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

Accuracy

Living people pages are seldom accurate and constantly changing so that even correct information morphs into a mixture of truth and nonsense over time. Some pages seem to get most of the detail right some of the time, but each time an alteration is made and then corrected by someone else misunderstanding seem to create ever increasing errors of detail which can remain indefinitely. Would it be possible to ensure that pages about living people are periodically edited by asking the living people directly for first hand information and confirmation because even published interviews can be misreported or written with bias? I have heard a lot of complaints about misrepresentation from people on pages and a number have asked for their pages to be removed altogether because the information is so inaccurate and potentially damaging. This process appears to take about six month to achieve. Would it be possible for deletion of a page at the request of the person the page is about to be performed much more rapidly so as to reduce offense? Highfunctioningautistic (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are doubts about the accuracy of a biography of a living person, our first priority should be to remove anything that is both unreferenced and defamatory. Then facts can be checked, and content added, using reliable independent sources. We should disregard what the person wants said about themself, unless they can supply such sources. Maproom (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, though it is difficult when the main source contains errors and the person referenced is unable to prove this by citing anything published. Complicated. Some of the people who contacted me about the problem have spent years trying to get the details corrected, but had no independent research to refer to. But why did it take so long to remove their pages? Highfunctioningautistic (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Highfunctioningautistic: in that case where the material is disputed, but the alternate facts can't be referenced, it should be removed. It is better to be silent on the subject than to include statements which are dubious, especially in articles about living people.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The ideal would be for the person who disputes claims in articles published by WP:Reliable sources to persuade that source to publish a retraction. That will not always be possible, of course, because even reliable sources don't always care enough about accuracy, but, with a bit of pressure, they can often be persuaded to publish a correction which is then good evidence for removing the claim from Wikipedia. Dbfirs 07:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How to I add Pictures in my article?

I've been trying to add pictures in my wikipedia article but i cant make it. how do i add picture from my computer data to wikipedia? Please guide me. Kimaya Sulakhe (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, {{U|Kimaya Sulakhe]] and welcome to the Teahouse. Use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard for this purpose. You will also want to read Help:Viewing media. DES ^(talk) 13:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The prior ping was malformed, so you did not get it. Trying again: Kimaya Sulakhe --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reason for deleting my article "Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple"

I could not understand the reason for deleting my article "Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple". It had proper footnotes and necessary photographs. Relevant information have been given based on the field work carried out by me in person. The temple has a history of more than 13 centuries. From the archaeological perspective also it was important. In Tamil Nadu, only select number of temples are found in this style. The iconographic aspect of the temple is very worth to mention. So far I have written more than 100 articles, most of them on temples, in English Wikipedia and 600 articles in Tamil Wikipedia. I request to reconsider your decision. Your reconsideration will help me to contribute more articles in Wikipedia.If any corrections have to be made, I will do, accordingly. Regards. B Jambulingam (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi B Jambulingam, and welcome to the teahouse. Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple is still there in draft space, and is a promising article. It just needs a few more references to support the statements. Unfortunately, your own field work cannot be used to support the statements until you have it published in WP:Reliable sources. Keep up the good work. Dbfirs 11:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dbfirs, Thanks for your opinion that this is a promising article. Let me know if I have to give many more foot notes/sources enabling others for not deleting the article. Your comments will be helpful to make the article in proper shape. Regards.--B Jambulingam (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a few more reliable sources would help to establish notability. Statements such as "It is said that previously there were seven prakaras" need WP:reliable sources. Dbfirs 07:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dbfirs, For the concerned line suitable quote is given. I tried my level best to give reliable/available quotes. Regards.--B Jambulingam (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not able to check the references because I don't understand the language, but, ideally, each statement should have a reference which confirms the claim in the article. The reference should immediately follow the claim. Dbfirs 17:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Best practice for citing articles in EU Treaties - to wikisource or not to wikisource?

Hi,

I've been trying to update and improve a variety of EU related pages, including for the European Council. I have query concerning the best practice for citing treaty articles as references, and whether we should utilise the wikisource versions of the Treaty on European Union, and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or link to external pdfs on the EU's own web domain. I notice that the page currently uses a mix of these approaches. I also wanted to know best practice for citing specific articles in the text on wikisource.

Many thanks, EU explained (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hello EU explained. I do not have a hard and fast answer, but the following may be better than no answer at all.

The general guidance on sources is that you are referencing a publication, not a particular way to obtain it, which different download links essentially are. Of course, a low-quality scan on a shoddy website is not as good as the original publication, because of link rot and falsification issues.

I would say (but that it my opinion, I do not have a strong guideline in mind) that you should link the wikisource in the "see also" sections of articles about a particular treaty, but use the europa.eu link for any other reference. The idea behind it is that when you are using the reference, you refer not only to its content but also to who published it, and for that the official website when available is better IMO. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing wording that's promotive of the subject

Hi dear Wikipedians

I'm new to Wikipedia and I would greatly appreciate some help on editing my very first page 'Simon Cohen (communication expert)'. I would like to learn how to make improvements to make sure the page is written in a neutral and objective voice.

I alone have not written the article but I'm responsible for posting it, and I have a conflict of interest since I'm currently working together with the subject of the page. I hope that some of you more experiences members of the Wikipedia community can help me to edit the article so that it is well written and provides information in a relevant manner. Thank you!MatildeZ (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hewllo, MatildeZ, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page Simon Cohen (to which title it has been moved recently) does indeed have a number of problems. I see that you have declared your COI on the article talk page. This is very good. The remaining tasks are, roughly:

1. Make sure that all current content is supported by the sources cited and that all of those are Reliable sources. I notice that several sources are by Cohen himself, or by entities closely connected to him. Those can be used to source his statements and views, and for basic non-controversial facts, such as his place of birth and education. They should not be used for any controversial facts, except perhaps with a prefix of "Cohen says ..." or "Cohen claims ... " or the like. Some other sources, such as the Huffington Post, may not be fully reliable.
2. Remove any promotional wording. First look for adjectives (and verbs) that are really editorial comment, such as "inspired". Look for phrasing that is praise rather than reporting, and remove or rewrite it.
3. Look for additional reliable sources. Use them to expand the content in the article, or offer additional points of view, being careful to give them due weight. In particular, look for properly sourced critical views of Cohen. Surely there are some. They should be added to the article, unless they are mere fringe views.

I hope these suggestion are helpful. I have made some small edits to the article myself, mostly formatting issues. DES ^(talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi DES

And thank you so much for your kind reply and patience. It now seems several editors have helped in improving the page and I'm of course very thankful for this. I understand now what should be removed and why. The template of issues / COI etc. that was previously on the page has now been removed. Does that mean I should not continue working on it? Is it approved as a page?

Following your advice, I have found a critical source / an additional point of view that would be useful in the page. Should I add it or is it best I let the article stay as it is, given my COI?

Thank you so much for helping out! MatildeZ (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How to do notes instead of references?

There's a note on an article that's being displayed as a reference, how do I change it so that it is displayed as '[note 1]'? The Verified Cactus 100% 15:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. One way is to create a separate section just above the references section with a header like, "==Notes==" or "==Footnotes==" and then place this markup in that section: {{notelist}} Once you've done that, at the spot in the article where you want to place a note, use this markup: {{efn|Your note text (which can include citations)}} By the way, "efn" stands for explanatory footnote. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What's a good minimum number of references for an article?

It's about a television show and is located at Draft:The Stanley Dynamic Aamri2 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Good question... but the answer is not that easy. There could be three great references from three great sources and it would be enough. For your article they could be reviews from TV guide, CBC, and a link to a winning Emmy. On the other side you could have 20 references from blog writers, facebook, industry publications that carry little to no weight and would not help show notability, and it would not be enough. I added a couple refs to the article. There are more out there that will support that article as it expands. Thanks for your question and for your contribution to Wikipedia. Cheers. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

regarding my artical

i have made edition to that artical because the previous artical is not satisfactory and the people who want exact knowledge this artical is for those , as you have declined my artical i want it to be publish and help me out with that my artical is vibrio cholerae.

Jskrn94 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you find the article Vibrio cholerae unsatisfactory, then you should make improvements to that article, not try to create a new one. It might be best to discuss your changes on the talk page of the article before making major controversial changes. You also need to be aware that the original article has eighteen references. Your proposed replacement had only one. Dbfirs 06:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Neighbourhood and suburb are both same? If not which one should be used as a settlement type for merged villages in Indian towns and cities?

• Example: Hyderabad - its original areas are Charminar, Khairatabad etc.

• Merged areas into the corporation (earlier non metropolitan areas) like Balanagar, Malkajgiri.Vin09 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A suburb traditionally is a specific type of neighbourhood, more on the outskirts of a city. However in some countries this distinction has disappeared. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

editing with different languages

How can I edit with several languages without changing the whole page language?

AlHarbi 09:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdusalam Mahmoud (talk • contribs)

That's not possible. Content on the en.wikipedia site does not affect any other languages. Each language-version of Wikipedia is effectively it's own site hosted under the Wikipedia domain. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Formatting Help

Twinkle Messed up my AFD request here 1 and I am not quite sure how to fix it or what is the correct format. Help! Razer^{Text me} 09:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done by removal of a surplus open-square-bracket: Noyster (talk), 09:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Searching in multiple Wikipedias simultaneously

Hi Teahouse,

I use Wikipedia in different languages and like to have the ability to search in a few of them simultaneously. In other words, I don't like to switch Wikipedia when I switch language. Is there some sort of universal search capability? Can I "turn on" some languages and see results from them.

Hope I was able to convey my question. Thanks in advance. Alireza1357 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Alireza1357, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but the the best of my knowledge, that is not possible. Each language edition of Wikipedia is its own site and project. Besides, the corresponding term for a subject under another language might not be the obvious (machine) translation of the title in English. However, many Wikipedia article do link to corresponding or closely related article in different language editions of Wikipedia. Thus once you have found one in one language, you may be able to follow useful links to other languages DES ^(talk) 12:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Alireza1357 and DESiegel – You can open various language Wikipedias in different browser tabs. For example https://en.wikipedia.org in one tab, then https://fr.wikipedia.org in the next tab. So then you can easily switch between wikis by just clicking on the tab for that one. This is how I find a French article that corresponds to the English article. For example: article Roman Catholic Diocese of Angoulême#since 1802 and look at last entry for Claude Jean Pierre Dagens English wikipedia; and (fr) French wikipedia. Hope this helps. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:DESiegel and User:JoeHebda I was actually looking for a more convenient way like "turning on" different wikis in preferences and having a universal search box that pulls out results from the "turned on" wikis. This would save me some additional clicks and repetitive tasks. But thanks for your answers. I was wondering if it is a good idea to raise the issue on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)? Cheers Alireza1357 (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You can if you like, Alireza1357. I don't see any obvious answer to the issue that the search terms would be different, and that languages do not translate 1-to-1. But I am not up on the latest developments in searching, and maybe there would be an answer. It couldn't hurt to ask, the worst that could happen is a laugh and "No way! Not possible." DES ^(talk) 12:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel

Will do! That is the least price one can pay! As Germans say:

Wieso, weshalb, warum? Wer nicht fragt bleibt dumm!

Cheers Alireza1357 (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes...the song for the German version of Sesame Street. Ahhh, those were the times. Lectonar (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• You can also fire up the external search engine of your choice, and use the keyword site:wikipedia.org to restrict the search to pages on the Wikipedia domains. However, doing so will have all the shortcomings of an external search (some internal pages are not indexed, you cannot search by template, etc.). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I write about a design studio without it becoming promotional?

I recently wrote an article about a design studio and its work and it was then immediately flagged for deletion. I then changed the contents to only have cited facts from reputable sources such as their work that was shown by the Cooper Hewitt but was then still deemed to be promotional by admins. I have no idea how to proceed since there was no other explanation on how that is promotional from the admins. I see other design firms having wiki pages e.g. Continuum (design consultancy) and want to know how. For full disclosure I interned and freelanced at this studio a while back but have no current association with it, do I have to declare conflict of interest? Inksquare (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Inksquare, and welcome to the Teahouse. As it happens I am the admin who deleted Prime Studio. Phrases such as "It is founded by designer, engineer and entrepreneur Stuart Harvey Lee" seemed promotional to me. Also, the rather shot article did not clearly indicate how the subject firm was notable. Still, the decision was not as clear-cut as many that I encounter tagged for speedy deletion. If you wish, I will restore the article in Draft space (as Draft:Prime Studio. There you will have more time to fully develop the article before it is assessed, and it will be reviewed by an experienced editor before it is taken live again. Would that be helpful? DES ^(talk) 15:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Inksquare. It would be advisable for you to read WP:My first article and also to familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines for companies found at WP:CORP. Although there are some exceptions to notability for artists based on there works being exhibited, no such exception exists for a studio, which is after all a business. John from Idegon (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES for your explanation. I would like to continue working on the article and would really appreciate having the draft page to work on. Thank you John from Idegon for the resource link, I would definitely have a read before I continue. Inksquare (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Do I have a Conflict of Interest?

Hello, my name's Tom Nordlie. I just signed up for a Wikipedia account.

I'm a full-time public relations writer with the University of Florida, working for the UF agriculture program's communications office. I've been doing this sort of work for 15+ years but this is my first attempt at being a Wikipedia editor.

If you'll please bear with me for a few paragraphs, I'll explain my situation, and then get to my specific questions...

Some months ago, I was asked to prepare an English-language Wikipedia page profiling one of our new faculty members, Dr. Ilaria Capua. Dr. Capua is originally from Italy and has an Italian-language Wikipedia page. She's a virologist and is fairly well-known in contemporary scientific circles for her advocacy of "open source" genetic databases.

Originally, my intention was to write and post a piece on Dr. Capua that conformed to Wikipedia requirements, working from her Italian page. I've now completed the writing, but haven't tried to post anything yet.

Here's a recent development -- several weeks ago, I discovered that another editor has posted an English-language page on Dr. Capua. Consequently, my assignment changed and I am now supposed to make edits to that page, and expand it with material I have on hand. I hope to get started editing in the next couple of days.

Two questions concern me --

First, I may have a conflict of interest, by virtue of the fact that I'm a UF employee writing about another UF employee. I'm not sure if someone with Wikipedia needs to further vet me before I attempt to make any edits to the page, or if I need to follow a different course of action altogether, such as submitting my material to someone else for review and possible action.

