get more practice making smaller additions and corrections to existing articles to gain experience of how Wikipedia works before trying to start a new article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-Declined Draft for Gyanendra Deuja

HI Teahouse,

Thank you for correcting my article. I have removed the Image page and requested the Proper image from the Person itself.

What else i need to change or edit on this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gyanendra_Deuja Please help and Thank you for your time on reviewing my article(Umeshdeuja (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had time to review it in detail. I will comment that it needs heavy copy-editing for grammar, and I have put a copy-edit tag on it. Some reviewers would decline it because of the quality of the grammar. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Your article was accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

reference ahead of print articles

I'm trying to reference a journal article that is ahead of print, and so does not yet have an issue # or pages. It has a link to the free full text for now, but I suspect it will be subscription only after some time. I'm not a complete newb and I'm sure this is answered somewhere, but I'd really rather spend more time on the content than another 30 minutes seaching (if you know what i mean :) ) Thanks

http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002fj$002fcclm.ahead-of-print$002fcclm-2015-1031$002fcclm-2015-1031.pdf/cclm-2015-1031.pdf?t:ac=j$002fcclm.ahead-of-print$002fcclm-2015-1031$002fcclm-2015-1031.xml Electrogrl72 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Electrogrl72, use the current link, update it when the publication details become known. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

ThanksElectrogrl72 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, I'm here for the first time, and I want to help. Perhaps someone from the bureaucrats to readed, rename me of Koroshami, to Lhea, because I and my friend through mathematic created a new word Koroshami, quotes "Japanese Kiss", and we saying: Koroshami, in Lithuanian language it was a Korošami. I look at how many Lheas to you, and the real name and no. I'm looking at the LheaJLove, at the Lheaom, it is still some. And I'll just be a Lhea. Thank you very much.Koroshami (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Koroshami. You can request a username change at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Koroshami (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

District

How for districs? Have to add reference or not? Murbaut 06:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murbaut (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Murbaut. What specifically about districts do you have in mind? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Murbaut:Hello,I,m NOT much experienced editor at English (but at others) Wikipedia, Giving Reference is better than leaving, you HAVE to give Reference(s), because it,s more better. Please wait a little for more better response from Much EXPERIENCED editor's --Yes ji (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, not everything has to be sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Personally, I prefer to just reference everything apart from the most obvious of statements. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean the districts / capital / district for local administrative system in country. Murbaut^Talk 21:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Murbaut. What information about these districts do you want to add? That material should probably be referenced, but it sort of depends on what it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Article group boxes?

What is the name for a group of similar article links in a collapsible box at the end of an article? I want to create a new one for a group of articles on the same theme. Orb4peace (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Orb4peace. Those boxes are a type of template - one of a couple of different types of template specifically called navigation templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

in re hidden lists

Reading a page I created a few years ago I notice a repeated entry in the "References" category. When I tried to edit it it showed up only as a hidden list. I changed my preferences to show hidden lists: the list is still hidden. Is there a way for me to see it? Thank you.Davidreskin (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

References are created inline rather than at the end. If you edit the References header of an article, you'll only see {{Reflist}}. To find the reference, you need to go in the text next to where the superscript number is. Intelligentsium 03:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I see no superscript. There is a carat to the right of each number but it goes nowhere when clicked. Davidreskin (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Davidreskin, why don't you tell us which article and the ref number so we can see for ourselves? Rojomoke (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much. It's this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Field References 5 and 8 are identical. Davidreskin (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

