Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Tenryuu, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Problem uploading newly created drawing file

Butterfield's Stage (Celeity) Wagon - this image was entered here as a 'thumbnail'

I recently had no problem creating a 'Butterfield Schedule" file and entering it in "Butterfield Overland Mail." I recently created another commons file for "Butterfield's Stage (Celerity) Wagon," but somehow got the data code in Image and Thumbnail command to upload only the file for the text and not the drawing into "Butterfield Overland Mail." I would like to delete my recent entry into commons for Butterfield's Stage (Celerity) Wagon and start over. When I complete it, which do I copy and past on the Butterfield Overland Mail site, the "Image" or the "Thumbnail?" Thank you. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

@Gerald T. Ahnert: I've just spotted that this question of two days ago has gone unanswered. Sorry about that. The image you uploaded looks ok to me. You insert it into an article as a 'thumbnail', and you get the text for that by clicking the "W - use this file" link.

If you got the text wrong when you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, you can change it by clicking the 'edit source' tab. If you uploaded the wrong image version, you can upload a new version using the link lower down on the page, in the section headed 'File History'.

Please note that if you add images to Commons, just as here when creating a new article, it really helps everyone to add it to a category. As one exists for the Butterfield Overland Mail Company on Commons already, I have just added it to the two files you uploaded. See C:Category:Butterfield Overland Mail Company.

I note that your other upload has been nominated for deletion and that you added Cullen328's comments here to that discussion page. Whilst we have no influence over the pedants good people over at Commons, who really know and are rigorous in implementing the stuff on copyright to the letter, I do admit to being a little surprised at this deletion proposal. It may have been that the image itself was out of copyright, but that it has been challenged because you declared it to have been copied from a recent publication which itself was copyrighted. I didn't actually think that mattered if the original material from 1858 was out of copyright, but I'll watch and learn from how it is dealt with. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick: Thank you for taking the time to help out with suggestions for the dilemma concerning the possible deletion of the Time Schedule. A coincidence may solve the problem. I have written many articles and reports concerning Butterfield's Overland Mail Company and was requested by the California Department of Parks and Recreation to contribute articles on the subject to their site. I have written two articles about Butterfield for them. About an hour ago I was on their site to see if there might be more information to contribute. I was looking at what they have for Butterfield's Overland Mail Company and lo and behold I came across an article on their site about that same exact time schedule. They show a copy of it and even have "View and Download Overland Mail Company Timetable" for the general public. I just sent this info to the Commons and hope this will solve the problem by using the California Park Service site. Probably all I will have to do is change the reference. Here it is if you would like to give a look: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25066 Thanks again for going out of your way to help. It seems I have a long learning cycle to complete but I will eventually get there. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

@Ahnert glad to hear you found another source, by the sound of it your first source may have lifted the table from the government page. not illegal but shady not to give credit and creates problems for anyone trying to give proper credit

@Nick You are right that "out of copyright" material republished cannot claim new copyright but there is a hook to that especially evident in images ... if i publish a map from 1858 for instance having drawn an arrow pointing to something upon it. that image becomes a new unique thing and thus copyrightable. so i can understand pedants good people being squeamish about the use of out of copyright from an in copyright source. Hopefully the publication credited source of item (so it could be acquired directly) or a library search might find that or another copy, again, allowing for a cleaner acquisition. --Qazwiz (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Abanindra Maitra

The Editor Wikipedia Dear Sir, Please let me know why the draft Abanindra Maitra is not enlisted as an article for Wikipedia. I do not know much about the rules of Wikipedia.Kindly help me. Thanking you. Nilima Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nilima sen. Welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks for any new editor to perform, and I waited some time before I dared try. It would probably have been easier for you to have started out by making small edits and improvements to other articles before rushing to make one of your own. As a result, Draft:Abanindra Maitra has been rejected multiple times, and the explanations have been left on that page for you. Those explanations contain hyperlinks to important pages you should at the very least 'skim read' through. Before you even do that, why not try The Wikipedia Adventure which is an interactive tour to help you proactively understand how things work here. Then have a read of Wikipedia: Your First Aticle. I don't mean to be rude, but if you look at live encyclopaedia pages here and compare them to your draft, you'll notice what a mess yours currently is. There are no proper references laid out, not much sign of this person meeting our Notability criteria, or  the notability criteria for musicians either. Notability is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. if other independent people haven't written about a subject, there is simply is no place for an articles here, even if the person has a fancy website and lots of follows on social media. This encyclopaedia reflects what society observes is important, not what one person or another just happens to think is worthwhile. If you can work on your draft to show that, and then work on laying out the content like other pages, you might stand a far better chance.  Does this help? Regards from the UK? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Mr Nick Moyes Dear Sir, Thanks for the reply.I went through the Wikipedia Adventure, Wikipedia first article. It will take some time to prepare the draft Abanindra Maitra. Thanking you. Nilima Sen. 20.10.2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nilima sen: You're very welcome. Don't forget next time you post on a talk page to add your signature. This is very easily done by typing four keyboard tilde charcaters (like this: ~~~~) right at the end. Your name and timestamp then get added automatically. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thanks for the reply. Nilima Sen.(Nilima sen (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC))

Updating a page name: case change won't update - can anyone provide any insights?

Hi there,

I'm trying to update the page name of a company that changed the casing of its name.

The page in question is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_Point_Ltd%2E

The company originally wrote its name as "POD Point" but recently updated it to be written as "Pod Point".

I tried moving the page to the new version of the name, but it did not work, I suspect because it's only a case change vs. a spelling change.

My next idea was to try changing to a more formal variation of the company's name "Pod Point Ltd.", then change back again to "Pod Point".

Unfortunately this has not worked; I am now unable to change "Pod Point Ltd." to either "Pod Point" or revert back to "POD Point".

Could anyone advise on the best way to achieve the goal of updating the page name to "Pod Point"?