Second, I have already left a message for the editor who posted the original page on Dr. Capua. I explained what I planned to do, and invited the editor to reply with any questions or comments. My question here -- is there any standard protocol for expanding a previously created Wikipedia page? In other words, am I expected to reach a consensus with the other editor about what I'll add? Or is it okay for me to make edits at my discretion and leave it to the other editor to decide whether to challenge anything?

Any advice would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Nordlie (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It is fairly standard wikipedia editing policy to include a link to an article being discussed, so Ilaria Capua, there. Secondly, there is no need to notify former article editors about your edits unless you are significantly changing what they have done. Then contacting them would be a polite courtesy. So edit away, be bold, and just be sure that you are properly referencing your edits. Also, if you put something, anything, on your user page then your user name will change into a blue link rather than being the red one that it is now. This suggests to others, or at least to me, that you are not the dead end that red links suggest and that perhaps you are even a serious editor who intends to stay around. The "User Page" tab at the top left of your user page will change color too after my posting, because now there is something there. Consider it, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My view is that in this situation the advice regarding conflict of interest does apply. You should propose changes at Talk:Ilaria Capua, supplying references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to support your proposed changes. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hello Tom Nordlie and welcome to Wikipedia (WP). The page we are talking about is Ilaria Capua. In the following, highlighted words are "wikilinks" you can click.

A conflict of interest, in Wikipedia's sense, is any relationship that would make an outside observer infer that you might be biased; it can be a financial COI (writing about a client, a employer, etc.) but not necessarily (writing about a relative, a friend, a politician you support, etc.). Since you have been assigned with writing a page, you probably fall under the stronger guideline outlined at WP:PAID. Please read it carefully: you must disclose paid editing in a particular manner, by the terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The original editor of the page has no more oversight than anyone else over its content; while it was courteous to inform them, it was not necessary. Long-time editors use the watchlist feature to keep track of changes to the articles they care about.

While the usual advice is to be bold when editing a page, with the idea that anyone who disagrees can "revert" (cancel) changes fairly easily, you are encouraged not to do that because of your conflict of interest. Instead, post an edit request to the talk page of the article (Ilaria Capua).

The how-to guide for edit requests is here; the short version is to make a new thread on the talk page, place {{request edit}} at the top of it, and describe your proposed changes in the format "change X to Y, per the source <Z>". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody! I have set up a user page and will review the WP:PAID guidelines.

Tom

Tom Nordlie (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Randall Kay Williams

I have just finished my draft version of Randall Kay Williams and I would like to publish. I have tried to find out how to do it, but am getting confused. Does it need to be reviewed first. How do I go about that. Thax. PaulineG777 PaulineG777 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added a template which includes a "Submit" button for use when you want to submit the draft for review. I haven't looked at the draft in detail, but I see that there are some misplaced external links, and there is scope for tidying up the references which are used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I will work on your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulineG777 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Help creating article about a blues musician - noob here

Article draft is at Draft:Solomon_King_(blues_artist)

This is an blues singer/songwriter and guitarist who I have seen live several times and become very familiar with his work. I decided to write his Wikipedia article because of the difficulty I had experienced in researching the guy's career.

Although there are numerous interviews in relevanr and reliable sources and official press releases and product information and other published material, I still had repeatedly encountered references and attributions to at two other artists with the same stage name "Solomon King".

I figured since I had taken the time research this person and determine which information is correct and which are errors or artifacts of music metadata systems I ought to share this with others who may experience the same confusion.

So, to sum up the help request:

Is there anybody familiar with writing music and movie articles that can help a noob with proper formatting and style, citations, etc?

Brownianps (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Brownianps. I have done some of these, including recently 500 Miles High. I will try to take a look at Draft:Solomon_King_(blues_artist) later today. In the meantime, I urge you to read Your First Article and Referencing for beginners if you have not already done so. DES ^(talk) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Formatting and style are easily corrected (I've already corrected the use of boldface). The main problem is likely to be finding enough reliable published independent sources to verify that King is notable. The two sources currently cited are to interviews with him, and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems some of the sources I had previously included as citations were not saved. There are other edits that don't seem to have been saved either. I am not sure if my changes are being saved when working on mobile. It keeps refreshing the captcha and isn't displaying a confirmation or an error. Sometimes the edita stick, but sometimes I guess they don't.

Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownianps (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you use any source that is on the Google Amp thing, whatever that is, it won't save. I've had the same problem several times. It's apparently a blacklisted link, but you can circumvent it by removing the amp part of the url and leaving the newspaper's own website. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I use an Android and have experienced similar problems. I access Wikipedia via my Chrome browser rather than using the app and always select the desktop version. When I need a search engine, I access Google.com on Chrome and select the desktop version also. Hope that helps. John from Idegon (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't try to edit Wikipedia on any mobile device, only on a desktop or occasionally a laptop. DES ^(talk) 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

IPA templates

It's obvious why the documentation for Template:IPA-en has a section describing how to use the template with English words, and another section for non-English words. But why are these same sections, for ±English words, included in the IPA templates for Esperanto, French, Arabic, Greek, Belarusian, Mandarin, Klingon, and presumably all the other IPA-language templates? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Title Spelling change

I recently created a page for a local theater in my community, The Shelton Theater.

However it looks to have saved in the British spelling of 'theatre', which is different from the theater's other source spellings as well as their website. How do I make this marginal change to the title of this page.

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

Thank you.

Mayalekach (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mayalekach. I have gone ahead and moved the page for you; for (seemingly) uncontroversial requests such as this, you could either a) move the page yourself, or b) request it to be moved at WP:RM/TR if you cannot do so yourself. It would also be of help to view WP:RM in case a move is contested. SkyWarrior 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You do, however, need to provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate the notability of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is my page marked for speedy deletion?

the page had all the proper references but still marked for deletion (Rjacobs1 (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This must be about Augustine Grant. It cites no references. It does list three references, so the citations could be added, as recommended in the "multiple issues" notice at the top of the article. But the first is to IMDB, which is not reliable, and the other two merely mention the subject, they contain no in-depth discussion of him. So, they fail to establish that he is notable. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rjacobs1.

There's another problem here: based on your username, you may be writing an an article about yourself or you've chosen a username to perhaps imply you are impersonating the subject of the article. One way or another, you would be running afoul of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How can I improve article to be reviewed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Middleton

Hello I have written the above article and it was first declined for notability but i have since improved the sources and am awaiting review since resubmitting over a week ago. I wanted to ask your opinion on how it could be improved even further while I wait, or if it is OK as is to get approved when it does get looked at again? Thanks so much!

Ashalily91 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ashalily91. I reviewed and declined your draft again. See my comments there. You have not addressed the issues raised by the first reviewer. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The long list of his publications should be removed or severely trimmed. The article would also be better without the section on non-notable awards he's won. But the main issue is (as John from Idegon just said) whether the citations establish that he's notable. The article cites almost 40 sources, but I don't see even one which does anything to establish his notability. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John from Idegon I really appreciate your comments and am working through those now. Can I ask if journals are notable sources as all research publications are 'written' by the subject, but if it has qualified for the journal would this be able to be considered a notable source for proof? I am looking at the International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics where both of the 'australian first' acheivements are published. Or would it be best to only mention the advancement that was also picked up by media/newspaper sources? Maproom thank you also for reiterating the comments made by John,appreciate your further advice here. --Ashalily91 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Middleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have supplied journals and a media source that verify Mark as introducing a major advance in the treatment of cancer to Australia, but I understand that there hasnt been enough media coverage to warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. I had focussed on this acheivement as I was told his business acheievements were advertising(although reported on by third part sources and a key aspect of Marks reputation in the health landscape), can I ask how this is any different to this article which has been approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jaffray

Ashalily91 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I write an article which is not there in Wikipedia but in other websites ?

I want to write an article about abellaite (mineral) but it is not present in Wikipedia but it is present in another website called Geoscienceworld.org. 122.172.167.134 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Provided that you can find multiple Reliable sources about it, this would be helpful. I don't know Geoscienceworld.org, what kind of site is it? does it have some sort of editorial control? Can additional sources be found, perhps via a google books or google scholar search, or a library search?

Please read Your First Article before trying to create a new article. Unless you register an account, you will need to use the Article wizard to create a new article. I would urge you to do that anyway, and to go through a Draft stage in any case. This will allow an experienced editor to review the draft before it is moved to a live article. DES ^(talk) 14:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)After a quick search it looks like there would be enough to support an article. Unless you create an account you can not directly create it. You can use the articles for creation process and create it in the Draft namespace. Then when it is ready it can be moved to the main space. ~ GB fan 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• You should also be careful not to copy-paste the text from geoscienceworld.com. Doing so would be a copyright violation and would force Wikipedia to delete it as soon as it is detected. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think all known minerals, animal species, and plants are notable for us by definition of existing. There's some scientist out there studying them. Abellaite should be listed and discussed in mineral or stone identifying books. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've found a few good sources:

• Ibáñez-Insa, Jordi; Elvira, José J.; Llovet, Xavier; Pérez-Cano, Jordi; Oriols, Núria; Busquets-Masó, Martí; Hernández, Sergi (16 February 2017). "Abellaite, NaPb2(CO3)2(OH), a new supergene mineral from the Eureka mine, Lleida province, Catalonia, Spain". European Journal of Mineralogy. ISSN 0935-1221.
• Hålenius, U.; Hatert, F.; Pasero, M.; Mills, S. J. (1 February 2016). "New minerals and nomenclature modifications approved in 2015 and 2016". Mineralogical Magazine. 80 (1): 199–205. doi:10.1180/minmag.2016.080.080.
• "Abellaite: Abellaite mineral information and data". www.mindat.org.
• Commons has a photo at File:Abellaite-738453.jpg
• The Wikiata page shows that four other language Wikipedias have articles

We obviously need this article so please go ahead and start it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating a list

I have created List of Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America.

However, trying to put on the first item, Liberty Monument (New Orleans), it's not working. What's wrong? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. It appears you are confusing a list and a category. A list is an article which just happens to include a list of something. You add something to a list by editing the list, just like any other article. A category has a name starting with "Category:". If it's called "Category:X" then you add pages to it by adding [[Category:X]] to the pages. It requires that the pages exist. Wikipedia uses sentence case for titles so a category for your purpose should be called something like Category:Removed monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Existance of naming guidelines

Does Wikipedia have guidelines on the naming of articles? And if so, where are they located? AtlasDuane (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi AtlasDuane The page you want is WP:Article titles. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, much appreciated! AtlasDuane (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Hi all-

Clearly I am HTML self-taught, much less new to Wikipedia. I am trying to cite sources in an article I have created and really haven't a clue what I am doing. I have read everything that has links and still, well, AAAACK! I bow to your genius. Please help so I can get an article listed. Once done, want to help me figure out how to get images posted? I really do want to learn, so help? The article, not published, is "Cultural & Natural History Collections at the University of La Verne."

Chickboat (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The page is Draft:Cultural and Natural History Collections at the University of La Verne, La Verne, California. ~ GB fan 18:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Chickboat. I'll leave some easy to follow instructions on your talk page for formatting references. Please be advised that although wiki markup is largely based in HTML, it is not the same. However, your draft has much bigger problems than improper formatting. There is nothing whatsoever to show that your subject is notable, which is the requirement to have an article. You need multiple reliable sources that are totally independent of the library, the university, or any of the donors that specifically discuss the subject of the article in detail. I'm not seeing any sources there that would meet our criteria of reliability. John from Idegon (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Chickboat and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wording like "Nestled in the foothills" rings an alarm for me as promotional and possibly a copyright violation. Even if paraphrased, staying too close to your source can still present a problem.

If suggest you go and read WP:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. Incorporating the advice given there will go a long way towards allowing you to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your use of the personal pronoun "our" in the article, beside being completely unencyclopedic, is indicative of a conflict of interest on your part. Please read the link and follow best practices. If your job duties in any way include public relations or you are being compensated in any way for your writing here, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose that in a manner prescribed at WP:PAID. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, Thank you very much for the insight! I will add some additional information to make the article more notable, remove the pronoun/conflict of interest, and yes, I did alter information found on the University's website ("nestled in the foothills") so definitely technically unoriginal verbiage. I don't recall using any of the University's websites for references, however. And more, did I at least get that figured out? In the meantime, let me edit the VERY appreciated commentary and suggestions.

Anne aka chickboat Chickboat (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Using the university's website as a source but not referencing it can also be a problem. Where else is the quote at the end of the introductory paragraph to be attributed to? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article titled "Examiner.com"

I need help with the Wikipedia article titled Examiner.com.

I was a contributor at Examiner for over 6 1/2 years, from November 2009 until it closed in July 2016. Recently I read the Wikipedia article about it, and I was alarmed by a few different paragraphs and so I deleted some and edited others. This started an editing war. Someone is angry that I removed his or her incorrect, unsubstantiated input. The article now appears exactly the same as it did before I got involved.

On Wikipedia, a critic or an industry competitor wrote that Examiner had an ongoing plagiarism problem. Initially they did, but in 2010 Examiner's IT department installed software that detected images and sentences that had been published online before. Any contributor who got caught doing that instantly lost their login and their column disappeared.

Additionally, in 2010, Examiner hired a full time editorial team at their headquarters in Denver, Colorado. They were tough. Contributors would submit their articles to the editorial team for review and approval, and the first submission was always rejected for trivial reasons that were a non-issue. An article could bounce back and forth between a contributor and the editorial team several times for weeks. By the time an editor published it online everybody was sick and tired of it, and they hated each other.

Also, a critic wrote on the Wikipedia article that Examiner never offered to pay their contributors. That's not true! This is a double-edged sword: When I was contracted in November 2009, my recruiter said that contributors who had established readership had earned $100 to $150 per day for years. I worked really hard to establish my readership and when it reached about 10,000 unique visitors I received about $50. As my readership increased, my pay rate dropped. Obviously Examiner's recruiter lied. If it's true that they had 25,000 contributors during that period then there could be enough unpaid earnings to justify filing a class action lawsuit, and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. For some mysterious reason, Examiner kept changing parent companies, but all of them were owned by Philip Anschutz in Denver, Colorado. The umbrella parent company was Anschutz Entertainment Group ("AEG"), which is now called Anschutz Corporation.