When I click on the carats, Davidreskin, they take me up to the location of the inline citations as they should. Reference 5 follows "...and Carnegie Hall" and reference 8 "...soloist and concertmistress of the Stromberg-Carlson string orchestra". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry. I guess I must have something blocked on my preferences, etc. since nothing comes up for me. And on the list I show references 5 and 8 as identical. I blame Gremlins. Davidreskin (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Davidreskin. A reference can be used several times without it repeating in the reference list by giving it a name when fully defining it once, and then briefly invoking it by name whenever it is used again. The wiki syntax is explained at WP:NAMEDREFS. Be careful since a tiny error will mess things up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right that they're identical, Davidreskin. Would you like me to fix that, or do you want to have a go yourself? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for that. And Cordless Larry, that would be great if you could change it. I appreciate your help. Davidreskin (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have changed it, and what was formerly two references is a single reference invoked twice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Having problems with text formatting

I've been trying to use the < big > thing to make a text in an article bigger but I kind figure out how to do it without it affecting the text next to it.*Treker (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Manual of Style explicitly discourages changing the font size. Can you elaborate as to what you're trying to do? I see in your sandbox it looks like you're trying to delineate a section for print sources? Consider using === Subsection headers === instead.

Like this

=== Like this ===

Or this, if you need smaller

==== Or this, if you need smaller ====
Intelligentsium 03:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I the problem is that the article already has a lot of headlines and I don't want to overcrowd it.

I've seen other articles use different size text and it's kind of anoying to me that I can't make it work at least even if I'm not going to use it in the article. :-/ *Treker (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In HTML you need to </close> your tags. If you don't want to add headers, a MOS-accepted alternative would be to use the semicolon ; Like so

Like so

Intelligentsium 03:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: Oops, it looks like I was wrong, that usage is also discouraged by MOS. I revert back to my original recommendation of using subheadings, or else using tiered bullets

• Print
  • Source 1
  • Source 2
  • Intelligentsium 03:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok. So it uses one of those / lines and then it works. Good to know at least. i was getting kind of frustrated not figuring it out. Thanks a lot.*Treker (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, if neither of those are supposed to be used how come they exist at all?*Treker (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

These options are features of the Wiki software. Not every language Wikipedia uses all options, and each defines the style it wants within its own purview. Thus, the option for larger text sizes is there to use if a particular project decides to do so; however the English Wikipedia has decided not to.-- Elmidae (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks a lot.*Treker (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know what's the red squiggly line (like word's for spelling) in Wikipedia?

Does anybody know what's the red squiggly line (like word's for spelling) in Wikipedia articles? Savvastheodosiou (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The MediaWiki software doesn't spell-check articles, but you might get it if you have a spell-checking browser extension installed. Alternatively, perhaps you mean a dead link like this? We can help you more if you can provide a screenshot or a page where you see this. Intelligentsium 02:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not about spelling. I can't find the page. It was a 2-3 lines of text underline with a red squiggly line in an article and I couldn't understand it's role. 213.7.143.112 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

My page named as Anuja Kapur has been deleted -- need suggestion

This is my first article in Wikipedia. It has been deleted due to violation policies G11 & A7 . I need the suggestion from the experts. I am sharing the sandbox URL here so that it can be reviewed . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anuja_kapur001/sandbox

If you can share any suggestion via video tutorial you are always welcome.Anuja Kapur 23:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuja kapur001 (talk • contribs)

There are multiple problems with the sandbox. If you previously made it into an article, I am not surprised that it was deleted. First, it is an autobiography, and the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. The second problem is the peacock language. Such promotional language is common in autobiographies, and yours is no exception. (In fact, it is even more self-congratulatory than most autobiographies.) I don't understand the comment about a video tutorial, but Wikipedia is not friendly to those who view it as a way to promote themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

please help me improving the sandbox version so that I could publish it without any deletion ...wondering for your kind help.Anuja Kapur 09:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuja kapur001 (talk • contribs)

No. Your sandbox draft is written to promote your own practice, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I don't know about other experienced editors, but my own opinion is that your sandbox version should not be "improved" to get it published, but, if you do meet the standards for biographical notability, the sandbox should be blown up and started over, preferably by someone who isn't associated with you. I won't tag it as G11, but, as it is, someone is likely to tag it (which will blow it up so that it can either be left nowhere or started over). (I don't think that it currently should be tagged for A7; it does make an arguable claim of significance.) But I still certainly won't accept it in any form at all similar to what it now is. In my opinion, you shouldn't be trying to publish anything that looks even a little like it. I will see what other experienced editors have to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Article not meeting NPOV Guidelines