Thanks,

LightningTen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningten (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Note, the article is Pod Point Ltd., with redirections from Pod Point and POD Point. --CiaPan (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lightningten, welcome to the Teahouse. An administrator is usually required to move over an existing redirect. I have done it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Lightningten, case change renames are allowed; the issue here is that there was already a page at that title; for those issues one can request the move be done at WP:RMTR Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Galobtter Thank you both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningten (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Questions - Created My First Article Draft

Hi there, I've started my first draft on Wikipedia. I tried to get more comfortable with editing first in general, but now I have attempted to create a draft for an article. Anyways, I have two questions:

1. One of my sources is the film/film cover itself that the article is covering. While I have referenced other sources to verify most of the information within the article, I should probably cite the film/film cover if possible. I wrote more about that issue on the draft's talk page. 2. It's currently a draft. While I have no issues with the process itself, how should I submit it for article review? Is it ready for submission or does someone here have a suggestion on something I should attempt to do before I submit it?

Clovermoss (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clovermoss. Your draft has serious problems with its sources. The Barnes & Noble website sells the DVD so is not an independent source. The other references are to IMDb which is not generally considered a reliable source, especially for establishing notability. Please read Citing IMDb. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You need to add better sources. The draft in question is Draft:Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom (DVD). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response! I'll look into your link and try to find better sources. Is there any way to cite the cover of the DVD itself, or would I be better off trying to find a better source anyways because it would be a primary one? Clovermoss (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Also, just to clarify - citing IMDb and Barnes and Noble were my attempts at trying to verify the information I got from the primary source (the DVD film/film cover that I was unsure of how to cite, if at all). It probably be a good idea to find better sources anyways, though. Clovermoss (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your most important task at this point is to establish that this DVD is notable, and that requires references to significant coverage of the DVD in reliable, independent sources. Only after you accomplish that goal should you give any thought to citing primary sources, Clovermoss. It is easy to clean up an article about a clearly notable topic. It is impossible to create an acceptable article about a topic that is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

OK! Thank you! I'll try to work on the notability issue, because (at least) my current understanding is that unless an article is notable, it isn't an article, correct?

Also... I have another question that's unrelated to this draft and I'd appreciate some input on that too, if possible. I've been editing off and on the past month, and yesterday one of my edits were reverted. I didn't have a problem with the reversion itself, but I was kind of confused about why it was reverted. I left a message at the talk page of the user that reverted my edit yesterday, but so far I haven't received a response. Do you have any suggestions on what I did wrong and might have been a "productive" edit in that case? Clovermoss (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess that you are asking about these edits, Clovermoss. I am by no means knowledgeable about the Marvel Universe and have little interest in it. But your edit is unreferenced and may possibly be introducing your own personal interpretation. Please read No original research which is a core content policy. I do not know why the other editor did not respond sooner but I have been off Wikipedia most of the day because I was attending my granddaughter's first birthday, a trip that involved 200 miles of driving. Please remember that we are all volunteers and have other things going on in our lives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I realize that people have lives outside of Wikipedia, I didn't mean to be rude or anything. Thank you for adding your input, I really do appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I have done some research on the notability of the subject I drafted an article on. My conclusion is that the subject of my draft is not notable enough for its own article. I think this because even though Dora The Explorer is a notable topic, this specific DVD set is not notable enough for its own standalone article. Also, there are several other DVD sets like this one that I were able to find mentioned in a list on Wikipedia, but that list article seemed to have sourcing and notability issues itself, suggesting that an article on one of the list would also likely have notability and sourcing issues. Also, nothing about Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom stands out that much from every other DVD set on that list. I can't find any sales figures, but it's unlikely that it sold more than any other Dora The Explorer DVD set. It wasn't the start of some successful project or spinoff. The only potential aspect of notability would be a video game that adapts its premise from it... but it doesn't seem like that decision was made because the DVD was popular, and if it was I am unable to reference and cite a trustworthy source for that information. So... what should I do? My understanding is that articles that aren't notable enough to be articles would be deleted, correct? So do I label that somehow? Should I transfer this information to the talk page of the draft page if it's just going to get deleted? Clovermoss (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the content could be transferred to a list article, but when you are finished with the draft, tag it for deletion according to the instructions at WP:G7, Clovermoss. An administrator will delete it for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I really do appreciate all the help. I've been going through that community portal thing and trying to learn more of the policies and stuff, but there's a lot to go through and I appreciate the effort that goes into answering all of my questions. Clovermoss (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I've added the template, and I think I did it correctly. Am I supposed to submit it for the article review process or just leave it like that? Also, I've tried to summarize some of the stuff about decisions and whatnot on the draft's talkpage... I wasn't sure if it would be helpful or not but I wanted to be safe instead of sorry. If you have any feedback on that or anything else, please let me know. I'm trying to do all of this as correctly as I can. I did mention you briefly on the draft's talk page (that you brought up the issue of notability). Is that a good or bad thing? Is it something I should avoid? I'm sorry for all the questions, by the way. Thank you for volunteering your time to try and help me. Clovermoss (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You have tagged the draft properly, Clovermoss. I will leave it to another uninvolved administrator to delete it, since I have already expressed my opinions about it. Your comments on the draft talk page were fine, but not really necessary in this case. Deletion is the pretty straightforward outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Clovermoss. If you want to have the draft deleted, then adding {{db-g7}} will accomplish that and you don't really need to do anything else. An administrator will eventually get to it. I don't think there was anything wrong with your talk page posts, but the talk page will be deleted as well when the article is deleted per WP:G8 unless there's some specific reason for keeping it that benefits Wikipedia and might be helpful to have for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both Marchjuly and Cullen328. Also, future reference, how should I determine when I should write on a draft/article's talk page? Again, thank you for all of your help. Clovermoss (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no right or wrong time so to speak, but it rather depends upon what you're posting. As long as you not treating the talk page as sort of an online forum for general discussion about the subject matter but are instead discussing ways to improve the article/draft in a Wikipedia sense, posting should be fine. For example, if you want to talk about ways to improve the page of a actor or explain the reasoning behind an edit you made to the article, then that's OK for the talk page. However, if you want to talk about how great or how bad the actor was in particular role or how great or horrible person they are in real life, then that's not really OK. You can find out more about talk pages at H:TALK.

FWIW, I think what Cullen328 meant by "not necessary" was that since you were the creator and only major contributor to the draft, tagging it with "db-g7" bascially assures that it will be deleted. If, however, another editor came a long annd felt that there was still hope for it someday becoming an article, then they could' use the draft's talk page to explain there reasons why along with their desire to continue working on it.-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How to get my father credited with his artwork : File:Les Girls.jpg

My father, John Fernie, was an artist and many of his items show up on Wikipedia without any mention of the fact that it is his work. We don't want any renumeration we would just like to have him credited.