And so would you please resolve this editing war. Clearly the people who wrote the paragraphs that I tried to edit did not know anything about Examiner and they had never worked there or even contributed a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiesmallory (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Katiesmallory: your close involvement with Examiner.com makes you less qualified, not more, to edit the Wikipedia article on it, as you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not based on its contributors' opinions on a subject, however well-informed; it is based on what has been published in reliable independent sources. The edit war will be won by the party that provides references for its contributions. You will not achieve anything by deleting referenced content and replacing it by your own unreferenced opinions. If you can cite independent published sources for Examiner's current policies on wages and plagiarism, please add them to the article. Maproom (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Katiesmallory, and welcome to the Teahouse. Of course edit wars are bad and should be stopped. I haven't yet looked at the page Examiner.com, but I will. However, what drives article content should not be what you know, or what any other editor knows or has experienced, but what published reliable sources say about the subject. Do you have published sources to back your statements about Examiner.com? Your personal knowledge is not verifiable -- that is, a reader can't check it. All Wikipedia content should in theory be verifiable, so cited reliable sources are vital in such matters. DES ^(talk) 21:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Katiesmallory, this issue should be discussed on the page Talk:Examiner.com. Please honor the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. You made a series of bold edits. Another editor (and a rather experienced one, by the way) reverted them, claiming that they were unsourced. You should now discuss the matter on the talk page. If you an provide or point to sources that support your edits, please do so. Other can help insert sources if that is needed. But without sources that support your changes, they will not stay in the article.

Also, one revert, with a plausible reason, is not an edit war. People revert edits that they disagree with all the time. This is normal and proper, provided that the reverting editor explains his or her action, and is open to discussion thereafter. this series of edits did not introduce any new citations or sources, and did remove cited content and the citations supporting it. DES ^(talk) 21:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Katiesmallory, on looking further I see that you (or someone editing from an IP address ending in 42cd, which I suppose to have been you) made the same or similar edits three times, being reverted by a different editor each time. That is an edit war, but it suggests that you were the person warring. I will assume that you didn't realize that after the first revert you should go to the article talk page and start a discussion of the issue. But you know that now. Please do not continue to insert unsourced statements into the article against local consensus without discussing the matter on the article talk page first. Doing so will not gain cooperation from other editors here, and will have negative consequences. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture

How can I add a picture to an article?NickTheScout (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi NickTheScout. It is very dependent on what picture you want to add to which article. Copyright is a big hurdle, and it depends on many factors, so please tell us the specifics so that we can give tailored advice. In their absence, I am posting a canned template below that may explain some of the issues. Best regards---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.Template:Z40--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Question Part 2 - Nick

The reason I ask for this is because I notice an article by the name "Hacker" didn't have any information needed so I wanted to find an easiest way to fill in this article with no info!NickTheScout (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NickTheScout. If you are referring to the page Hacker (film), which you created, it has been deleted (by myself, in fact) as a test page, and as by your request (by blanking the page).

If you want to create pages in the future I urge you to read Your First Article and Wikipedia's Golden Rule first, and then to use the Article wizard to create a Draft. That will make things much easier for all involved. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

reference for word of mouth information

how do you write reference for word of mouth article and history Lmuamua (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lmuamua, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking how to document something you learned because someone told you about it as a source for a Wikipedia article, the answer is simple, you don't. According to our verifibility policy and our guideline on reliable sources, sources must be published.

However, if a relaible source, such as a work of history, recounts what someone told the historian, that can be cited and used. So can published oral histories, such as the Oral History project run by the US Library of Congress. DES ^(talk) 23:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Lmuamua, I've tidied up your article stub a bit, but you need to do some research to find WP:Reliable sources, and you might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Can you find the co-ordinates on Google Earth? Dbfirs 23:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

trying to edit a page of an artist that is up for deletion but should not be in my opinion.

Hello I am trying to understand why artist Patrick Thompson (artist) is up for deletion. How can it be edited to avoid this?Plasterofparis (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Plasterofparis, and Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why Patrick Thompson (artist) has been nominated for deletion is given on the AfD page for that article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Thompson (artist). There the nominator says: "Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Can find no indepth coverage just a lot of listings and passing mentions." This means that the nominator, the experienced editor Theroadislong, has looked for but was unable to find published independent reliable sources that discuss Thompson in some detail.

As to "How can it be edited to avoid this?", the answer is simple. Find and add such sources. Several such sources at least. Published reliable sources that discuss Thompson and/or his work at some length (at least several paragraphs, more is better) are what is needed and all that is needed. Sources do not have to be online, although being online makes things easier. If you don't know how to add them to the article, simply list them on the AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Thompson (artist), describing what the sources say about Thompson and why they are reliable (if this is not clearly obvious). Descriptions should be brief, but through enough to allow someone who has not read the source to understand how it deals with Thompson or his work (or both). Such sources as books published by mainstream publishers, scholarly journal articles, magazine articles, newspapers, or online sites of comparable quality and function to these will all work. Blogs and fan sites will not work. Neither will mentions in passing, or inclusion in directories and lists.

Significant awards can also help, but there must be a cited source showing that Thompson received the award (or was a finalist for a major award). Online searches may be enough -- library searches/research are sometimes required.

Does that answer your question? DES ^(talk) 00:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and do NOT copy sizable blocks of text directly from the sources, Plasterofparis. DES ^(talk) 01:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

how to write word of mouth stories and how to reference it

I was given the opportunity by our fathers to write the story about our family and how they travelled to reach where they have established our village at present, to write about their journey. This stories have never been documented before. How can I reference this stories as I go along, please advise. ThanksLmuamua (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Lmuamua, please read the answer you were given about in #reference for word of mouth information. Wikipedia citations must be to published sources. Wikipedia articles must be about notable topics. DES ^(talk) 01:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Lmuamua, even though you cannot write such an article here on Wikipedia, you could approach a nearby college or university's history department. Oral history projects are quite popular in academia these days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Help needed. I'm working on creating a first article on Wiki, and got a message about that the article will be deleted ;(

Hello, I'm creating my #first article looking forward to hear your opinions to help me save the article from to be deleted. Help needed asap. Roberto_Estuardo_Penedo Thanks Everyone who may have time to take a look at the article and leave your comments how to improve it in order to safe it. Olga Wills (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@OlgaWills2017: You (yes, you, not someone else) need to cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about Penedo but not affiliated with or connected to him. These sources need to point out something unique he has done.

For example this source is useless. He donated to John McCain, so what? Who cares? Lots of other people donated to John McCain. This source is also useless because Bircham puts up photos of pretty much anyone who graduates. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Thank you for your message. That's an article about a person who was elected by the Congress of Guatemala and has been serving in offie with the reliable sources to the articles proving his position and about the issues related to it. That is reliable information.
About his tights with John McCain, I removed the contribution part as you suggested and replaced it with the link where he was interviewed by the the news.
About Bicham University, there is an information on their page saying that he received Honoris Causa Doctor in Services to the Human Kind (not a bachelor), which is an award.
I really do want to have this article according to Wiki standards, but as a beginner, I need help to save that article.
What else do I need to change in order to keep the article alive? and how long time usually Wiki is giving for the corrections?
Please, leave your comment on what to do next. Thank YOU in advance. Olga Wills (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Olga Wills. For an article to be retained, the subject needs to show what Wikipedia calls notability. There is a general notability guideline (you can read it on the page I linked above) and there is a related guideline for articles about people. Quoting from the latter, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That's the basic criterion for an article about a person. In glancing over the article now, I don't believe it has been met. Rather than trying to fix specific problems areas with the article, it might be better if you read these guidelines carefully and consider the entire article in the light of what they call for. Are you sure the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines notable? If so, it should be clear to you what you need to do in terms of sourcing to avert the article's being deleted. Feel free to check back here if you have specific questions. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not so sure, Rivertorch that our policies, guidelines and explanations are as clear and obvious as you suggest above. Certainly I spend enough time here at the Teahouse explaining them to people who have not understood them correctly the first time through.

In any case, OlgaWills2017, the primary required task is to find and cite a number of independent, published, reliable sources that discuss Penedo in some detail, not mere passing mentions or inclusions in directories or lists. On the other hand, anything that seems like puffery or promotion should be removed, including opinions not cited to a named person or entity. The formatting also needs to be cleaned up, clarifying ambiguous links and providing citation metadata, but that is less vital.

As to how long Wikipedia allows to get an article to a proper state, there is no fixed time. Until someone formally suggests that an article be deleted, there is no time limit. Once such a suggestion has been made, both "Proposed deletion" (PROD) and "Articles for Discussion (AfD) take at least 7 days before an article will be deleted, and the article can be edited and perhaps improved during that time. DES ^(talk) 04:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Question: what if to add Category: Politician to the article (which is has reliable sources proving that he was elected by the Congress of Guatemala to an office. Thanks for your input. Olga Wills (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

verification

I've resubmitted my article but I'm not sure if it will be accepted this time or not. I've tried to follow the guideline properly but if possible can anyone of you please check it.

DhanishaB (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DhanishaB.

I assume you are referring to the draft article Draft:Vishnu Ramdeo. I took a look at it and can tell you it will not be accepted in its current form. It has no references, nothing at all that would substantiate the notability of its subject, and still has major failures to follow Wikipedia style guidelines. You can work on these while waiting for a formal review. First gather your sources and make inline citations for each statement of fact in the article. A good resource for how to do this is the page Help:Referencing for beginners. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Page removed - The ACRONET Paradigm

Dears, I have a question concerning a page removed by your staff (I guess) regarding an Open Hardware and Software Project named ACRONET Paradigm. Yesterday I included this project in the list of OH Proj. here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_hardware_projects), and I also created the specific page of the project itself. Both the link in the list page and the explanation one have been deleted. Could you explain me why? A brief motivation was given: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I would better understand if a description of ACRONET Paradigm can be published in Wikipedia (as well as other OH Proj. are), or if some other problem has been put in evidence. Many thanks in advance. Adrianofedi (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adrianofedi. I can find no trace of the article ACRONET Paradigm. Did you create it under a different user name? For me, Google finds only advertising for ACRONET Paradigm, and also suggests that you might have a WP:Conflict of interest, but if you can find sources where ACRONET Paradigm has been written about in WP:Reliable sources, then you could request an article at WP:Requested articles. Dbfirs 07:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adrianofedi. The page ACRONET Paradigm was deleted by Nick. The deletion log reason was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I can't say that this was an invalid deletion. The article stated that the "paradigm" was new. Although it had three sources, all were apparently by the inventors of the "paradigm", although they were apparently published in scientific journals. I haven't checked to see if the work was peer-reviewed.

Moreover, the article included such phrases as "Moreover, artifacts, schematics, bills of materials and firmware are kept publicly available on the project website for free", "The versatility of the dataloggers developed within the project allows the possibility to accept a huge amount of sensors already available on the reference market.", "simple Do-It-Yourself mounting kits (IKEA Model) are designed and made available from the website", "Thanks to the aforementioned characteristics, the ACRONET Paradigm has been successfully applied in some critical areas", "remarkable results were achieved", and "An important innovation resides within the fact that today the ACRONET stations can be queried by smartphone". Much of this is pure marketing-speech, and has no place in Wikipedia. It is an attempt to persuade people to use a particular website and the goods and services it offers. Wikipedia article must be objective and neutral. They must not try to persuade. No opinions may be expressed in Wikipedia's voice, only those cited to specific, named people or entities. Adjectives may not be used to praise (or attack) any product, cause, or subject. And the article as a whole must be supported by multiple published, independent reliable sources. Individual facts must be supported by cited sources, although not all need be independent. None of this was done. DES ^(talk) 11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Dears, first of all many thanks for your messages and time. Moreover, I take note of your views and understand the reasons for page deletion.

The project wants to be ethical and sustainable with specific aim to meet requirements from Developing Countries.

The fact is that the words I used are the ones that we normally include in scientific papers. I must admit that the sentences you put in evidence sounds really as marketing-speech. Thus, I would sincerely that the project could be included in the list of Open Hardware Projects already available on Wikipedia. Maybe, we do not have yet "independent reliable sources", it means that me and my colleagues are more or less always authors of the articles regarding ACRONET that can be find on the web. It would be great if you could suggest me a proper way, if possible.

Many thanks in advance, AdrianoAdrianofedi (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Adrianofedi, until someone can find and present those independent reliable sources, there cannot be a Wikipedia article on this topic. If such an article is created without them, it will almost surely be deleted fairly promptly. And only topics that already have Wikipedia articles are listed in Wikipedia's List of open source hardware projects. So the only proper way forward is to wait until those independent reliable sources about Arconet have been published. Remember, please, that Wikipedia is intended to summarize what others have already written. It is not to be used to bring new things to public attention when no independent reliable sources yet exist. DES ^(talk) 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Commons category attached to Wikipedia article

When I click on the Commons link in the Lindera benzoin article it takes me to a weird page. But the code for this on Wikipedia does not indicate how this works. The Commons category for the species exists and is populated. Wikimedia is a far greater nightmare for inexperienced editors than even Wikipedia, so I hesitate to ask there. How can this be fixed?

(Please post about IP addresses on my talk page, not here.) Can someone just tell me how to fix the category problem or fix It? --2601:648:8503:4467:2490:76EC:58AE:F1DA (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The commons category was not named in the template, I've fixed it. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Content produced by templates is sometimes imported from Wikidata. "Wikidata item" in the left pane of Lindera benzoin leads to Lindera benzoin (Q3024124) which for some reason listed both "Linda Vista Community Hospital" and "Lindera benzoin" under "Commons category". The hospital has been removed now so Roger's fix is no longer needed, but doesn't hurt either. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking care of this, sometimes the templates are hard to use, and I was in a hurry. --2601:648:8503:4467:10C2:4AB4:8BBC:7325 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Perhaps the template could be modified to include the Wikidata logo next to the item if it's pulling the date from there? Kind of like the Wikidata logo in this infobox? That would help sort out issues like this more quickly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes usually have lots of data. Pulling a single category link in {{Commons category}} should rarely be problematic. I think in total a Wikidata link there would cause more confusion and distraction than help. The documentation does mention it uses Wikidata. The template code might be improved to detect whether Wikidata has more than one category link but I guess it's rare. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just a thought. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Where do I find the list of articles people want created?