Dear Team , I suspect this article Soulmate (band) is not meeting guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Also it might have missed AFC submissions process as inline citations are not supporting individual statements but I also feel they are notable. I might be wrong though since its very old page. Someone have a look Catrat999 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Catrat999. I'm sorry that it's taken so long for you to receive a reply. From the article history, it doesn't look like Soulmate (band) was created via the AfC process, so it wouldn't have been subject to review. If you feel that it is not neutral, one option is to tag it by adding {{POV|date=May 2016}} to the top of the article. You could also outline your concerns on its talk page, or attempt to fix the tone yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry, Thank you sir. I tagged it as per the instruction. Have I done it right ? And no worries about delay in reply , I understand how complex it is to handle several queries every day. Regarding editing any article I think I need some more time to fix issues on any random article because my edit might hurt sentiments of owner of the article . But I do have another question for you, I read there are more than 0.3 million articles who haven't gone though AFC process and many might have such issues. Is there any process or known method where I can help wikipedia by identifying such articles and informing about it to respective team who is skilled to fix such issues? I am not sure how helpful it will be but if I can do something to organise it, I would love to take that job.Thanks and RegardsCatrat999 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles weren't created via AfC, Catrat999, but many of those will be well-written. Having been through AfC is no guarantee either, because it doesn't stop people adding non-neutral material later on. The way to flag these articles is to tag them. You almost got it right, but you included the markup that I used to display the code here without tagging the Teahouse as POV. You can see how I fixed your edit here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok thats interesting :) So I do learnt two things a) how to tag and b) if I need to share those codes at Teahouse how to share it without tagging Teahouse. Thank you so much for correcting my tag Cordless Larry sir. Well one last question please. Have a look on this article Madhura Sreedhar Reddy. Here there are no citations at all along with POV issues, so with the help of some other article I added another tag on it that it needs additional citations but actually I wanted to tag that there are no citations at all. Will it work ? So conclusion is there are many different different issues and I dont know respective code for tagging respective issue. Is there a wiki page where I can read what needs to be tagged depending on situation. I dont want to bother you again and again for such small issues. With time I ll get there (Y) . Sorry for any inconvenience. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There are several pages, Catrat999, indexed at Wikipedia:Template messages. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is particularly helpful for this type of issue. You did a good job tagging that article, although {{unreferenced}} might be a better template to use than {{refimprove}}. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction, Catrat999: it should be {{BLP unsourced}}, as the article is about a living person. I see that Theroadislong has proposed it for deletion as an unsourced biography. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok but my intensions were not to delete it, I was just aiming to improve it as per the guidelines, the owner of the article will be so upset with me. I have corrected tag though have a look. And thank you so so much Cordless Larry sir. These templates are great read, I will start my work now :) And thank you for the appreciation sir that give me some confidence to proceed. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no ownership of articles on Wikipedia, Catrat999, and the article will not be deleted immediately. If sources are not added within seven days, though, it will be, because biographies of living people should have sources per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If the article creator is upset, then they should have referenced their sources in the first place. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ya that make sense Cordless Larry Sir. Thank you :) Hope whoever wrote that article is atleast getting some notification about this tag else I am sure no one will correct it. Also I was thinking after applying tags for cleanup, I will share list of those articles here so that you can review if I did any mistake in tagging. Is that ok with you ?Please let me know whenever you think I am wasting your time:) Cheers Catrat999 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your incessant cries for further footnotes

This refers to the article on the novel Death of Kings, about which your schoolmarmish reviewer (a sophomore?) has written: "This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