Please see File: Les Girls.jpg for an example. His info is here: www.johnfernie.com

I would love to have a page created for him... can I hire anyone to make the submission?

Thanking you in advance for any help.

Bruce Fernie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.163.32 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at File:Les Girls.jpg. The information about that file indicates that the copyright is probably owned by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and the picture is considered usable on Wikipedia under "fair use" principles. It seems likely that your father signed over his copyright rights to MGM. I don't think there is any article on Wikipedia that discusses the picture itself, so there is no obvious place to put a discussion about who created the poster. Regarding your suggestion to hire someone to create an article about him – please know that paid editing of Wikipedia is rather discouraged. There are some guidelines and policies about that. Even the idea of unpaid editing about topics that someone is very closely associated with at the personal level is a very tricky one. I suggest starting by looking at WP:COI and WP:Paid editing. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Bruce, any author who chooses to write a biography will need references to secondary sources about the subject.... see WP:CITE and WP:N. You could add those sources to your web site.... then you could request an article be written; see WP:RA. If you choose to edit Wikipedia yourself; I suggest you register a user name and use it exclusively - put a WP:COI declaration on your user page if needed. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Just going to add that it might be possible to add your father's name to file information for "Les Girls" file by adding the parameter |Graphic Artist= to the {{Non-free use rationale poster}} template being used for the file's non-free use rationale so that it appears on the file's page, but I don't think there's much more than that which can be done unless you can clearly provide a reliable source which is independent of your father or anyone/anything connected to him which can be used to verify that he created the poster art for the movie or which discusses his involvement in the process for creating the poster for the movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I just added that. After a bit of web searching, I also found a substantial amount of other very nice artwork by Mr. Fernie – most of it posted by his son – e.g., at http://www.johnfernie.com/, https://www.facebook.com/John-A-Fernie-Artist-184134758285335/, and https://eu.art.com/gallery/id--a229894/john-fernie-prints.htm. Unfortunately, I did not find any of what is known on Wikipedia as WP:Reliable sources that discuss him. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it ever acceptable to use corporate websites as sources?

Hello experienced Wikipedia editors, I have recently been working on an article for a popular dessert 'Turtle pie.' I have received help from a couple other editors, but I have another question: Is it ever acceptable to use corporate websites?

I'm not really getting 'information' from them, I just put them there to SHOW that they sell this product. I said in the article 'The pie gained popularity when frozen food brands such as Marie Calendar's and Edward's started selling frozen, pre-made turtle pies.' I included sources to the pages here and here. Onece again, I'm not getting any information from them, just using it as a way to show they sell the product.

Thanks, --Wyatt850 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Wyatt850 and welcome back to the Teahouse.

Sites whose primary purpose is to sell a product are generally avoided as references. The general guidance for this is at WP:REFSPAM. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wyatt850, the claim is that the pies gained popularity when those companies started selling them. Referencing the company pages might show that they do sell them, but it proves nothing about their popularity increasing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Took out the "gained popularity." Article still needs references to published content about what turtle pies are. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wyatt850. I will answer the question in your section heading. Corporate websites can be used for mundane uncontroversial corporate facts, once the notability of the corporation is established by references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Examples where corporate websites would be acceptable sources are the name of the current CEO and the city where the corporation is headquartered. But a corporate website is worthless for establishing the notability of a product like a pie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the position on making excessive minor edits and no Edit summary?

Such as when a History page is backlogged with a tedious amount of minor edits, and which leave no edit summary, making it extremely difficult to compare or verify edits. This could easily be abused to slip in incorrect statements or vandalism, or remove details that may have been important.

I've noticed certain users tend to have a pattern for this editing style. I cannot figure out why they won't just use the Show Preview button and then Publish once they have a substantial amount of content, instead of adding or subtracting a few words at a time and doing it over and over to the point where the History page is completely flooded. It's very frustrating because after a certain threshold, verification becomes near impossible without putting in tedious amount of effort just to compare changes. DA1 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi DA1. I think it might be possible to use WP:BLAME to find who made a particular change to an article, but I've never used it myself so I'm not quite sure if it would be helpful in this case.

As for a policy regarding a tedious amount of minor edits, I think that might be WP:DE; however, whether this is "disruptive" probably depending upon who you ask. In addition, although an edit summary is helpful and editors are encouraged to use them, it's not necessarily required per policy (at least I'm not aware of it being required).

If another editor is inappropriately marking their edits as minor when they shouldn't per WP:MINOR then you could politely ask them to not to do so either by posting {{uw-minor}} or a more personal message on their user talk; there might be something they set by mistake which marks all of their edits as minor, or they might not realize the differences in a Wikipedia sense. If they don't respond and continue on as before, then you can try to get an admin to help you at WP:ANI. Though blocking someone for this if their edits are otherwise policy compliant might be seen as a bit extreme. While I can see these types of edits can be annoying and it can be a pain to try and find the one bad edit in a bunch of other good edits, I don't think it's would be a good idea to try eliminate these types of "small" edits as long as they comply with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: By "minor" I meant it in the literal sense, not the "mark" that is used to indicate such. Some users flood the history page with tiny edits instead of using Show preview, and it becomes impossible to navigate or compare edits, especially when they leave no ES to go off of.