Before I had my account I would search, and if wikipedia didn't already have the article, I could ask for it to be created. (I never did.) So anyways, i want to help those people and give them their articles! If I had this list I would already be working on it. So whenever someone can please tell me where I can find it.

Sportseditor (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Sportseditor: Welcome. It is sorted by general topic at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks i will get right on it!

User keep reverting

I read the WP:RS, and the sources put in some articles are not WP:RS, and thus I removed the sources and some if its content. There is one user who keeps reverting without giving an explanation. What shall I do? Shall I just leave it or should I do something else? Xenani (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Xenani. To what article or articles do you refer? It looks from your contributions as if you have made edits with summaries mentioning lack of reliable sources on several articles.

If you remove a citation (and content supported by it) on the grounds that it is not a reliable source, and another editor reverts your change, please start a discussion on the relevant article talk page. You can ping the other editor involved, inviting that editor to join the discussion. Follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss (BRD) cycle, please. If there is debate on whether the source is an RS or not, use the reliable source noticeboard (RSN) where experienced editors can help asses the reliability of specific sources in specific contexts. Remember, please, that context matters. No source is reliable for every possible statement, and few are never reliable for any statement. DES ^(talk) 12:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Xenani one point of formatting. Within a Section headings are placed as sub-sections, that is with equals signs, such as ===Sub-section===, not with bold text. Subsections appear in the article's table of contents, and use standard formatting. Please do not convert sub-sections to bolded text. 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Thank you for the tips. I was referring to the articles Kadurugoda Vihara and Sinhalese alphabet. But I think I have sorted it out with the user.

Xenani (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How to make my article eligible for wikipedia?

Respected Sir/Madam,

The wikipedia article that I created for Pittie Group company got rejected on the basis of it being sounding like an advertisement. I request you to please help me understand it further. Any inputs/suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Regards, Rahul Sharma

Sharma.rahul.4110 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sharma.rahul.4110, and welcome to the Teahouse. The whole draft at User:Sharma.rahul.4110/sandbox reads like a company brochure or website. Phrases such as "Under the leadership of its chairman and the CEO, Mr. Aditya Pittie...", "Yogurtbay has poised its strong expanse by introducing a new line of waffle stick desserts", "A robust and strong supply chain along with retailer clients like Reliance, Star Bazaar, Hypercity, Metro, D-mart, More, Max Hyper Market, Vishal Mega Mart and Spencer have enabled the group to empower Patanjali and serve all its distribution needs.", "...a one stop destination in puja and spiritual products category.", "...positioned as the ultimate destination for its valued viewers."

Wikipedia articles must be objective and neutral. They must not praise or attack anything or anyone. puffery is not allowed. Any opinions must be those of a named and cited person or entity. Adjectives that imply value judgements should not be used except in direct or paraphrased quotes. I hope this is clear. DES ^(talk) 13:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sharma.rahul.4110: even if you can remove all the promotional language from User:Sharma.rahul.4110/sandbox, it has another serious problem. It has no references to reliable independent sources. Of its 13 references, 1,2,3,9,13 are to the business's own web sites, 4,5,7,8,10,12 are to articles based on interviews with people closely associated with the subject, 6 is to an advertisement, and 10 does not mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

deletion

i need some advice on how to get my page up. I dont know how to ask the person who edited and then deleted my page directly. I reviewed it and worked to eliminate all self promotion- is there someone i can talk to about reviewing my page and giving me pointers?

klsklskls (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

hello, Kashyshyne, and welcome to the Teahouse. Dermaplaning, which you created, was deleted by RickinBaltimore with the logged reason of "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://www.webmd.com/beauty/cosmetic-procedures-chemical-peel-treatments". G11 is fundamental advertising or promotional pages, and G12 is a copyright violation. G11 can be worked around, with editing, but G12 is a hard limit. Wikipedia simply will not accept content copied from another site without proof that it has been released under a free license by the copyright owner. (See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.)

I see that two previous versions were also deleted under G11. The final version contained sections on "Benefits" and "Treatment Alternatives" and included phrases such as "DERMAFLASH is the only at-home exfoliating device that uses a subtle sonic vibration and stainless steel edge to remove dead skin cells and fine hair from the cheeks, jawline, lip area, chin and forehead". It looks pretty promotional to me, and i would have made the same deletion as it stood. DES ^(talk) 19:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kashyshyne and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "my pages". The article Dermaplaning has been deleted because it was advertising and was a copyright infringement. There is lots of advice on your talk page. If you think that Dermaplaning is notable in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. it has been written about in multiple independent WP:Reliable sources), then you might like to start again by creating a draft article using your own words, not copied from anywhere else, at Draft:Dermaplaning which can be improved gradually and is less likely to be deleted (though copyright material will not be allowed). Do you have a WP:Conflict of interest because you have some connection with the topic? Dbfirs 19:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Would the proper use of electronic yellow pages entries be a violation of policy?

I have added a list of places of worship into an article ( Norwalk, Connecticut ), of which some can only be cited by way of sources such as electronic yellow pages or Google maps. I believe such a list to be associated with or significantly contributes to the article. Would such a list, not in itself a directory--- and if properly cited, be a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory policy? If so, how might I re-frame the list so that it does not violate any Wikipedia policy? Thank you for your time. --->StephenTS42 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, StephenTS42. I suggest that you limit yourself to a list of notable places of worship that already have Wikipedia articles about them. Such a list should be of places that are of historical or architectural interest. Listing every one is by definition a directory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing an exosting article

I am a "newbie" to editing Wikipedia. :-)

I tried to change a number of minor things to my College's profile page. The College motto had been "hacked" and was incorrect as well as the names of the existing Chaplains. ClueBot NG then indicated that I was potentially vandalizing the article and should refrain from doing so, thus returning the article back into its original state. HOw can I get these changes implemented? S noonan (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, S noonan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please post to Talk:MacKillop Catholic Regional College, explaining what you are doing, and where the information can be verified. Our verifibility policy requires that all information must be supported by a reliable source, if challenged. While I am sure you are acting in good faith and providing accurate information here, you must understand that we have no way to confirm who you are or that your knowledge is accurate. Therefor we insist on sources. I have been looking at http://mackillopwerribee.com.au/, but I cannot confirm the motto (except from the logo) or the Chaplin's name. I have reported that ClueBot made an error in this case. But we still need one or more reliable sources for this info. I will look further in a bit. DES ^(talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I found sources deeper in the college web site for both pieces of information, S noonan, and I have updated the article accordingly. Please do let us know about future updates that may be needed, but please be sure to provide a source. The article talk page, linked above, can be used for this purpose, but feel free to return here to the Teahouse if you would like assistance. DES ^(talk) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures

Hi. I want to know how I can upload pictures in a Wikipedia article. I know editors need to obtain copyright permissions to upload photos. How can I do that? Thank's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Queen Commoner (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

King Queen Commoner: you won't need to obtain any permissions to upload a photo you took yourself. And you won't even need to upload anything to use a picture that's already at Commons. Can you tell us what article you're working on, and what the pictures would show? Maproom (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

1. Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
2. If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
3. If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
4. Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New Article for Review

I have made a new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Water_Resources_Association. I went through Article Wizard to create the page, and was hoping to save it in Draft space so I could have someone from wiki review it before posting it live. However the page has gone live right now. Can you assist me in switching it to draft and finding a reviewer?Hmb17 (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the article into draft space for you. I'm not sure about the reviewing though: I have no experience with such things. Perhaps someone else could. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added an AFC draft template to allow the draft to be submitted for review when the OP is ready to do so. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Easy to Use status update template.

Are there any easy to use status (online/offline) templates that I can use that don't require me making an actual edit to change? I know of User:Cyberpower678/Status and a few others, but they're not what I want. Thanks. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There is Template:UserStatus. and you can use User:Enterprisey/StatusChanger.js with it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings L3X1 and Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, a long time ago, I tried the same thing & got tired of having to edit each time. Instead I made the following which you are free to use if you like.

GreetingsWhen online, I'm busy improving existing articles.

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting some review

If anyone has a second to check over Draft:Chase Alexander Crawford I would appreciate it

Ojitchee (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ojitchee. In my opinion, this actor does not meet our notability guideline for actors. He has appeared in two films but does not have a starring role in either. I do not see any significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What action is to be taken on an article whose content is not useful ?

Note : Brought back from archive

I recently came across the Matrix decomposition article. It seems that the article's content is so vague and isn't so useful to readers in it's current form. It just seems to be listing the various types and a little information about each and seems to miss the most crucial information about how to perform the operation. Shortly it doesn't cover the main picture and thus is not so helpful for readers who come to read the article without much knowledge about the method (I guess that's the majority) There's another article titled Non-negative matrix factorization. On skimming through it, I could see that it has more background information than the Matrix decomposition article. What should be done to make the article more readable ? Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 07:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Matrix decomposition article is not much use in itself, but is useful in directing readers to an article on the kind of matrix decomposition they are looking for. Maybe it should be retained, but reorganised to make it clearer that it's what I think is called a "set index" (like Inkcap). Maproom (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response User:Maproom. In that case, is it ok removing the contents of the article resemble the Inkcap article and thus making it explicit to the reader that it's more of an index than an article ? Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 04:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems to me a reasonable plan. But you ought to discuss it on the article's talk page first. Incidentally, part of the process of establishing that Inkcap is an "index page" rather than an article or a disambiguation page was the addition of the template {{Fungus common name}} – I've no idea whether there's a similar template relating to mathematical techniques. Another page which like Matrix decomposition has brief descriptions of some mathematical objects, with wikilinks to articles on most of them, is graph product. I'm not aware that anyone has ever expressed unhappiness with the way it's structured. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

creating a new wiki page

Hi I'm trying to create a wiki page about a companyTheknowledgegroup (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Theknowledgegroup. Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, there is not an easy answer. I suggest you start by studying your first article. Take especial note of the following:

• Creating an article is hard, and I would not advise anybody to try it until they have a few weeks' or months' experience of editing Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind.
• Writing about a topic you have a close connection to is strongly discouraged, as your conflict of interest is likely to make it hard for you to write in a sufficiently neutral manner
• Any article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with a subject have published about it. Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject has said or published about themselves, and no interest at all in how they wish to be represented. If there is little or no independent material published about a subject, then the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's sense of the word) and no article about them will be accepted, however it is written.

Finally, I'm afraid your user name is almost certainly not acceptable, as names are not allowed which suggest that you are editing on behalf of an organisation. Please change it, or (more easily) abandon that name and create a new account which is personal to you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Waving Germany flag for userpage

I can't find a Germany flag to display on my user page. Where can I find an animated one that I can see without clicking a link on my userpage to see it? GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi GermanGamer77. I answered that at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 609#No userbox for important thing. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of Sources Needed

If I want to have another Wiki user write an article about the company I work for, how many sources do I need to provide?

Thanks!

KjohnsonSB (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey KjohnsonSB. While there is no hard fast number for how many sources are required for an article, the general guidance is that it should be enough to demonstrate that they subject meets our notability standards for organizations and companies. How many that takes largely depends on the types and quality of the sources provided. TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KjohnsonSB. In my opinion, three or four impeccable sources that devote in depth coverage to the topic are vastly superior to several dozen mediocre sources that mention the topic in passing or say the same brief thing repeatedly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

my name is signed for a minor edit on the live page. help!

i just made a minor addition to the robert motherwell page, adding "bert katz" linked to a web site as one of his students at hunter. i signed it with the four tildes and it seems my name is appearing in red. is that bad? Margokatz (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Margokatz. Looks like it was already taken care of. For future reference, if you make a mistake, you can always click on the page history at the top of the article and undo your mistake, or click edit in the relevant section and manually remove the change. TimothyJosephWood 19:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That just means you haven't created a user page yet. Thanks,DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 19:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's why Margokatz's signature appeared in red, but the broader point is that signatures don't belong in articles, only on discussion pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

‎Adding a category to a protected userpage

Can an administrator please add Category:Deceased Wikipedians to these userpages: User:Sheldon Brown, User:Tgarden, User:OdedSchramm. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 21:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Neve-selbert. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Nevé–selbert 22:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG editing rates

This might be a strange question to ask here, but how can ClueBot edit pages at a rate of 9000 every minute when the contributions page says otherwise? Thanks in advance. ~ Weird Al Legorhythm^{(Hello, World!)} 21:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a strange question. Where did you get the rate of 9000 (edits?) every minute from? ~ GB fan 22:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Al Legorhythm, welcome to the Teahouse. The infobox in User:ClueBot NG says "Edit rate Over 9,000 EPM." EPM is not explained. It could be edits per minute (far from 9000) or edits per month (over 9000) but I think it's a deliberately vague joke. It comes from User:ClueBot NG/edit rate which originally said "Over 9000 EPM.",[1] linking to a well-known Internet meme referring to a large number. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the point is that ClueBot is capable of handling a far higher volume of vandalism than the actual current vandalism rate, which fluctuates. 9000 edits a minute amounts to almost 13 million vandalism reversions per day. Vandals are irritating and need to be controlled but there is nowhere near that rate of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

template reference for over copying

Warwick railway station, Queensland - the history section looks like a copy of the [1] link history tab, word for word. What's the {{ }} notation to add to note this ? my brain won't work this morning. Dave Rave (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dave Rave. That site is freely licensed, under CC-BY in fact. The initial edit summery can be seen here and says so, although perhaps a better attribution is needed on the talk page. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The attribution is in the article, at Warwick railway station, Queensland#Attribution. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

So it is, and that should be ample. DES ^(talk) 02:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

true, and true, but the refs for [1], a - aq, are a little way too much with every single paragraph being a straight copy. Shouldn't it all be inside a < code > with a single ref at the end ?
and while defending the article, good, where's my answer ? Dave Rave (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, your first answer, Dave Rave is that no template is needed in this specific case. If I found an article with as much copying as this one has from a non-free source, i would probably use {{db-G12}}, calling for a speedy delete as a blatant copyvio. If there is not so much as to warrant speedy deletion {{copypaste}} or {{close paraphrasing}} might be used. Does that help? Wikipedia:Template messages is a good way to find such template, in my view.