My question: Why not advise all contributors of articles on books, movies, and the like, to attach five to 122 footnotes that read as follows: "I read the book," "I watched the movie," or whatever.197.250.193.235 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

tildetildetildetilde S.H. Fisher197.250.193.235 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles on books shouldn't just (or even primarily) draw on the book itself as a source, IP editor. Where sources have been requested, that request should be fulfilled by providing secondary sources that discuss the book concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Most book articles have a reception section with information about the book's reception by critics. Try searching Google newspaper archives. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You aren't about to make any colleagues on Wikipedia by anonymously berating a reviewer as a schoolmarmish sophomore. The matter of to what extent books and movies, which are primary sources about themselves, should be accepted in articles about books and movies, has been a matter of debate. Self-published books, while not literally a dime a dozen, are not notable, and these days there are also self-published movies, which are also not notable. As the previous two editors note, a book or movie is notable if reliable sources, such as reviews, have commented on that. If you have a question about a specific draft book or movie article, we will try to answer it. (I tried to find it and didn't find it.) Then again, maybe you just came here to complain, or to propose a bizarre way to clutter Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

While the vast majority of self-published books are not notable, there are exceptions. Among them are Fifty Shades of Grey, The Joy of Cooking and the novel Spartacus. In almost all cases, successful self published books are later picked up by major publishing houses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Death of Kings is not self-published, in any case. It's clearly notable, but the article should be sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added a "Critical reception" section to the article, Cordless Larry, including quotes from three referenced book reviews published by reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Death of Kings isn't self-published, and is in article space rather than draft space, and appears to have been in article space for a few years, and I don't see the complaint about a lack of sources. Is the OP talking about this book, or about a different book that I can't find? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cullen removed the tag after adding sources, Robert McClenon. The IP's reference to a "reviewer" probably reflects a lack of understanding of terminology used here rather than suggesting that it's a draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference to item already in bibliography

I would like to add some reference sources to an article about an author that already contains the source in the bibliography. Is there a way of using that item, or should I simply create a new reference? Thanks. Suredev (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You can name the reference, like so: <ref name="foo">{{cite bar...}}</ref>. From then on, you can refer to the same reference simply with <ref name="foo" />. See WP:REFNAME for more information. Intelligentsium 18:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, my problem is to refer to different pages in the same book. Rather than repeat the entire information, it would be nice to just have a shortened reference pointing to the base reference. I think that the 'sfn' construct would do the job, but this means I have to delete a few named references first. Not sure if that is the way to go about it, but I will experiment. Thanks for the pointer. Suredev (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Suredev, as a general rule it's not a good idea to change the referencing system of an article without first reaching talk-page consensus. A neat and easy way to add page numbers to named references is to use {{Rp}}. I've added a couple to Sheila Stewart (author) to give the idea; please feel free to revert/remove if that's not what you were looking for. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is known as the ibid problem. While we don't want to replicate all the details of a book, just for a different page, we have to bear in mind that references can be removed from Wikipedia articles, so indirectly referring to a book via another references is slightly dangerous.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

Appreciate the answer. You have hit both things on the head: my issue and why it would be good idea to not link one reference to another. The latter is a very real problem in a collaborative project -- I have stumbled into it many a time while writing up things with co-workers. It is not so bad when you can just walk over and iron things out, but I can see the problems it would cause in Wikipedia. So, separate and independent will the references be! Suredev (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