I've used that Blame function, I think from experience my results are mixed. Sometimes things come up, sometimes they don't. But that's not really my issue. When you're dealing with a situation where the entire article is being presumably reworked (by a single user), looking up a word or phrase from memory and seeing who added or removed it isn't useful, what's useful is seeing what's been changed that I don't know or can't see from memory. DA1 (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: You should be able to use the selection buttons on the page history to compare a whole group of the other editor's changes as one. That way, you don't necessarily have to examine the edits individually to decide if you agree with their cumulative effect. I agree that this sort of letter-by-letter editing can be frustrating to look at, but at least the edit history can help reduce the problem. The other extreme, where an editor makes a lot of large edits all over the article all at once can be a lot more frustrating to figure out and I don't know of any tools to make it easier. And it's always legitimate to ask an editor whose edit summaries are blank or inadequate for letting other editors know what the intention was to improve their edit summaries. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: I agree that bulk edits can also be a problem. That's two different extremes from opposite ends that are both problematic. But I've come across the worst and most extreme example of the aforementioned. How about this, please take a look at this article: [1] Any thoughts on this? DA1 (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again DA1. I think depends upon the editor as to whether they mark their minor edits as such. I think I've only used the minor edit button once or twice, but I do tend to always leave an edit sum. As for the example you've referenced above, I'm not sure there's a way to force people to either leave a clearly worded edit sum or combined their multiple little minor edits and tweaks into one more comprehensive edit as long as the edits they make comply with relevant policies and guidelines. For sure, you can leave them a message and explain why you think this editing style is not helpful or add {{uw-editsummary}} to their user talk, but whether they take you advice and change their approach is kinda up to them. I think that's all you can really unless there is something actually wrong with their edits or that you can establish that their approach is causing serious some disruption to Wikipedia in general. While this type of editing style might not be desirable in many ways, it's not in and of itself something which the community automatically deems to be tenditious (at least not as I understand TE); so, it's not really something that's going to warrant being blocked over. I personally find the bulk edit approach to be more problematic and something which has more potential for abuse, than lots of minor edits simply because in the latter case its usually much easier to figure out what has been changed by looking at the diff and often easier to fix an error without affecting other parts of the article by simply reverting the problem edit. Anyway, although this is an interesting discussion, it might be more suited for a policy/guideline talk page or maybe even WP:VPP than the Teahouse, since it's on those other pages where any changes to relevant policy/guideline are going to be more likely made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Marking" the edits as minor was never an issue of mine. My issue was vague and ambiguous edits, and ease of review.

I have actually left a message, asking the user to please use ES or combine his edits so that it isn't as tedious.

I'm not sure if this approach at dealing with this is really thought out. There is always an issue with reviewing articles in situations like this. It discourages user review. What's to say the edits are all good? Would you like to review the article I posted above, perhaps then we could rest assure that it's all good. Bulk edits have their own problem, but extreme cases like this (to me at least) are worse. I've reviewed bulk edits in the past but this type of flooding is impossible to deal with, especially when there's so many edits it spans multiple pages thereby making it impossible to compare between pages since the History page only supports comparison between a threshold of 1000 edits. DA1 (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just for info: My favourite minor edit flurry was an editor who recently took 204 edits to change 15 words, and left no edit summaries. (diff). Had I spotted an error in one of them I'd probably have cheerily rollbacked the lot as it would be unreasonable to expect other editors to wade through to find the precise moment of a typo. I really think this is tendentious editing and bordering into disruption - but couldn't find any policy against it. Anyone? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Optimal Citation?

Hi I'm relatively new too the Wiki Project and Ive been having fun starting out just adding citations. My citations are pretty good sources but I was hoping to get some advice on formats for good citations with the authors name, date, and publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssufer (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ssufer: Are they books/journals or websites? And are you asking about the format of how they're cited? DA1 (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ssufer, welcome to the Teahouse. It's brillant that you want to help out by adding good references to articles. There is certainly more you can do to improve their content, and this is extremely easy to do. Both of our editing tools contain drop-down templates via the 'Cite' button in their toolbars. Using either source editor or Visual Editor nyou should be manually adding journal name, author, date, page numbers, ISBN/DOI numbers, date accessed etc. And if you think you might want to use a reference more than once, you can even give it a name (ref name) which allows you to call it again and again without having to re-enter it each time.

One wonderful tip (which can make life even easier) is only found in Visual Editor: when you call the cite button there, the drop-down template that appears has an 'Automatic' tab which allows you to paste in an ISBN number, DOI number, of even a Google books reference. It automatically looks up and fills in most of the details for you, if it can, but is then worth checking for minor errors/ommissions. It's not very good at page numbers or getting every field totally correct, but it's so much quicker. When I started, I did all this by hand. Until I discovered these tips, I manually entered every references, which took forever Does this help? Do come back with any further questions. (The last reference you entered here today (diff) should actually end up looking like this when entered simply by pasting in the DOI number withon Visual Editor before any tweaking at all. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Rejected yet better than accepted articles in the same space... what gives?

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

I fail to see how the HRI article reads like an advertisement. I worked a long time to get it neutral and in large part believe I accomplished this. If it wasn't neutral in select areas, perhaps a contribution could have been made rather than a summary rejection that it was unworthy to be posted on a user-generated wiki? I'm fairly new to wikipedia and want to learn more and help out as much as I can. But I'm completely flummoxed how some pages can get approved while ones like mine (above) can be dumped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_the_Hungry has almost zero content and it was accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_the_Children contains 6 out of 14--or nearly half of all references--going back to it's own website (obvious self-promotion).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hunger_Relief_International only has 2 of 8 references going to its website (for financial and charitable work references).

In addition to Feed the Children having 50% of links promoting their homepage, FTC also lists charity watch organizations like Guidestar and two local news channel websites. (Those two news references, by the way, were about fraudulent activities by their president--not for anything great they were doing).

Hunger Relief International only has 25% of references linking back to hungerreliefinternational.org (again, as financial and charity work references), also lists charity watch groups like Guidestar, and then follows with links to CNN, Forbes, and two separate non-profits.

I have no part with HRI--neither as donor, volunteer, employee, contractor, member, user, etc.--but if FTC and FTH's article is passable, how does HRI get rejected?

Thank you and I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Influentialchristian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The argument "I've found a crappy article in Wikipedia, and am therefore justified in creating another one" will not convince anyone here. If you are here to improve Wikipedia, and you find an article which does not meet Wikipedia's standards, you should improve it until it's acceptable; or if that's not possible, you can propose it for deletion. On the other hand, if you're here to promote something, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Instead, use some site such as Facebook where promotion is permitted. Maproom (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

On the page of Dr. Meera chandrasekhar you have mentioned some thing to edit/correct to improve the article.

Sir/madam,

I (74) have created the above article from ID : Rangakuvara. This I keep for editing English articles. Radhatanaya is used for Kannada articles.(I have contributed 900+ articles in kannada language.

Since I'm a senior citizen, and can not read and understand elaborate rules or conditions, please help me in a few lines. Like "Yes" or "No" format. thanks. --Radhatanaya (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Radhatanaya. Welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly: If I understand you correctly, you have two different user accounts which you use for editing two different language wikipedias. You should only ever use one account across all language wikipedias. The article Meera Chandrasekhar has been edited by both of your accounts - and this must not happen. My advice is to decide which account you will cease using from now on and then add a link to both userpages which clearly states the relationship of the one account with the other. Using two accounts leads to editors being blocked, I'm afraid. See WP:MULTIACCOUNT for more on this important rule.