The number of uses of that source is much larger than usual, but that is what happens when an article starts out as a copy of a freely licensed source. I don't think we use <code> in the way you suggest in articles. Even if we did/could, what happens when someone edits to insert new content, with a different source, in the article. How will a reader know what content is coverd by which source? NO, I think they way in which this article does it is better than that, or any solution which somehow says "this entire section is supported by this source". Unless we are going to freeze the article, of course. DES ^(talk) 03:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That said there is some pruning could be made. I'd remove all the sub-paragraphs in the Heritage listing section for a start, how the building meets the listing standards is OTT IMO. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

userpage configuration

How can I make it so that an infobox appears at the top of the page with other content on the left of it? If I place the infobox code above the other items, then the other items get moved to an area below the infobox-the two cannot coexist side by side. The problem is on my userpage. Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nikolaiho. Remove clear:both; from the Random Statistics box if you want to allow other content next to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I tried it but it still doesn't work somehow. Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 19:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I find that if the infobox is at the top that is where it will be. Is that better ? Dave Rave (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View on "Template: Find Sources"?

So I've been noticing this template appearing on articles: Template:Find sources mainspace and Template:Find sources (they might be merged), and I have no problem with the use of the template. But I find it extremely surprising that JSTOR is specifically mentioned on it. Why is this? Why this specific company, and not any of the others in the world, or at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library? I'm just curious. =) Popcrate (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that it is because Wikipedia has set up a collaboration with JSTOR to allow free access to a restricted number of editors. You can read about it here. I have access and have used it to provide references to a number of articles.Leschnei (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

JSTOR is one of dozens of resources that are made available to editors under certain conditions. The full list can be found at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases. I have benefited greatly from a subscription to Newspapers.com and books from McFarland Publishing Company, both via this program. I don't know why others are not included in the template. Perhaps JSTOR was selected because it is described on the databases page as "one of the largest and most reputable journal archives in the world." Eddie Blick (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I verify that an edit I made is actually a verifiable fact?

I edited the Theory Z the other day, my first edit. Now this may seem silly, but I copied some of text verbatim into edit. Placed my reference in the wrong spot (thank you whoever fixed it). Then it occurred to me that I did not check the Authors reference source, and I do not know how to. There is a reference in the second sentence of the article (1969a). Is this a reference to his original notebook? If so how would I find it? I feel some of the Grammar I have used maybe an assumption rather than scientific fact. I hope this is alright to ask in the Teahouse? At least I am fairly confident that I cant break anything in here. Thank you in advanceFOI-enthusiast (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FOI-enthusiast, and I am glad you posted here about this. In this edit you added two sentances copied directly from your source (http://pages.stolaf.edu/psych-391-spring15/files/2014/02/Koltko-RIvera.pd), without quote marks or any indication that this was a direct quotation. This is not acceptable: Wikipedia articles must be supported by cited sources, but written in original words except when a marked, attributed, and cited short quote is used. Please do not do that again.

As to (1969a), and indeed (1943, 1954), they indicate particular sources listed in the bibliography of the source you cited, and are not fully meaningful apart from that source. If your cited source is a reliable one, we can trust the author to have properly evaluated his or her sources in turn, and the author of a Wikipedia article need not go back and verify the source's sources. If a source seems to be relying largely on a particular source, this fact may be worthy of mention, but when, as in this case, a source relys on obvious primary sources (here Maslow's own work), that can be taken for granted, especially as the source is online and anyone can verify it easily. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES, for your answer and fixing my edits this is very much appreciated.

As best I can tell other works were based upon Abraham Maslows original work that was available at the time. Therefore this 'work that was conceived later' may or may not have had an influence on the theories that were developed, from that which Maslow disclosed to the public at this time. I would like to put the amended theory back into theory Z, but this time I would like to get it right. I clearly need some assistance with this being a new 'contributor', so I thank everyone for the welcoming messages, I have received so far. The issue I have with the statement "That Maslow conceived the idea in 1969" is as follows; Can it be proved that Maslow did not conceive the idea earlier? I am not trying to debunk this statement, I am merely trying to fact check as the rules tell me to, to make sure that if I should edit this again it is scientifically rigorous. I have looked up, Future Visions: The Unpublished Papers of Abraham Maslow by E.L. Hoffman (Editor) 1996. To read this I need to create another account and already suffering form information overload. Therefore I will postpone this for the moment. The fundamental reason that causes me to to question this is; I am sure that I read somewhere that Maslow suffered some sort "existential crisis" at some point. I am not sure where I read this or at which time in his life this occurred, if it did. Note;It did just occur to me though, that Wikiversity may be a better place for this, I am not sure what do think? My original thought though was; Could Maslow have had the transcendence 'picture/vision' in his head fully formed at the start of his work, and by continuing his work he was more able to articulate this to the best of his ability later on? Because if this is the case, it does not fit with linear learning theories, in my humble opinion. And if he did have some sort of existential crisis, could it have been caused, by having an idea that could help humanity but not be able to explain it at the time because society may have perceived him as 'crazy' or something? Which led onto, could Maslow have withheld his whole vision at the start and only release it after he gained 'majority' 'acceptance' of his more complicated work? Thank you again for your time and patienceFOI-enthusiast (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This may seem a little off track, but it may change the way that we think about things, that's important?

In my alphabet Z is the last letter.

So if you take all of the good from 'X & Y Theory' and add them to Z, would the SUM=Good?

Would the adverse be true as well i.e SUM=BADFOI-enthusiast (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again,

I have noticed that interest in this discussion seems to have died. I am sorry if I offended anyone on here with my thoughts. I simply feel that this appears to be an intelligent community, seeking to get closer to egalitarianism. I also fell that 'Theory Z'is underdeveloped at this time time. I am also concerned that the world is taking a lot of the bad from 'Theory x'and 'Theory y' to manage itself, I feel this may be better if the equation was reversed. I also needed to try and be heard, before the "Sometimes benevolent narrow minded leaders of our planet" blow us all up! Sorry if this is to BOLD. Thank you for your time, I will now cease desist from annoying you further. Kindest regardsFOI-enthusiast (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, FOI-enthusiast. I for one have not been offended, and i doubt that anyone has. But yours was a very long post for the Teahouse, and not really addressed to our major concern here, questions about how to do things on Wikipedia. You are arguing for a particular view of Maslow's work, and that is really a matter for the talk page of the article. Moreover, it seems to me (unless I have misunderstood you) that you are arguing for a particular interpretation of primary source materiel. That is what Wikipedia calls original research (or "OR") and it may not appear in Wikipedia articles. Unless, that is, some reliable secondary source is found which makes this case. Then it may be used in the article, cited to that source. If you have developed a new theory about Maslow's work and how it developed, then you should seek to publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Then someone else could include it in the article. DES ^(talk) 03:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again DES,

Thank you again. You have helped me develop a better understanding of how to use Wiki. I cannot say that that I even noticed the talk page on articles, but I will definitely go and have a look, cheers. I am sorry if I seemed like I was arguing for a particular view on Maslow's work, rereading it I could have articulated better. I also wouldn't say that I have that I have developed a new theory per se. It just occurred to me that the management styles that seem to run our planet i.e Theory X and Y, could be based on an assumption, I thought it was worth checking and still do as there is an old saying about what happens when we Assume, that is all. I understand now that this conversation belongs elsewhere, so thank you for your patience and courteous reply. Here is a question that belongs here though, how did you get the words 'how' and 'new', to show up in bold in your reply to me? And how did you put the hyperlink into 'reliable'? If you don't mind sharing that with me, as I wasn't able to anything like that. Thank you again, I will not post like this in the Teahouse, in this manner again.FOI-enthusiast (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How to create a company page?

Please help me, how can I create wiki page for my Company? Pravesh Maurya (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello,Pravesh Maurya, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first piece of advice is, don't. Whether "my company" means "the company I own" or "the company I work for", you have a clear conflict of interest. If you have been assigned to create the article, or it will affect your evaluation at work you are considered a paid editor and must disclose this as described in that page. It is hard for most people to be neutral about somewhere that they are as closely connected with as their job or business.

The second issue is to consider whether your company is notable in the special sense that Wikipedia uses the term. See our guideline for the notability of companies. See also Wikipedia's golden rule. Have there been multiple, professionally published independent reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail? not passing mentions, not trivial and routine coverage, not inclusion in directories and lists, not blogs or fansites, and not by or based on info from the company itself, such as interviews or press releases? If not, no article can be created (or if created will be deleted fairly soon).

Creating a new article from scratch is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia -- it is best if a user edits existing articles for a while first. Then, read Your First Article, and Referencing for Beginners, and use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. The draft will need to cite those reliable sources I mentioned. The draft can then be reviewed by an experienced editor before it goes live as an article.

I hope all that is helpful. DES ^(talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

ORPHAN & CATEGORIES

• Questions: it says on the top of the Roberto Estuardo Penedo article: "This article is an orphan", how to link it to the other articles the right way? It also says it needs additional or more specific categories, how to do it? Thanks Olga Wills (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back, OlgaWills2017. An article is an "orphan" when no other articles link to it. If this article survives it will be good to introduce links from other articles where these are natural and proper, but I would not bother until the deletion discussion is over, because if the article is deleted they would only need to be removed again.

Similarly categories will be important in the long run if the article survives, but are not urgent now.

The urgent task, the sole urgent task at the moment, is to find additional published independent reliable sources that discuss Penedo in some detail, and showing how those sources demonstrate his notability. If this is not done the article will be deleted, and nothing else about it will matter. It is as simple as that, and being distracted by other issues about the article at this point is a mistake. DES ^(talk) 20:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

How to address obvious bias and logical confusion -what do I do?

First, the article "Mother Goddess" is not on subject. It is a critique of long-rejected theories of a universal matriarchal culture. Second, the author is illogical, confusing the existence of art depicting women with acceptance of a universal matriarchal culture. Third, there is no discussion of the many "mother goddess" cults (Isis, Demeter, Cybele, to name a few.). Fourth, it is patronizing, offensive, and lacking in scientific distance. The oldest sculptures in the world are of women, and, usually, they are obviously mothers. There are almost no early sculptures of male figures. Experts have no qualms about attributing spiritual significance cave paintings with male figures depicted with weapons or depictions of hands that would hunt. It demonstrates bias to insist that female figures be labeled "figures with probable cult significance". The standards should be the same for art depicting women as they are for art depicting men. C. BenaghCPBenagh (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You refer to the "author" but the article, Mother goddess, is the result of the input of many editors since 2003. The article may need help, but you may want to express yourself on the article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the only thing Wikipedia does is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, with no interpretation or elaboration. It is neutral in the presentation of those sources in accordance with the prominence of those sources -- which does not mean that we give each idea equal validity. The problems you are identifying sound more like a problem with mainstream scholarship (which we can do nothing about, we're a tertiary source) than with the article itself. You would have to go to Talk:Mother Goddess and cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that address the issues you have a problem with -- this is not the place to fix that article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding references to various contemporary artists

Hi everybody. I'm Robert, 36 (and counting... after winning a cancer fight), nice to meet you! I have my account since 2012, but I also wad editing in the defunct DMOZ (AOL shut it down) and now I feel like contributing on Wikipedia.

So, I have two months until I have to present my university (fine arts) graduation project and I have to write about various contemporary artists, low-key photography, symbols and more. Obviously, everything (besides the socio-philosophical concept) I state in my written project has to be referenced from notable books (which I borrowed from the library or purchased).

Question: May I add references I find relevant and useful to some artists' Wikipedia pages?

Robertgombos (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Robertgombos, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. You may certainly add citations to articles about artists, or indeed to any article on Wikipedia, provided that they are to reliable sources as Wikipedia defines reliable. Read the page linked. Please also read Referencing for beginners and the pages linked from there to learn about the methods of citation in use on Wikipedia, which are a little different from any standard academic style. But I am sure you will soon pick them up.

I caution you, however, if you plan to use work on Wikipedia as part of your project, that anyone can revert or modify any edits you may make. If, however, we are simply getting the benefit of a byproduct of your research, please do go ahed and welcome! DES ^(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Robertgombos. I am glad that your health has improved. Yes, you are welcome to expand and improve articles about these topics using high quality reliable sources. A perfect example would be if an article includes an accurate but unreferenced assertion about an artist. If one of the books you are studying verifies that claim, create a reference and add it. Another example would be if there is a hole in the existing article, and in its current form, it fails to describe a significant part of that artist's life or career. Summarize what the book you are reading says, include the book as a reference, and add that new content to the article. Referencing for beginbers may be useful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DESiegel and Cullen328! I already read most of the rules, before starting to edit something. Just a quick check. Take a look at Vera Lutter's page. This is one of the books I'm reading: Holzwarth, Hans Werner (October 1, 2009). 100 Contemporary Artists A-Z. US: Taschen America; 25 Slp Anv edition. p. 354. ISBN 978-3836514903. and she and one of her notable work (Venice Portfolios, 2007) is described on p. 354. That edit on Vera Lutter's page is valid?

The reference you've added looks good to me – though I know nothing about the subject and don't have access to the work you cited. I see you've also deleted the "CoI" tag from the article. I wondered whether that was justified, until I read the article's talk page and saw that some promotional content has been removed from the article since the tag was added, which I guess justifies your deletion.

So, yes, both your edits are constructive. Thank you. Maproom (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Robertgombos. In general, I agree with Maproom's comments above. However, please do not include links to an Amazon.com page, or any other page for a bookseller. When you provide an ISBN (as you did here, thanks) a link is automatically generated to our Special:BookSources pAge, where the reader will find links to various ways to purchase a copy, and to find copies in libraries. Thus we do not favor one seller over another, and we do not include links likely to change. Amazon, in particular, is notorious for changing the targets of its links to a different edition of a book, and even in some cases a different book. I have removed the link.

Also, particularly when a source is not available online, it can be useful to include a quote= parameter, followed by a short excerpt from the source showing what the source is actually saying about the topic. This quote will appear in the citation, not in the article body. This is never required, and can easily be over-used, but it can help a reader understand just what a source has said.