N

How to find New users of wikipedia? Yes ji (★talk★) 15:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Special:Log/newusers is a log of all new users created. However, what do you plan to do? Intelligentsium 15:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I plan no bad for new user, because i'm also new one. Yes ji (★talk★) 15:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you would plan to do something bad - however, because of the sheer volume of new accounts created, we don't usually welcome or attempt to interact with new users until they edit at least once. It might be good to get some experience yourself before trying to help new users - try sticking around this page and commenting where you feel you can. That way you can help new users and learn about Wikipedia from experienced users at the same time. Intelligentsium 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Yes ji: As said by Intelligentsium and the top of Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, we generally don't post welcome messages to users with no edits. Most accounts never make an edit and then there is not much point in posting a message saying "Thank you for your contributions" with links to editing tips. Also, the message tells the users they can ask for help on your talk page but your account is only eight days old and you still have a lot to learn yourself. For example, you didn't subst any of the welcome templates as required at Template:Welcome#Usage so a bot is running around after you to make the subst and maybe confuse the users about what is going on. You also forgot to sign many of the posts. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes ji, just a reminder about PrimeHunter's message here, as you don't seem to be signing all of your welcome messages. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Which are the best citation tools for a novice?

I have entered the citations into the article in my sandbox. Now, I need to prepare my bibliography which may be "cluttered" with too many references. Still, I must do it. I've looked through the list of citation tools and have tried some of them. But there are so many. What do you recommend for someone who wants to prepare a bibliography of 50 references in MLA style when she's been born and raised using Chicago? Also, would someone be willing to work with me on my talk page for a while? I've had some problems using reftool and named references when entering my citations and I'm confused about how to make the corrections. Other than that, all is well. And, many, many thanks to all of you who have provided answers to my previous questions. Drvalsummers (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This might be too basic for you but you can look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some help with Wikipedia's style of referencing. If you have a list of references for the article, you don't need to duplicate this list with a bibliography.

As for getting another editor to help you out, I think your best bet is to find a WikiProject that your subject falls under and post a request for help on the WikiProject talk page. You can see a list of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. You're more likely to find someone to help if you can find an editor who shares your interests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Drvalsummers, in an article you've started you are free to use any referencing system or style that you choose, and are under no obligation to conform with any other (though you are usually expected to conform to the existing system and style in pages created by other editors). If Chicago is your preferred style, use it; if the {{cite}} templates don't give you the results you want, you can format your references manually (which is of course quicker and easier if you know what you are doing). Nor is there any need to compile a bibliography for User:Drvalsummers/sandbox unless you want to – the references could (in my opinion) do with some links to the relevant journals and so on ({{doi}} numbers are good!), but they are fully satisfactory as they stand, and far above the general average for this encyclopaedia. I'd be happy to offer what advice I can if that would help – you could perhaps ask questions here as a first step. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes about incorrect information on Newport International University Page

2602:306:3BA1:21A0:EC9F:6DDB:DB3F:9E91 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Hello,

Hope all is well. I had reached out to your team before about the Wikipedia page for Newport International University. As I previously mentioned, the information on our page is for a different university named Newport University (which we are no way affiliated with). I have been trying to input our correct information as it affects the students we receive. I tried changing it myself manually and my information reverted back to the old page. Since then, I have spoken to a Wikipedia representative and they informed me that changing the page myself is not the way to go about it but rather I should have an editor or someone who is established in article world write something. Since then, I have contacted two writers who both changed the information to our correct factual details. Again, those two were both bumped and reverted back to the old page. I need to know how to change our information to the correct information. The previous school that our information is in regards to has not only changed name, but gone out of business. This incorrect information is hurting the reputation of our school and, most importantly, is not valid information. Please advise me on the best way to take care of this matter immediately as it is vital for our standing with the general public. My email is <redacted>

Thank you in advance and I look forward to hearing from you soon!2602:306:3BA1:21A0:EC9F:6DDB:DB3F:9E91 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:3BA1:21A0:EC9F:6DDB:DB3F:9E91: A few suggestions...