• Secondly, the most important thing to do on the article Meera Chandrasekhar is to add references to support each of the 'factual statements' so that others can check and see that they are not made up. Did she really win all those awards? Probably. So please give a link which proves that.
• The first paragraph makes no sense to me: Meera Chandrasekhar (ಡಾ. ಮೀರಾ ಚಂದ್ರಶೇಖರ್), is a Curators’ Teaching of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri, United States. If you mean Professor, please state that.
• We do have a policy of excluding Indic scripts from lead paragraphs and Infoboxes. So please remove these. (See WP:NOINDICSCRIPT if you need proof.)
• Some links to what might be supportive references have been put into 'External Links'. This is wrong. Please follow the format used in other articles here - and presumably on your home language wiki, too, by including them in the text. Information about living people which is not supported by references is likely to be deleted.

I'm sorry I cannot give "yes"/"no" answers as you have not asked simple questions that command that type of reply. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

IP addresses account

I recently was welcoming new users and I realized that IP user accounts were more than users who opened an account with their username. As I was welcoming them , some were being blocked and others I guess they may not use the account. What can be the cause of not opening an account with a username to an extent that IP users are becoming more than username Users? , Spurb ^(talk) 06:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

IP users account for about a half of users and represent approximately one third of activity on Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines regarding civility and assuming good faith do not make special dispensation for IP users, who should be treated with the same respect as other users. Some have been contributing for a very long time and have a great deal of experience contributing to articles. Those with experience won't mind if you send them a welcome message, but may have their own reasons for not creating an account, which is their decision. In practice, profiling an IP user is sometimes more difficult as it is easier to attribute edits and behavior to a registered account, however this does not mean that one should assume that IP users are here to vandalize the site. A huge majority of helpful Wiki-Gnome edits I see on my watchlist were made by unregistered users. Edaham (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Igloo

To control the quality of such edits I installed igloo tool , unfortunately it failed to launch. How to launch igloo? Spurb ^(talk) 06:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Spurb: Partial reply: I've never used it, but in the absence of anyone else responding to you immediately, have you tried the advice on this section of the Igloo page? It suggests Igloo doesn't launch with every 'skin' that users select, so a refresh or your browser and a check of these notes might be one suggestion. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: When launching it on vector default skin the outcome is that: rollback rights are required to use igloo. Spurb ^(talk) 12:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Publishing Pages

How to publish my own page, I have one ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributer7 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Contributer7 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you could link to the draft article you've prepared, we can offer some feedback to you on its readiness for publication. Alternatively, you can use the Articles for Creation Wizard and receive feedback there. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Could I please have feedback on my article I drafted. Thanks in advance! -Max Draft:Karolina Watras — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributer7 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Contributer7: thanks for your question. As it is, that article would not be accepted to Wikipedia, because there is no credible claim that the subject is significant. The only references are the school directory (which confirms that she works there) and a FaceBook page (which is not a reliable source at all). Please read the page at "WP:ACADEMIC" carefully to understand the criteria for teachers to be listed in Wikipedia. Especially, read the list under Criteria a couple of times. Then consider whether your subject can meet those standards - if so, start by collecting reliable sources that discuss her in depth to show how she meets those criteria. Feel free to come back and ask here again if you have questions after reading those criteria. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

new Wikipedia page

What to do if new Wikipedia page is not showing in Google search.?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:36C2:8E59:1561:CADC:3E0A:CA18 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi anonymous IP. The short answer is to wait. Newly-created pages go through a process of 'new page review' before Google is permitted to index them. This stops spammers and vandals damaging Wikipedia and its reputation with inappropriate content. This process can take minutes, but often takes much longer. There are currently 3,500 such pages awaiting volunteer input in this way, going back to early September. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Which page is it? Some new pages are draft pages and user pages which will not be indexed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

new page/timing

hi. I've submitted 24 August 2018 a new page (subject "Edward Williams Architects") but I've no news about it since then. could you please tell me anything about the revision/publishing timing? thanks! silvia

link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silvia_cesa_bianchi/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia cesa bianchi (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft hasn't been reviewed because you didn't submit it. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

But I don't believe the draft will be accepted in its current form, Silvia cesa bianchi, because it does not

cite any references that are about the practice, rather than the organisation it is associated with, or the people involved, and so does not establish that the practice is notable in Wikipedia's special sense. In addition, I'm not sure that any of the sources are independent of the practice: 3 and 4 might be (they're behind paywalls, so I can't see them) but the rest are not. --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

2004 Taylor oil spill

I just started 2004 Taylor oil spill. If you're new and interested, expanding this could be good practice. It's all over the news. If this post is inappropriate, please remove it. I just thought newcomers might like it. I'd be happy to meet them and work together. Cheers! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

SAM SAILOR - I EDITED BOB STANFORD ARTICLE

Just left it in my sandbox. Is there a protocol for taking you up on your offer to help me add the URLs and other references? snapperdoctor. Snapperdoctor (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snapperdoctor - will "ping" Sam Sailor for you. Generally, you could simply leave a message on their talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Hello @Snapperdoctor:, and welcome to the Teahouse. to notify ("ping") another user, you can either use a template like {{ping|username here}} in your signed message or contact the user with a message on their personal user talkpage. I'll ping @Sam Sailor: here to notify him of your question. GermanJoe (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both, onel5969 and GermanJoe, I have followed up on Draft talk:Bob Stanford. Sam Sailor 19:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Helichrysum mundtii: wrong interwikilink?

Hi,

I clicked on random item in Wikidata which guided me to that article in the vietnamese wikipedia: vi:Helichrysum_mundtii The article refers to the english wikipedia, but the article doesn't exist: en:Helichrysum_mundtii. The language in Wikidata was only set for Vietnamese in Wikidata. How should I proceed?