What you have done is already very helpful, Robertgombos. But if you were to ad some prose indicating just what about the specific work Venice Portfolios is significant, according to the newly added source, (rather than just naming the work in parens) that would be of further help. Again, thank you for your contributions. DES ^(talk) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom. I understand DESiegel, thanks a lot, I'll do my best! (and no, it's totally forbidden to use Wikipedia as a source in a dissertation - I forgot to mention this in my first reply). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgombos (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How to upload a "public use" photo

If possible, I would like to upload photos of GA State Representatives from the official website: http://www.house.ga.gov/mediaServices/en-US/HousePhoto.aspx. I can't figure out which options I'm supposed to use when uploading. The photos are listed as "public use." Does anyone know what to do to upload them??? Caspian X 02:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello LuckyWiki26, and welcome to the Teahouse. That page says "These photos are provided in electronic format by the Georgia House of Representatives as a public service for public information purposes.". It does not say that anyone may create derivative works, or re-use them commercially. Nor does it name a specific free license, nor indeed any specific license. I am afraid Wikipedia must treat these as copyrighted, and not under a free license, and therefore you may not upload them at all, as they do not qualify under fair use, being replaceable. (The linked page https://www.smugmug.com/about/terms/ does not help.) You could get a second opnion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, if you like -- people there have more experience with this issue, but I doubt the answer will be different. DES ^(talk) 02:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Help With Wiki Page

I need help editing the Page of Bryan Pray. Can anyone help? Aimco123 (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is to write the article in your own words, not just copy this website. Dbfirs 07:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How to use the Sandbox?

Are there instructions on how to use the Sandbox? For example, how to use it for preparing drafts for edits... Aarvotucker (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aarvotucker. There is "the sandbox" which is a page which can be used by anyone for quick tests and fooling around, and which is emptied out frequently. Do not use that page for anything you want to keep for more than a few minutes. Then, there is "your own sandbox", which you can reach by clicking the sandbox link next to your talk page link. You can use that page for anything related to improving the encyclopedia, and you can create as many sandbox subpages as you need to develop articles or test coding. If I am working on a draft article about a topic called "XYZ" , I will create a sandbox subpage for that draft article, and work on it at my leisure until I believe that it is ready for the encyclopedia. At that point. I will move it there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Stub template

Sorry, in advance, for this novice question, however, how does one add a stub template to a page? Chetsford (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No need for an apology, the Teahouse is intended for novice questions! To add a stub template, you put {{stub}} (that's eight characters) near the top of the article, on a line of its own. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chetsford, Maproom. The documentation on {{stub}} says:

"Place a stub template at the very end of the article, after the "External links" section, any navigation templates, and the category tags." (emphasis added)

However, that page also directs one to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting where many more specific stub tags. But if one uses the generic stub, it is not unlikely that another editor will replace this with a more specific stub tag. DES ^(talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Re-ping Chetsford. DES ^(talk) 15:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom and DES! Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How to make a dynamic picture?

I have a question about Libre Calc:

How do I create a drop-down list in Libre Calc which is linked to a worksheet with icons. An entry list must come with a drop-down list that allows someone to set an icon on another worksheet. I can not do it.

Example:

On the "Import" worksheet, you can insert an icon on the "Announcement Cards" sheet via a drop-down menu. All icons are on an "icons" worksheet. I do not know how to connect these 3 worksheets to achieve that.

The goal is to create a dynamiche image in Calc.

I would like to receive a ready-to-use solution so that I can finish my program as it should eventually come true.

Thanks in advance!

Original question in Dutch

Ik heb een vraag over Libre Calc.

Hoe maak ik een keuzelijst in Libre Calc welke is gekoppeld aan een werkblad met pictogrammen. Op een invoerblad moet een keuzelijst komen waarmee iemand een icoon kan instellen op op een ander werkblad. Ik krijg het niet voorelkaar.

Voorbeeld:

Op het werkblad "Invoer" kan men via een keuzelijst een pictogram invoegen op het werkblad "aankondigingskaartjes". Alle pictogrammen staan op een "pictogrammen"werkblad. Ik weet niet hoe ik deze 3 werkbladen met elkaar moet koppelen om datgene te bereiken.

Het doel is uiteindelijk om een dynamiche afbeelding te maken in Calc.

Hoe maak ik een keuzelijst in Libre Calc welke is gekoppeld aan een werkblad met pictogrammen. Op een invoerblad moet een keuzelijst komen waarmee iemand een icoon kan instellen op op een ander werkblad. Ik krijg het niet voorelkaar.

Voorbeeld:

Op het werkblad "Invoer" kan men via een keuzelijst een pictogram invoegen op het werkblad "aankondigingskaartjes". Alle pictogrammen staan op een "pictogrammen"werkblad. Ik weet niet hoe ik deze 3 werkbladen met elkaar moet koppelen om datgene te bereiken.

Het doel is uiteindelijk om een dynamiche afbeelding te maken in Calc.

Graag zou ik een kant en klare oplossing ontvangen zodat ik mijn programma kan afmaken zoals het er uiteindelijk uit moet komen te zien.

Bij voorbaat dank!Ina Janssen (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ina Janssen This is a page for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, not for general questions. If you ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, someone there might be able to help answer your technical question. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Joseph, Thank you!Ina Janssen (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How to link to an article in another language

Writing articles about Silvia Serbescu and Liana Serbescu, I need to mention Constanta Erbiceanu. There is, however, no Wikipedia article about her in English, so I wish to link to the Romanian article. I tried to put "ro:Constanta Erbiceanu" between double square brackets, but this doesn't seem to work. What am I doing wrong?

Jpkent (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jpkent and welcome to the Teahouse. You would need to add an interlanguage link, the code to add a link to Constanta Erbiceanu in Romanian Wikipedia is {{ill|Constanta Erbiceanu|ro}}, which displays the link as Constanta Erbiceanu. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jpkent. Joseph2302 is right, but I'd like to explain a little more. What you tried to do creates an link in the list of languages at the side: they are supposed to be to equivalents of the current article, so that wouldn't be right. You could have got it to work with an initial colon thus: [[:ro:Constanta Erbiceanu]]. That displays as ro:Constanta Erbiceanu; but the template Joseph suggeste, {{ill}}, creates a redlink to the (non-existent) English article, and an additional link '(ro)' to the Romanian article. If somebody at some time creates the English article, then the red link will automatically go blue (that is core functionality of the Mediawiki software) and it will also stop displaying the '(ro)' link. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is no Romanian article under that name either. Rojomoke (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for this valuable information. Actually the Romania article does exist, but you need to use a cedilla under the t, and you find it there: Constanța Erbiceanu. Problem solved.

Jpkent (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing word

The web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun in the section titled Background has a missing word. I believe the word "year" is missing. The #### is where the word belongs.

The children reported a prophecy that prayer would lead to an end to the Great War, and that on October 13th of that #### the Lady would reveal her identity and perform a miracle "so that all may believe."[11]

Can you fix it? 72.25.92.191 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi 72.25.92.191, welcome to the Teahouse. "Year" was accidentally removed yesterday in [2]. I have fixed it. Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Under which licence to upload a personal photo

If I am writing an article about a living person, and I want to use a photo that was made with her camera by an anonymous passer-by, what are the licencing terms under whch I can upload it?

Another possibility is that of a photo made by one of her parents, now deceased. She is the sole heir of this material. No one else can supply an authorization. Under what licence terms can it be used on Wikipedia?

Jpkent (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jpkent. Unfortunately, except where materials are in the public domain by reason of their age, only the copyright holder has the power to license them in a way acceptable to Wikipedia. So I'm afraid that there is no way to use the first one, unless the photographer can be traced to give permission. In the case of the second one, it sounds as if she would now be the copyright holder by right of inheritance. If that is the case, then she has the power (if she chooses to do so) to release it under a suitable licence. She (not you) needs to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jpkent, ColinFine. On the first example above, I gather that there is some ongoing legal debate on the issue of "bystander selfies". Some legal scholars have taken the view that when a person asks a random stranger to take a picture of of the person, offering the person's camera or cell-phone for the purpose, the copyright in the picture remains with the owner of the camera, who is also the subject, and the person who has, in effect, composed the shot. I am not sure if any court has ruled on the matter. I think there has also been some on-wiki debate on this point. If the subject executed a free license on such a photo, I would be inclined to accept it. I don't know if WMF legal has taken a position on this issue yet. DES ^(talk) 15:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

One could raise the issue at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, I suppose. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Higher in Google Search Results

Hi.

I created an article called Charlie Heat. I need for the wiki page to be high in the search results on google. Currently, when i search it in google, the wiki page doesn't show at all, however, when I search in Wiki, the article is there. Please give direction.

Whitwins (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Whitwins - we have no control over how Google control their search results, and frankly, we are not interested in them.
Why do you "need" "the wiki page to be high in the search results on google" ? Are you trying to promote Charlie Heat? do you have a conflict of interest? - Arjayay (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Whitwins. New articles are tagged with NOINDEX until they have been in place for 30 days, or until an experienced editor has "patrolled" the article and taken any steps that seem needed. NOINDEX requests search engines not to index the page. Google generally complies, although no one requires this.

The article Charlie Heat badly needs additional citations to independent published reliable sources in order to establish its notability. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article. I have removed some puffery from the article. If it were put up for deletion as not-notable right now, it might well be deleted. DES ^(talk) 18:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction DES. Im learning here.

Whitwins (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty inserting references

I'm creating an article on Marjorie Knott Eastman and have references I want to cite, but I'm having difficulty linking the URLs to the page. NPPRNashville (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NPPRNashville. The process for adding references is outlined at Help:Referencing for beginners. If you have any more specific questions about that process, or are struggling to follow the guidance there, do let us know. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this tip CordlessLarry. Will review this again. NPPRNashville (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, NPPRNashville. Please read Referencing for beginners for a good overview. I recommend using citation templates to create references, because they prompt you for the bibliographic information and format the references consistently. Here is the one that I use for books.

<ref>{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | title = | publisher = | series = | volume = | edition = | date = | location = | pages = | language = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = | mr = | zbl = | jfm = }}</ref>

Add the URL to the appropriate field, fill in the other relevant fields and you are good to go. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328. I'll review and let you know if I can't figure this out. Appreciate all the help! NPPRNashville (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette

I'm watching the old Woodstock documentary, and one of the more obvious 'themes' of the film is the prevalence of drugs. I wondered what Wikipedia had to say about the subject and looked up the article. Oddly, the word is only printed once, and that's in the Reference section. Seems like a significant omission to me.

Would it be in poor taste to point this out on the Talk page? I'm not knowledgeable enough to add the material myself, but if I could encourage someone else to add it...

127 O O 1 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 127 O O 1. What you need to do is to find a reliable source that describes the drug use at Woodstock and how it was portrayed in the film. I am the main writer of an article about a similar but lesser known rock music festival, Goose Lake International Music Festival. I included a description of the drug use there because it was a major element in the reliable sources describing the event. If you find such a source, you can either add the content yourself or propose it on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

But to answer your specific question: yes, you could certainly bring it up on the talk page. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss how the article could be improved. Comments of the form "I think it would be appropriate to discuss XYZ in the article" are entirely on topic. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Jim, ColinFine - Wouldn't the movie itself be at least in part a reliable source? It was cut in a way to be entertaining, but in fact wasn't it a documentary of sorts? John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon. It might be - but a source for what? Does it say that the prevalence of drugs is a theme, or does it just show lots of drugs? If the latter, it would be original research to draw a conclusion. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing with a VPN Installed?

I recently connected my home computer to a virtual private network (VPN) service. I'm unsure how a VPN works, but apparently it masks one's IP address. I've tried two VPN "locations" through which to connect to the internet, and it looks like both locations' IP addresses have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for various reasons.

Assuming that my interpretation of what is going on is correct, then would you agree that the only way to edit Wikipedia would be to turn off the VPN while doing so? Or is it possible to grant a block-exemption for that IP address? (I doubt the latter would be possible since I assume the IP address is being used by multiple users.) Or is it possible to edit another way while still keeping the VPN on?

Thank you for your thoughts. Kekki1978 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is some additional info. The IP address changes depending on which location I select when turning on the VPN. Choose one location, for example, results in a web-host block. This block was implemented 2 months ago, and I've edited without using the VPN since then, so the block must be occurring because the recent use of the VPN is sending me to an IP address that's been blocked. I'm able to edit Wikipedia fine when I turn off the VPN; I'm just wondering if turning it off is necessary to edit or whether there is another way around this obstacle. Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: editing through VPN is prohibited except in a few specialised circumstances. You can find out why the ban and what the exceptions are at Wikipedia:Open proxies. Nthep (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thank you, I will check out the info at the link you provided. No harm was intended when I installed the VPN; I just didn't think about its effect on editing Wikipedia. Thanks for the guidance. Kekki1978 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: WP:PROXY and Meta:No open proxies say While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. Editing through a VPN is not prohibited, per say, it's just that the IP addresses used may be freely blocked at the slightest hint of trouble. If Kekki1978 has sufficient reason, they could apply for Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of POV pushing

Hi guys. I edited Redskin (slang), initially to remove a minor claim with little supporting evidence from the Lead, and later to rewrite the origins part of the Origins and meaning section (which was poorly attributed and spread out over a massive rambling section). Another editor has taken exception to this and, after a bunch of reverts without edit summaries, and without attempting to discuss, has slapped a POV tag on the section.

He's then opened a spurious NPOV noticeboard case and effectively stated the article is locked until that's resolved, whenever that is. As far as I can see, he's just using this to bypass the usual consensus mechanism, presumably with the hope that I'll wonder off; it's been 8 months since I did any serious editing, and I wasn't really intending to come back, I was just fixing something that I happened across.

Is there any way to get admin or 3rd party review of the NPOV issue, so we can put that to bed? Bromley86 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Bromley86, an admin should comment on the noticeboard. A lot of them hang out over there. I'm a third party with no interest in the article or either side, so I may take a look and see if I have any suggestions. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers White Arabian Filly, that would be appreciated. My main concern is that admins will just bypass it as the complainant hasn't really gone through the process correctly. My recent post on NPOV includes links to my current version of the article (which was reverted), as well as the version that was in place before I started editing. The dispute centres on the Origin and meaning section, which I renamed Etymology and subdivided. Bromley86 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole article is about the word, not the subject which the word denotes. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would be in favour of deleting the article, or transferring it to Wiktionary. Maproom (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the level of hostility to changing the article, I can only imagine what would happen if you tried that :) . I imagine it'd get merged into an article on the Washington Redskins name controversy, and then split out again at a later date? Bromley86 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle

I am trying some of the tools and I see that Twinkle has given me a rollback option. I tried it on my sandbox and it seems to work as I would expect ... I thought editors needed to be given permission to access rollback tools (as with huggle) - I am confused about this. Is it different from standard rollback? - I have never been in a situation where I would have needed to use rollback, but would I be allowed to use this if I needed to? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seraphim System. Twinkle does not require permission but note WP:TWINKLEABUSE. Its rollback feature reminds of the MediaWiki feature at Wikipedia:Rollback but there are some differences. Standard rollback is faster and doesn't require JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

My editions to "North Africa" in article on "Holocaust."