• Create a permanent Wikipedia user account that makes it very clear you are trying to be transparent about your conflict of interest (see WP:COI -- if you have not yet read the COI page, please do so today). A user name something like Newport Int'l University would work well since it almost matches the article name thus making it clear who you represent.oops, bad advice -- see comments below by Fuhghettaboutit When that user account is created you can also leave a short comment on the User Page telling people who you are and that you are trying your best to respect our COI rules and would appreciate any help and guidance making the article good quality per our policies.
• After having created that account use it to discuss these issues at the article's Talk Page just like you are here (but keep everything there from now on) which you can find at Talk:Newport International University. Make sure you provide clear evidence of what you want to have removed (or added) and be patient, WP can move slowly at times.
• If there is something that is urgently wrong and completely false (for example hypothetically imagine the "other" Newport school goes out-of-business and someone writes that on your school's page) feel free to remove it right away but in the Edit Summary write False information, see Talk Page. and then immediately go to the Talk Page and write up a new section explaining what you did and why (again with evidence). Better still write up that section BEFORE you edit the actual article so that it is available before it is needed. Let me repeat that this approach is only for "urgent" issues of false information. Abuse this option and your account could likely get blocked really fast.
• Both pages (your school's and the other school's) should probably have a {{distinguish}} or {{about}} tag added to each of them. If you will provide the home page of both schools someone will probably do that as soon we get a chance. DONE
• Finally, take some time to find out how things work at WP. Edit some articles that are completely unrelated to your school for the gaining of WP editing experience. Realize the account you would be using will be seen as representing your school so probably a good idea to avoid controversial topics (i.e.: Would your boss / the school approve/disapprove of having their name attached to these edits?).

• Alternatively you can use a different account for "personal" (non work related) edits but you must be E-X-T-R-E-M-E-L-Y careful not to run afoul of our policies on "sockpuppets" (see WP:SOCK). NOTE: Having two legitimate accounts there is a real risk of "accidentally" being logged into the "wrong one". If you A-L-W-A-Y-S use your personal account ONLY on your home computer and your work account ONLY on your work computer that can be avoided. Also never use your personal account to edit your school's WP article or related pages.

Thanks for asking for help and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the advice offered about the suggested username. Such a username would be a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. We do not allow usernames that state or imply that they are an "official" account of an organization or company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I have already retracted the advice on names per Fuhghettaboutit's advice (see below). I was not aware of that policy before. Thanks to both of you for pointing it out. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 06:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Person editing from 2602:306:3BA1:21A0:EC9F:6DDB:DB3F:9E91. There's some good advice above. However, do not follow the advice about choosing an account name. That is extremely likely to get you softblocked very quickly, with a direction to change your account name – as it would appear as a promotional username representing a group. See WP:GROUPNAME and WP:ISU. Choose one username, not necessarily your real name, but not implying you are in any way representing an organization or implying a group and understand that accounts cannot be shared. It is always good when you post to the talk page and suggest changes to identify reliable sources that verify any change or addition and even removals, though under the specific circumstances here that may not be relevant. Just keep it in mind. You can use the template {{paid}} to make the mandatory disclosure on a userpage, required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Note that you can draw editors to a talk page post seeking a change using the template {{request edit}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Koala Tea Of Mercy, could you strike or delete the part of your advice that is likely to get an editor blocked if they follow it? I wouldn't want new editors browsing this page to think that creating an institutional account is a good idea. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit and Cordless Larry for correcting me on the GROUPNAME thing. Even old dogs like me learn a new thing now and then. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

expanding an article

Hi there,

I'm currently writing a page on deepin OS. (link) as I'm busy, I would love someone's help on this. Please tell me where to post it. You can put it on my talk page.

---

Prajwalmr62 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Prajwalmr62. I'm afraid that, like most inexperienced people who try the difficult task of creating a new Wikipedia article, you have gone about it the wrong way. The very first thing you need to do, before you write a word, is to find your sources: several in-depth pieces about the subject, written by people who have no connection with the subject, and published in reliable places. If you cannot find these sources, give up, as no article about the subject will be accepted. If you have found sources, you can start writing: forget everything you know about the subject and write it only from what the sources say, and cite the sources as you go along. If a piece of information is not published, don't put it in the article. If it is published only in non-independent sources (such as the subject's website), put it in the article only if it is uncontroversial factual data: still cite the source.

Please look at your first article for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)