Thanks for the help. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The link wasn't through Wikidata but was hard-coded in the vietnamese article. I have removed the link. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, David Biddulph ! --Hundsrose (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Checkbook.io

David.moreno72

Thanks for reviewing the submission. Per wikipedia guideline(s):

"significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondarysources that are independent of the subject:"

Here are some citations, I've included them in the submission article too. As you'll notice there are multiple citations spanning about 2 years

May 2016 https://www.ca.com/us/modern-software-factory/content/the-company-checkbook-goes-paperless.html Wired.com (both online and in paper form, alexa rank ~450 in the US ) is a published, reliable and secondary source, and offered significant coverage of the company independent of the subject i.e. independent of Checkbook.io, unrelated to any press releases or communication efforts of Checkbook.io

July 2016 http://www.digitaltransactions.net/with-checkbook-a-payments-veteran-creates-a-souped-up-engine-for-check-21-clearing/ Digital Transactions is a published, reliable and secondary source, and offered significant coverage of the company independent of the subject i.e. independent of Checkbook.io, unrelated to any press releases or communication efforts of Checkbook.io

Aug 2017 https://theamericangenius.com/tech-news/checkbook-device/ American Genius is a published, reliable and secondary source, and offered significant coverage of the company independent of the subject i.e. independent of Checkbook.io, unrelated to any press releases or communication efforts of Checkbook.io

Oct 2017 https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/checkbookio-offers-digital-checks-and-invoicing-services Accounting Today is a published, reliable and secondary source, and offered significant coverage of the company independent of the subject i.e. independent of Checkbook.io, unrelated to any press releases or communication efforts of Checkbook.io — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleeereza (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

David.moreno72, this one is for you. Sam Sailor 19:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Same question (and ref list) also posted at Help. And at the Draft. Although does not appear that these references have been incorporated into the draft yet. And Aleeereza needs to declare COI on User page as ex-employee of the company. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How is a redirct accomplished?

Is a redirect accomplished by adding brackets around the word to be redirected? Example xxxxx and the redirected word is automatically then highlighted in blue indicating a redirect? Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Gerald T. Ahnert, if you mean a redirect page where one directs to another (such as sufficient and necessary conditions being a redirect to necessity and sufficiency), the help page at Help:Redirect should give you all the information you need for making redirects of various types and the syntax. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Gerald T. Ahnert - Redirects are specific pages with no content, which simply exist to redirect to the correct article. For example At The Stage Door redirects to At the Stage Door. There is no content on the first link, it is simply there in case someone types in a capitalized variant of the true article. If that is what you are asking about, then Seraphimblade has pointed you in the right direction. However, what you seem to be describing is simply linking pages. So in an article about Christy Cabanne, if I wanted to link to the film, At the Stage Door, I would simply put brackets around the title (not including the ''), and the words would turn blue, indicating a link, At the Stage Door. If you put brackets around a word or phrase, and there is no article about it, that creates a redlink, like It's Up to You (1936 film). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Contents Box

I'm trying to clean up my User Talk page, and I can't figure out how the contents box at the top of the page works. If I delete some of the entries, the box stays, and if I delete some other ones, the box remains. How do I figure it out? Purplemoonsong (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To me, looks like very few edits to your User page (which other editors can easily see) and lots of experimenting with your Sandbox, which is your semi-private workspace. David notMD (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The TOC box comes up automatically once you have 4 entries. You can find out more about customizing the TOC at WP:TOC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

anyone willing to help with a complex edit?

First, i assume the following:

• one is not allowed to create/edit a relative's biography page
• or "businesses" involving a relative
• no dis-ambiguous entries without at least one blue link

thus to do what I'm thinking about I would need another editor at a minimum.

I have a non-familial relative Named Mike Jones. He is a musician and the lead singer of "Seven Reasons" which has two self published albums (hard rock genre) and a small following in the SW Michigan/North Indiana (USA) area. (a few other avid fans also)

there has been a lot of stir about both the band, Seven Reasons , and it's Lead Singer Mike Jones , but so far it's just warming the pot, with little boil. I'm not sure that Seven Reasonsis significant enough for a page but after I tried to refollow Mike only to later find i had written the Rapper of the same name, i wanted to add a dis-ambiguous page entry.

suggestions? or Volunteers? --Qazwiz (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Qazwiz: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being aware of the conflict of interest. First thing, you say "with little boil." What do you mean by that? Are the subjects notable, per WP:NMUSIC? RudolfRed (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Qazwiz. I echo what RudofRed said, acknowledging you for being up-front about your conflict of interest. But I'm afraid that disambiguation pages exist to help people find things within Wikipedia. Until there is an article about Jones (which depends crucially on there being sufficient independent published sources about him to establish notability), he should not appear in a disambiguation. --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Template:U:ColinFine thank you both for prompt reply. checking WP:NMUSIC i have to admit he may be close but not yet, albums were effectively "self published" - he has had a few local radio appearances none national - closest he has gotten to qualifying is he was rejected for The Voice this year. if his audition is broadcast, will see soon, he might qualify for a dis-ambiguous page link to the shows page as having participated, but definitely not an artist page... at least not yet :-).
thanks again for replying --Qazwiz (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What are some good places to read about Wikipedia editing policies

Hello, I'm pretty new on this site. Can someone point me in the right direction where I can learn about Wikipedia policy. I'm interested in adding links, editing pages, creating new pages, and anything else I should be aware of. Also, I'd like to learn more about the talk function...how to reply and ping users, etc. Thanks! --Seahawk01

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seahawk01. Start by reading Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and following the links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. On a more abstract level, Wikipedia:Five pillars describes the "fundamental principles" of Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Hi Cullen328! Sounds good, thanks for taking the time to point me in the right direction! User:Seahawk01

Here are a couple of more good links for you, Seahawk01 : How to edit a page and How to develop articles Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 Great, super :-) Thanks! Seahawk01

Follow-up to Permission Error.

Hello,

I have made several edits to the page entitled driving simulator, but the last one was not successful and I cannot find a way to correct it. I am new to wiki and have difficulty even maintaining a dialogue with the people who have helped me before. please advise.DriverSafety (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi DriverSafety - here are a few links which can help you get started on editing on Wikipedia:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles

Finally, the best way to ask for help is to leave a question on either the talk page of the article you are attempting to edit, or the talk page of the editor who has reverted and/or changed your edit. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Interested in organizational aspects of helping out

Hello again. I think my skills lie more in organization than writing. Also, I'm good at research and sourcing references. So, I'd like to see how to get involved in those things. I have created one category page to link some topics together, left a note on one wikiproject page and added to another wikiproject todo list. Any other suggestions in how to get involved? My interests are affordable housing and fourth amendment rights. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahawk01 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01. There are many different ways to contribute to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia) that don't involve creating articles from scratch, but focus more on Wikipedia:Maintenance. There are almost 6,000,000 existing articles and almost all of these can be improved upon in one way or another; so, there's never really a shortage of things to do. Some edits focus on simple copyediting such as correcting spelling mistakes, etc., whereas others look for formatting/syntax issues which need fixing. Many articles are tagged with maintenance templates to indicate they need attention, and many of these articles can be found on tracking category pages such as Category:Articles lacking sources, etc. So, if this is the type of thing which interests you, then perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Wikipedia:Random page patrol or Wikipedia:Cleanup might be of interest to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thanks for the reply! Random page patrol and wiki cleanup squad actually sounds kind of fun :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Is a userbox a template?