I am really sorry, but I don't know how to enter discussion. Thank you for putting an eye to this important article.

My goal is that Wikipedia allows me to edit the article, using the same books and authors mentioned by other editors. Wikipedia's editors and administration shouldn't select what to quote from same authors.

And my editions, based on Longerich, Bauer, Yahil, and Gilbert, clearly show that Wikipedia should not have a section called "North Africa" which Yad Vashem, a partisan group, does. Longerich, Bauer, Yahil, and Gilbert, narrate the history of the Jews in Vichy North Africa and Italian Libya, as an integral part of the Holocaust in France (comprised of the Metropole and its overseas territories - see Poznanski, Bauer, Longerich), and Italy respectively.

So, administration of wikipedia should allow me to use Longerich, Bauer, Yahil, and Gilbert to present the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe/European Jews, as inclusive of the persecution of the Jews living in Europe's overseas territories, because the Holocaust was a political and not a geographical process: it was the state-sponsored - by state laws and policies- persecution of the Jews and other undesirables, and evolved according to geo-political borders, and not continental borders - as very clearly presented in Yahil, Bauer, Longerich, and Gilbert. During the Holocaust period, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Libya didn't exist as independent political entities, but were governed by European nations, in the context of the new imperialism. The Holocaust of the Jews of Europe/European Jews took place in the political context of of imperial Europe, as presented by Bauer, Yahil and Longerich.

And, nowadays, serious Holocaust and genocide scholars agree that the Holocaust was not an event or a genocide, like descibed by Yad Vashem, sometimes, but a project and process, as described by Longerich.

1. First, Henia (Hanna in Polish) and Rachelle (my granma's name) are the same person (I opened a new account with my laptop, because I didn't remember my password - I will now use only one account.

2. My purpose is not to plagiarize, but make sure that if wikipedia editors cite authors or let other editors cite authors such as Bauer, Yahil, Gilbert, Longerich and others, those editors should allow other quotations by same authors from same books by me, and not delete them - of course, I will be more than happy to comply with wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please, ask the editors to specify, in details, the copyrights violations - I don't have the books of Yahil, Longerich, and Bauer with me, as I just moved to CA. I have put valid references to my editions. I have only quoted separate sentences, that was allowed by wikipedia (I did read the Wikipedia chapter on citations". I did read in 'wikipedia citations' that one sentence can be quoted.

3. Why are some editors allowed to support their definition of Holocaust by mentioning only the name of the authors, but not the book, and not the page, like in:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also referred to as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which some six million European Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, and the World War II collaborators with the Nazis.[3][b] 3: Snyder 2010, pp. 389, 413, chpt. Numbers and Terms b: • • Further examples of this usage can be found in: Bauer 2002, (2002). Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Template:Cite pages Cesarani 2004, Dawidowicz 1981, Evans 2002, Gilbert 1986, Hilberg 1996, Longerich 2012, Phayer 2000, Zuccotti 1999.

Bauer's definition: “Let us be clear: … Shoah, Churban, Judeocide, whatever we call it, is the name we give to the attempted planned total physical annihilation of the Jewish people, and its partial perpetration with the murder of most of the Jews of Europe.” Rethinking the Holocuast, Bauer states: : “The Holocaust is an extreme example of the context of despair. It was motivated by a murderous ideology.” A racist ideological war, and Nazism or National Socialism was the ideology behind the Holocaust. Therefore, the racist national domestic, and international goals of the main perpetrator, Nazi Germany led by Hitler, and the characteristics of Nazism determined the definition of the Holocaust and its victims.”

Again, 1) I am asking that the editor who mentioned "Bauer 2002, (2002). Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cesarani 2004, Dawidowicz 1981, Evans 2002, Gilbert 1986, Hilberg 1996, Longerich 2012, Phayer 2000, Zuccotti 1999" cite the name of the books and the page; and 2) that Wikipedia allows me to cite Yahil, Gilbert, Bauer and Longerich to show that the persecution of the Jews in Vichy North Africa and Italian Libya is an integral part of the Holocaust in France and Italy respectively, and an integral part of the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe/European Jews, as clearly supported by Yahil, Bauer, Longerich and Gilbert.

Thank you again for following up, and your kind attention. Henia Perlman (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

. I didn't use the book of Satloff but books by Longerich, Yahil, Gilbert and from Yad vashem website.

The current paragraph "North Africa" is not supported by the evidence and valid sources. I mentioned above. Henia PerlmanHenia Perlman (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Henia Perlman. It is very difficult for a new editor to make major changes to a high visibility/high importance article like The Holocaust. Many highly experienced editors (including me) keep an eye on this article and will insist that any new content complies with our policies and guidelines scrupulously. We are especially strict regarding copyright, plagiarism and attribution. I have not evaluated the situation in detail, but it looks like some editors have concluded that you are trying to introduce copyright violations into the article. This will be resisted forcefully and you may be blocked from editing if this behavior persists. I suggest that you explain at Talk:The Holocaust precisely what you wish to add to the article, and why. Defer to more experienced editors regarding the proper way to accomplish your goals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't look to me like a content dispute. Rachelle Perlman made some additions to the article, which were then deleted as unreferenced. There was an edit war, which Henia Perlman joined in support of Rachelle. I can't see what the Perlmans were adding as their recent edits have been redacted; but yesterday's addition of 8,399 bytes looks like more than "separate sentences". I think the Perlmans need to understand that additions to an article (particularly a controversial one like this) need to be supported by references to reliable sources, not by extensive copying from such sources. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem—or one of the problems—with the added content has been that the formatting (or lack thereof, such as the complete absence of ref tags and a dearth of quotation marks) has made it difficult or impossible to differentiate what was being said in Wikipedia's voice from what a source had said. This was compounded by a complete lack of edit summaries. Replies to feedback and attempts to help have been sporadic, and the existence of two accounts hasn't helped matters. (I'm assuming there are two editors, but how can we know?) I suggested yesterday (on Rachelle Perlman's talk page) that it might be better to propose changes on the article's talk page, then let experienced editors evaluate and, if appropriate, add them in wikified form. I still think that's the most workable way to resolve this, but I could be wrong. (pinging Ealdgyth and Diannaa just to ensure they're aware of this thread) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Henia Perlman: You added to your initial comment here after some people had replied, which makes this thread difficult to follow. I'd like to suggest at this point that you post any further thoughts related to The Holocaust at Talk:The Holocaust—not here at the Teahouse or on anyone's user talk page. It's just too difficult to keep track of a discussion when it's happening in different places, and the place to discuss changes to an article is on that article's talk page. Thanks. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Vague source some book in the library

How do I tag or template a vague source. The article Tomostethus multicinctus lists some unidentified research notes as a source. This is akin to citing "a book in the Seattle Public Library." I want to tag it so that whoever added it fills in the source fully. The same source has been used other places on Wikipedia. The library or archive is not the source, the book or journal in the library or archive is the source. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If clicking the link to the Seachable Online Orthinological Archive takes you to the actual source, then I suggest that you add the bibliographic information yourself. That improves the encyclopedia, while tagging doesn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It takes me to an unidentifiable pdf of two pages of research notes. I tried searching SOOA, but could not find the original article. I am also editing on mobile, so doing citations can be difficult. Usually I do just correct, but if I don't have time, then someone else might get to it if I tag it. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, relevant templates are here, but I doubt it would be helpful to add one in this context. You're discussing it on the article's talk page, which is the right thing to do. If you find you can't reach consensus about a given source, additional opinions from uninvolved editors can be sought by posting a query at the reliable sources noticeboard. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. I have been editing for ages, and I've never seen that page. (Usually all I do is add sources to very technical articles.) --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I have to ask, if a source is bad, and I can't fix it, Cullen is suggesting don't tag, just let it sit there? Why even have tags? I search for botany articles with unreferenced tags and add references, but now those tags are bad for the encyclopedia? Why have them, then?--2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:86 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How to use a Commons image (instead of an English Wikipedia image)

Hi! I'd like to use this image instead of this image, but the latter appears when I write [[File:Makchang.jpg]]. Could there be any solution? I'm also curious if the latter image could be moved to another title. Because it doesn't seem like makchang (beef abomasum), but dwaeji-gopchang (pork small intestines). Thanks! --Brett (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brett Cox when local and Commons files have exactly the same name the local file has "priority", it gets displayed and the Commons one is ignored. The solution is to move one of them to a different name, the easiest being to move the local file. Moving Commons files is a bit of a "dark art" particularly if the image is used on many other Wikimedia sites. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Thank you! I couldn't find out how to move the file yet. If you happen to know how, please let me know. I would greatly appreciate it! 🙏 --Brett (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Brett Cox It is actually a candidate for moving to Commons, which I can do. Please confirm that it the one that should be titled "dwaeji-gopchang", then I will do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I just read that dwaeji-makchang (literally "pig makchang") can mean "pork rectum". (I read it here. The same website also confirms that makchang by default is "beef abomasum" here.) I'm sure what is in the photo is not grilled beef abomasum, but I don't think I can tell grilled pork rectums from grilled small intestines. As the original uploader used the name "makchang", I guess it should be "dwaeji-makchang". Thank you again for your reply and help! --Brett (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Brett Cox I will ask WikiProject Korea for input as the original uploader is no longer active (last edit in April 2014). Let's see if we can get a more positive identification. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Avoid deletion of article

The article Liana Serbescu has been proposed for deletion. As a beginner, I have a few questions.

First of all, the expressed concern: "Essentially no citations to reliable sources". It is unfortunate that the two reviews Carrefour and Compact are nowhere to be found on the internet. I only have them in hard copy. What do I need to do to make them reliable?

Second, whatever happens, I wish to save from deletion the mention of Mrs Serbescu's valuable contributions: her recordings, and her publication of Ethel Smyth's piano works at Breitkopf & Härtel. There cannot be any doubt there: the CD's and the piano scores exist and bear her name.

I am re-reading the books and articles mentioned in the Bibliography, in order to include inline citations to those works in the Biography section. I hope I will make it in time - 7 days is a short period for working through work the preparation of which has taken much more time.

All help is welcome! Jpkent (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jpkent: Do this right now: open the article with "edit source" (if that is not available, just "edit"), copy everything in there except the proposed deletion tag, and paste it to a Text file on your computer. Save it there to work on in the future. If the article is deleted, you can repost it at User:Jpkent/sandbox to work on further. Never carry out large projects on site (unless you're doing a long-term overhaul of an existing article).

You need to provide a fuller citation besides just "Carrefour." Is that the surname of the author, the name of the publisher, or the title of the source? Two of those things are not given at all and the third is barely explicit. I can somewhat tell that Compact is supposed a serialized publication. Is it the one for this website? If so, see if they have archives.

Existence is not the same as for notability. Wikipedia's standards of notability require new articles to cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources which are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with it. The easiest way to write an article is to gather such sources (ignoring the ones that are affiliated, or more about something else, or only mention the subject in passing), paraphrase and summarize those sources as concisely as possible (sticking in-line citations at the end of each unique idea), and then arranging those sentences into paragraph format. Then post those paragraphs (so that notability is clearly established in the first version) and expand from there with other reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Do read or review Referencing for Beginners to understand how to format a reference citation on Wikipedia, even for off-line sources. Once you have even a few of the sources cited, you may remove the Proposed deletion tag, which will stop the 7-day clock. Note that deletion after 7 days is not automatic: an admin must review and approve the deletion. DES ^(talk) 12:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Template for marking points as potentially irrellevant

Is there an inline template for marking points as potentially irrelevant for the subject of the article? If so, what is it? AtlasDuane (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AtlasDuane, and welcoeme to the Teahouse. I am not aware of such a template. In my view, the best way to proceed with such points is to make a post to the article's talk page, describing what you think should be removed and why. Alternativly, if you are confident, simply be bold and edit the irrelevant content out, describing what you are doing in the edit summary and preferably on the talk page as well, if there is significant change involved. If anyone reverts or objects, follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle and try to reach a consensus non the talk page. DES ^(talk) 13:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, nevermind, I found it, it's {{relevance inline}}. Thanks anyway. AtlasDuane (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Did I adequately establish notability?

Hi all - wikipedia newcomer here. I created a page for mathematician Grzegorz Rempala which has been flagged for notability. Since the flag was added, I have done the following:

• Linked to computing the permanent and central limit theorem pages which list Rempala's work in their notes
• Added reference to Kosciuszko Foundation Collegium of Eminent Scientists which lists Rempala as a distinguished fellow
• Added reference to announcement appointing Rempala to interim director position of the Mathematical Biosciences Institute

I think that this page meets the criteria of notability for an academic. What else could be added so that the flag can be removed?Wgehring91 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wgehring91, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I suspect that Rempala is in fact notable, I don't see that the article establishes that as yet. The sources cited so far mention Rempala , but say very little about his work, or are by Rempala. Of the points listed in WP:NACADEMIC, only #6 might possibly apply, and it is not clear if "intrim Director" really counts, nor if the Mathematical Biosciences Institute at The Ohio State University is "a major academic institution or major academic society."

What is needed, really, are sources by others but about Rempala. Sources that go into a bit of detail about him and his work, the impacts it has had, and the like. That would do it beyond question. DES ^(talk) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Our Corporate Page Keeps Getting Declined. Need Help.

A couple of months ago, our corporate Wikipedia listing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:M-Files) that had been active for several years was suddenly declined. We scrambled to address the issues provided as the reason for our removal and resubmitted for inclusion. Last month, we received notification that our re-submission was declined. The reason cited this time was:

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

We again worked on our Wikipedia page's references to ensure all are accessible and from notable sources such as CMSWire, Forbes and CRN. We again resubmitted only to wait several more weeks to learn that we were declined again. This time the reason given was:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

All of our sources are from very reliable sources. We just don't know what to do next. Any direction or guidance that you could provide to us would be greatly appreciated.

-Todd McVeigh M-Files todd.mcveigh@m-files.comToddmcveigh (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Toddmcveigh I have taken a quick look at your draft and I agree with the other reviewers that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The sources [3], [4], [5], [6] only mention the software in passing. Wikipedia requires there to be in-depth coverage in reliable, independent published sources. We have no interest in what the company says about itself and if there are no reliable sources about the product then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm struggling to work out what the history of this case is. The article was nominated for deletion in February (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-Files) and the discussion closed with a delete verdict by Kurykh. However, the article never seems to have been deleted, and shortly after the AfD close, Ronhjones moved it to draft space. Was this by request, or was there just a failure to act on the AfD closure and the move was incidental to that? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Ron restored and moved to draft in response to a request. Nthep (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a mention that Wikipedia does not host "corporate Wikipedia listing"s, and that articles do not have owners. Perhaps the move to draft was a generous second chance to add independent WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:Notability, and this has not been done? Dbfirs 16:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Request at OTRS Ticket:2017031310016663, with claim of more info to be added - Moved to Draft, and explained it cannot be moved back to article space, without a successful review or it's likely to suffer a WP:CSD#G4 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Nthep and Ronhjones. Apologies for the confusion - I was looking at the log for Draft:M-Files rather than for M-Files, which is why I mistakenly thought it hadn't been deleted following the AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

REQUEST for DELETION of PATAS (Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society) wikipage

Greetings from NYC, USA. The PATAS page was vandalized again and once too many.... I tried to edit, change and restore the original page. I am stupid with computers so forgive me if I did something wrong.. But is moot and academic. This society has no more website, because they are trying to erase the history. I am the founder but I am tired of visiting this wiki PATAS to see myself vilified again and again. better to remove this page once and for all. Thank you for understanding. Kind regards, Marissa Langseth, RN, MSN Hapimarissa (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

For reference Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DES ^(talk) 15:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Erasing history is hardly a noble aim, and not one that would be supported by Wikipedia; however, nearly all the references are to publications by the subject, so we could delete on the grounds that PATAS was never WP:Notable. What does anyone else think? Dbfirs 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending further investigation, I would oppose such a deletion. It would need to be done via AfD in any case; I would surely decline a PROD, and this is far from speedy territory. I think what is in the article right now is enough to show notability, and I would try to find and add additional sources. If the organization has actually disbanded, and a source can be cited to say so, that should be included in the article, but that does not make it non-notable while it existed. There seems to have been a slow edit war, or it might be called mildly persistent vandalism, over the identities of the founder(s) and some other details, some of them BLP violations (accusations of improper conduct not sourced). Most of this seems to have been from IP editors, and semi-protection or PC1 protection might handle this. DES ^(talk) 16:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability seems to be ok, I've found two sources that are not (yet) cited in the article - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/new-atheists-philippines/518175/ and http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/95240-secular-humanism-philippines-religion I think PC1 should be sufficient protection. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine if we add independent sources. (I object to erasing history!) There is more to this dispute than I'd realised. Dbfirs 17:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello there.. thank you for the response.. Yes, there are a lot of outside sources that confirm I am the PATAS Founder.. however, it was taken over by self entitled arrogant narcissists, some with intention to discredit me and my effort when I founded it in 2011.. posting some notes vilifying me and the like, more disputes are in order but you may not understand it because of our Filipino culture. Oh well. The Atlantic just picked up my new society and I even mentioned PATAS.. Geez, another proof that I am the founder. Well, as long as the history is not erased and it say the TRUTH.. then it is all up to you. Thanks and kind regards. ms M Hapimarissa (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I even made my own personal blog because I know the PATAS website will be liquidated due to no funds when I left them in 2013 to make HAPI : http://narsdoktorsausa.org/2016/05/ Check that out... it was originally in the PATAS website.. but they cannot sustain that website.. that I gave them when I left.. ms M Hapimarissa (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone also vandalized the PATAS logo.. It is no longer in Imacron and not in Norway. so this wikipage are all blatant lies.. It is better to delete that page in my opinion.. because the true members would bot even edit it for their own good to put the real address and their location. But they will spend time vilifying me.. that is how most Filipinos work.. crab mentality and poverty contributed to that mentality. Thanks for understanding , ms M Hapimarissa (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Page merge needed

I think the page Turritopsis nutricula should be merged into Immortal jellyfish or it should be speedily deleted. It contains only content already mentioned in Immortal jellyfish. GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi GermanGamer77 Immortal jellyfish redirects to a different, but closely related species Turritopsis dohrnii. It's quite common for articles about closely related taxa to have similar content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW the chances of an article about a species (that is properly proven to exist or have existed) being deleted from en.WP is vanishingly close to zero. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh. OK. And I think these are pretty cool creatures. GermanGamer77 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

article ready for review in my sandbox

Hi- I am very new to trying to write and submit an article. my draft is in my sandbox. How does someone know to go review it and then get a final version posted? thank you for your time. Mary Anthony StartzMaryAnthonyStartz (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MaryAnthonyStartz, to request review you simply place {{subst:submit}} on the page, either at the very top or bottom will do. Be sure to include the double curly braces. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Roger, if you use {{tls}}, then you don't have to type "subst", and the link will work, thus: {{tls|submit}} displays as {{subst:submit}}. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

need help improving an article

so i recently made a page about brian wecht, a member of the band ninja sex party, because he is a notable person that deserves at least a stub article. but it has been put up for deletion multiple times, and whenever i fix one thing, something else is brought up. this time, i dont really know what to do to fix it. it said something about disambiguous links?? i dont quite remember. could someone look over the page and tell me what i can do to improve it, in a way that a newbie like me can understand? thanks in advance. Irelynkennedy (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Irelynkennedy, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem is that the cited sources are mostly by Wecht, rather than about Wecht. Wikipedia articles must be based on independent, professionally published, reliable sources. Sources from the subject or those closely associated with him (such as his employer) may be used, but do not help to establish his notability, a key concept on Wikipedia (with an unfortunate name, in my view). A source such as https://necss.org/brian-wecht/ would be good, except that conference bios are usually supplied by the subject, and so are not independent. What we need is citations to newspapers, magazines, books, journal articles, or the like (any of which may be online or offline) that have written about Wecht. He sounds notable, but we need to have the sources to demonstrate this. Interviews with the subject are of limited worth, and so are links to the subject's own work. Does that help at all? DES ^(talk) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How to submit a stub

Dear Teahouse,

I'm currently working on an article about the volunteer-based emergency organisation Draft:South Australian State Emergency Service. Sourcing is difficult to find, so I have decided to make this a stub until I can find some documentation not written by people directly involved in the organisation. I'd like the stub published in the hopes that someone may see it in a search & be able to help improve it. What is the best way to go about doing this?

Kind regards KaiRAWR (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KaiRAWR. We only allow articles about topics which have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Those sources should be provided as inline references. This applies to all articles including stubs, which are just short, uninformative articles. I do not think that editors should set out to write stubs in 2017. That may have been OK in the early days of Wikipedia, but this project is 16 years old and we need informative articles these days, not stubs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi KaiRAWR, please do not add stub tags to drafts - a draft is always classified as a draft, regardless of its length. Stub is a classification for mainspace articles only. The draft is in any case far too long to be classed as a stub if it were to be moved to mainspace.

If mainstream news sources are hard to find (because "mentions" are so common) how about looking for government reports and policy documents that deal with the organisation? I'd also expect that such a significant organisation would have been discussed in the state legislature on more than one occasion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not independent of the subject, so needs to be used with care, but I found this source, which might be helpful, KaiRAWR. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My wikipedia created page is in draft

Hello Team,

I am trying to add a profile created by someone with name of "Pradeep Gupta" but it is in draft.

Can any one guide me where I am going wrong and how can I edit and make it live again please guide me Sociowash (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The draft includes explanations that note the problems with the article. It does not address the fact that your user page identifies you as a "Digital Marketing Agency." See WP:PAID and WP:COI for why you should probably just stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Information for Sufi Rani khanam is not published yet.

Hi Wiki Support Team,

The Information for Sufi Rani khanam is not published yet, please do the needful and let me know what is the reason behind this.

07:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)07:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)07:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufi Rani Khanam (talk • contribs)

Is this question about Draft_talk:Rani_Khanam, where you appear to have written a draft about yourself, or about your user page, which you have used to write about "AAMAD"? Neither is at all likely to be published in its current state. Maproom (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There's also User:Sufi Rani Khanam/sandbox. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why our first article was decline

We are new and unexperienced in writing articles on Wikipedia. It seemed to us that our first article was declined because it was written like a manual. therefore we asked for assistance to understand how to change the article in order to fix Wikipedia standards.

You can find our article at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Menikini/sandbox

Thanks in advance NorbertMenikini (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your article appears to be a copyright violation, copied from your own website. You need to be aware that Wikipedia does not host advertising. You also need to be aware that your user name is not permitted because it represents a company. Only individual accounts are permitted, and, if you create an individual account, you will need to declare your WP:Conflict of interest. What would be the title of the article you wish to write? We already have an article on Superheated steam. Dbfirs 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How to access a draft on a new day, and after logging out

I am new to Wikipedia and want to add an article, but I want to draw it up in a draft that I can work on over several days, after logging out and in again. I have spent hours now, searching for an answer. How can one "save" a draft without clicking the SAVE button?

Nunukis (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The "save" button is the right one to save your draft so that you can come back to it later. It doesn't get submitted for review until you hit the "submit" button, or add {{subst:submit}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversy sections

Hello again Teahouse!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Perry_(fighter)

Recently edits have been made to the page of a professional mixed martial arts fighter to add a controversy section that includes a story about racist comments made by the fighter's friend and cornerman Alex Nicholson, and accusations that a photo of the fighter wearing a black plastic mask was in fact Blackface. They cite sources from bleacherreport.com, a site any blogger can sign up to and write stories for, and one that employs every dubious trick in the book to get clicks. It is not in any way a credible news site but the editor that keeps making the changes insists it must stay on his page and is going to report me for section blanking. I am the second person to bring up the issue of defamation but they don't care. Sadly this is spillover from another community where one of the fighter's fan groups resides, and this person is purposefully trying to "troll" them as well as hoping the fighter's employer terminates his contract. The "blackface" photo is still on the fighter's instagram account, any homophobic tweets we're deleted and there was no official reprimand of any kind, only a statement made about Alex Nicholson's comments which the fighter did not hear at the time, let alone have any involvement with.

Is this section within the rules? and if not, what do I do to make sure that person doesn't just keep undoing the edits.

ty for your replies in advance Jahannum (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I will share the controversy section (below) because it's not currently visible page in question

Controversy

During his UFC debut at UFC 202 Perry and his cornerman fellow UFC middleweight Alex Nicholson were accused of racism after Nicholson shouted during the pre-fight introductions, saying, "He can't even open his motherf--king eyes." referring to his Asian opponent Hyun Gyu Lim. Nicholson later addressed the comment on Twitter, saying, "I respect every man who steps in the cage and my comments were insensitive towards lim (sic) I was hype for my brother but It's all love no hate." Nicholson also referred to Lim as "Dung Him Kong Jung Foo," in a Facebook post. On the Monday following the fight Perry offered an explanation while on The MMA Hour stating "I don't think any of my competition can see me, and when I hit Lim, I opened a lot of people's eyes," Perry told Ariel Helwani. Helwani then clarified that the comment was made prior to the fight to which Perry responded "Well, we can see the future." Perry has also been criticized for making homophobic and racist comments as well as wearing Blackface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahannum (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This user is actually being pretty deceptive and keeps leaving snarky comments on my talk page he makes sock edits without logging in and there's more sources than the ones i used such as . 173.69.20.107 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also i think the second person he's referring to is his own IP [7] 173.69.20.107 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No one removed these sections from the page except for the one time Jahannum did with there IP which is obvious if you look at the editing history so i'm not sure what there referring to when they said there was another person before them but the only edit was the IP above that removed it afterwards. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

He also keeps trying to spin this as if it was only his cornerman/friend who made the comments Perry responded to those which is why i included it in the article but Perry has also worn Blackface and said racist/homophobic comments himself here's more sources I've gathered. Even LA Times mentioned it in this article. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) More on Perry's racism

Other Fighters such as Matt Mitrione and Jon Jones have made controversial homophobic comments and it wasn't removed from there page and Jones also has his listed under a section called ""Controversies"" much like the one i made for Perry so I'm not sure why Perry is a special snowflake and can't have a Controversy section on his page . 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

reply to ... David?

I don't make stealth edits and the original comment about defamation was not made by me, I just copied & pasted it while failing to tag the edit properly, and I still don't know how to do that. Also highlighting comments I made on your talk page adds nothing to this discussion about the controversy section. I am not misleading anyone.

That bloodyelbow.com report isn't useful either because Mike's comments about his cornerman's racist comments have no relevance to the story you're attaching it to. Mike Perry has words in his vocabulary that are often used in a derogatory manner, but not by him, he trains with African American athletes, has a nickname related to an African American athlete and there is many examples of him supporting African American athletes on his social media accounts. The way Mike and Alex speak is entirely because of where they are from and how they grew up, and that upsetting you doesn't give you the right to judge him on his wikipedia page. If Mike had been reprimanded by the UFC or if the UFC had made a statement on it naming Mike Perry specifically, you could add that, but as it is you need to make a page for Alex Nicholson if you really want to push this topic you seem so passionate about. Have you not even noticed how the links on that bloodyelbow.com report don't link to the homophobic comments directly but instead link to "archived" copies hosted on websites that aren't connected in any way to the site the comments were posted on? They are not credible sources. You can edit the facebook pages before submitting to that site by using the inspect button, and it's a common trick used for faking social media content. There is nothing on that article that actually proves Mike Perry is racist, and discussions started on the subject have almost unanimously agreed that Mike Perry is just a "wigga" (apologies for using the term on this page) and not actually racist at all. Homophobia in combat sports is very common too, but it does seem strange you would single out Mike Perry for comments you can't even prove he made.

Jahannum (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC) yours sincerely, a snowflake.

Mike Perry has never worn blackface, that is just people's opinion of a photo Mike posted of himself wearing a black plastic mask, and you can still find that photo on his instagram account as I highlighted for you earlier. Jahannum (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going single out anyone which is why i brought up Jones and Mitrione nobody is trying to remove there Controversies just you on Perry and I'm saying Perry is the Special Snowflake not you if you even bothered to read my comment or the sources. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You also referred to me as a troll on my talk page. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)