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

I have a short question--is a userbox a template?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(P.S. Disappointing that the Teahouse is now semi'ed.)

Hi, Rebelastic. I don't think there's any reason in principle why you shouldn't code a userbox directly on your User page if you want to. But normally they are templates, so that they can be reused, or have other templates based on them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, mistyped your name in the ping Rebestalic. --ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: A userbox is usually considered a template regardless of the namespace. A template can both be defined as a page in the template namespace and as a page with code intended for transclusion. Do you have something specific in mind with the question, e.g. where to save a userbox, or where to nominate it for deletion, or how to use it? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: protection. I agree it's a trifle kafkaesque for this page to be protected until 24 October with would-be editors directed the talk page...which itself is protected until the 29th. ——SerialNumber54129 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Query re Talk Page

Hello, please could someone direct me to any articles or information that show and/or explain how an article's talk page should be constructed (in an ideal situation) where there are several people editing? As a newbie, it all seems a bit confusing and I think I'm adding to the confusion! Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@*ptrs4all*: Hopefuly Help:Talk pages will provide some answers – but if it does not, please ask more specific question. Especially if you mean some specific issue with some specific talk page. --CiaPan (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CiaPan. There is no specific issue. *ptrs4all* (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem with someone using my artwork and falsely attributing.

There is some of my artwork (drawings & photos) on Wikipedia that are being falsely represented as someone else’s work. Wikipedia contributor Dandlyin is using artwork drawn by me and claiming it as his own. I will tackle these one at a time. The first is in Wikipedia’s Dragoon Springs, Station. The station plan at the bottom of the site is my drawing. Look in the lower right-hand corner and you will see my name (very small—so Dandlyin probably didn’t notice) “Drawn by Gerald T. Ahnert.” In the copyright information under is the following: Description: Station plan showing the sleeping rooms of the Butterfield employees during the massacre of September 9, 1858. Date: 1 January 2013 Source: Own work (Note for above. As you can see this is not his own work.) Author: Dandlyin (Question to help me out since I am a newbie to Wikipedia. Does “Author” mean the one who created the artwork or the author of this contribution to the commons?)

There are two others on the site that he does attribute to me in the “Description” and gives a date that I created them as 2013—which is correct. But to get around the copyright requirement of them not being in the public domain, Dandlyin states that the “Source” is his “Own Work” and that the Author is “Dandlyin.” Why was this accepted—is there something I don’t understand? Under this heading is the statement why this can be used under the copyright regulations: “I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license.” As can be seen this is not true—I am the copyright holder. This also is true for the photo of the stage station and the other drawing. As a newbie, I am trying to keep an open mind and may not understand the situation for the above. I am flattered that there are many references in Wikipedia to my work. I want the public to have the true history concerning Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company, for which this stage station was a part. To keep the peace, I would like to contact Dandlyin and have a civil conversation about this subject—maybe we can sort things out. But I don’t understand how I can contact the person. But first I would like your clarification and suggestions. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Hey Gerald T. Ahnert. I have nominated the images for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. You can see the deletion discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dandlyin. If you would like to license the images for free public use, so that they may be used on Wikipedia, you can do so by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT, but Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and users should not be uploading images and claiming them as their own work when they are not. GMG^talk 13:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep: The attribution for the three files is now acceptable to me.Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

I was just contacted by Dandlyin and as it turns out I know the fellow. I will not pursue this any farther and will have a conversation with him. He is an alright fellow and I am actually pleased he is using my material. What will probably happened is that we will find a way to amiably add some more information to the artwork to satisfy both our needs. This was also a learning cycle for me since I want to also correctly add correct copyright information to my new entries. Thank you for the explanation which helps. I have no more problems with this issue. I will try to take care of the deletion notices after he and I get together to amiably solve the issue.

Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

(edit conflict)Hi Gerald T. Ahnert. I'm assuming that File:Station Layout Drawing.jpg is one of the files you're referring to above; if it is, then it's uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which means there's not much which can be done here on Wikipedia about the file. Commons and Wikipedia are sister sites and images uploaded to Commons are often used in Wikipedia articles, but each site has it's own particular policies and guidelines. You might have to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly per wmf:DMCA takedowns or wmf:DMCA Policy if you believe your copyright is being infringed upon. You can also try to tag the file for speedy deletion as a copyright violation per c:Commons:Deletion policy#Copyright violation or nominate the file for deletion per c:Commons:Deletion requests since these are two common ways files are deleted from Commons; you may, however, be required to provide proof of copyright ownership in either case.

As to why this type of thing happens, sometimes people find content online that they wish to use in a Wikipedia article, and they just choose the first license option they are offered when they upload the file. Many people are not familiar with copyright law, and mistakenly assume that finding something online, downloading it onto their computer and then uploading it to Commons makes it their "own work"; so, they choose that license. Others might assume that anything available for free online (i.e., something they don't have to pay for), must be free from copyright protection as well. I'd imagine most people just don't know any better, and aren't intentionally setting out to violate someone else's copyright. Moreover, all editors on Wikipedia and Commons are volunteers; there are no full-time employees checking whether files are licensed correctly and there's no pre-upload vetting of files. This means that files only get reviewed when they are flagged for some kind of issue.

If you'd like to discuss this with the editor(s) who uploaded the file(s) in question, you can post something on their respective user talk page(s). Editors who edit on both Wikipedia and Commons tend to have a user page and a user talk page for each site; so, you can leave a message on one or the other talk page and see if you get a response. You can find an editor's user talk page by clicking on their name and then clicking on the "Talk" tab next to their user name. One thing you need to be really careful about when discussing things like this on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:No legal threats; you can try to civilly discuss the issue with the uploader, but you should refrain from making any threats of off-Wikipedia legal action against another editor because doing so will lead to your account being blocked. Your best bet would be to only discuss legal matters directly with someone at the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

An amiable solution to this has been achieved with satisfaction to both parties with the addition of attribution. I have just posted a "Do not delete" notice in the deletion notice on the commons site. Thank you for your help.

Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Draft: New Fortress Energy

Hi, I created a draft page for an energy company, New Fortress Energy. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:New_Fortress_Energy. It was rejected for not being worthy of a Wiki page. However, the company operates around the world and was founded by American billionaire Wes Edens (who has a wiki page himself) and is associated with an investment firm that also has a wiki page). I've added a Wall Street Journal article and a few others, added reference to Edens. But I wonder if there is more I should do prior to re-submitting for consideration. Thanks for the help. It's the first page I'm attempting to create. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheckerPNW (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey FactCheckerPNW. The rule I go by is "try to find as many reliable sources as you can, add what they say, and when you run out of sources, stop writing." Now, if you run out of sources and all you have is one or two sentences, then the subject likely does not yet meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Having said that, what you really need are sources that deal with NFE in particular and in depth. No matter how notable related people or business may be, that doesn't help us really write an article about this company, and do it without going past what the sources say. Whether we can write a well sourced article (that wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb in a traditional encyclopedia) is really the heart of whether a topic is notable enough to have an article. GMG^talk 21:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with editing Wikipedia page Stanfords

Dear all, I joined the Wikipedia community close to 20 years ago and have not made many contributions but enjoy the small edits that I can assist with. Now I need some help editing a page that I am closely linked to personally and am concerned that the actual editing should be done by someone other than myself. The page is for Stanfords a UK business that my brother and I are shareholders of and I am now Chairman and CEO (now you see the conflict). I can provide content and fact checking if requested. Thanks for offers of help. Vivien Godfrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgodfrey (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vgodfrey and thanks for your honesty. Please read the policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. Use the article talk page to propose changes, and provide links to reliable sources. See Template:Request edit for the code that will bring your request to the attention of other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You may also consider asking for input at the relevant wikiprojects, see the article's talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotecting a page

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

Tsar Bomba is currently suffering heavy vandalism; is there a way that I can assign semi-protection to the article?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Rebestalic. I have reverted the edits in question. For future reference, you can request that a page be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it usually requires levels of vandalism that are more like a few vandals every few minutes, rather than a few vandals in a day, which can normally be solved just by reverting them. GMG^talk 21:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

My gosh, a reply within ten minutes! Unbelievable.

Rebestalic (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Need help with rejected draft

I have been working on the following draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matthew_Proman and it has been rejected twice now. I could really use some advice. After the first rejection, I spoke to one of the editors to try and get some insight regarding what qualifies as an independent, reliable secondary source. For example, I had a citation from the SEC that I was told didn't qualify, and that made no sense to me. But after going back and forth a bit, I resubmitted the article. It addressed the "overly positive" language, (I removed it), and had the citations that had been already IDed as meeting the independent and reliable thresholds. But then it got rejected again, and the editor's comments are a bit confusing. I understand wanting more information & citations to give the article body, but I don't understand the issue with the citations I *did* use. They were already deemed OK by a previous editor. Any insights would be appreciated. Navysaylorgirl (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Navysaylorgirl. At present the draft has three references cited. I'm not clear what the Forbes entry is - it seems to be nothing more than a rating of the website. It does not seem to me to be a place where somebody unconnected with Proman or his projects has chosen to write at length about him. The NYDN entry I cannot read, because it is not available in Europe; but from the title, it does not seem likely that it is a place where somebody unconnected with Proman and his projects has chosen to write at length about him. The third reference is a list of names.

You may notice that I have repeated the phrase "where somebody unconnected with Proman and his projects has chosen to write at length about him": that is the gold standard of an independent source (it also needs to have been published somewhere reliable). Unless you can adduce at least a couple of sources that meet that description (and note that they have to be about the subject of the article, not about something else connected with the subject of the article), the subject does not meet the criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Forbes is a major industry and finance publication in the US. To have the website of the a company that you created receive an accolade from Forbes in no small thing. It's not an award for website design or anything like that, but for content (product). The NYDN article is about a conference that was hosted by Proman. It was newsworthy because of who he got to speak at the event. Ivanka Trump, Sarah Blakely (of Spanx) and Randy Zuckerberg (of Facebook). Had nothing to do with the writer being connected in some way. That's why I took out all the Huffington Post references, because they were suspect. Since Proman was able to author his own article for Huff Po at one point, it seemed likely there was some possible connection. But there's none for the NYDN article. It was simply a noteworthy event on its own -- and one that Proman brought into being.

I do understand the need to find additional references though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navysaylorgirl (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Article's Title

Hello! I am trying to change a small discrepancy in the article title of the organization's name that I work for. The current article title is Wine to Water, but the actual name of the organization is Wine To Water. How do I edit the title of the article? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julietderienzo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Being discussed Here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Naja, Cobra, Cobra (disambiguation) concern

Hi, I have an interest in a couple articles that I think are in need of cleanup/merging. Cobra is a stub that has high priority in the reptiles project, so I was going to add some relevant information. However, upon arriving it appears to just be a list of animals that are not part of the "True Cobra" family (Naja) that are named "Cobra", the most ridiculous example therein is the False water cobra (the "false" in the name of course refers to "Cobra" not "water"). To me, this page makes much more sense as a sub-section on the cobra (disambiguation) page, and forwarding traffic from "Cobra" to "Naja" as is commonly done with other genus with a common name. Does this seem reasonable?

Cheers, Mstearnsa (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Mstearnsa

I think the status quo is reasonable. The cobra article is a WP:Set index article, since "cobra" generally refers to a "cobra" snake, and unfortunately there is no single taxonomic group of snakes that fits that name. Naja doesn't contain them – a prime example being the king cobra, which may be the most well known "cobra" of them all. It is not in Naja, and there are various other "cobras" that are also not in Naja (e.g., the ring-necked spitting cobra, the shield-nosed cobra, the black tree cobra, and Goldie's tree cobra). The article also very clearly distinguishes the false water cobra from the others – e.g., it does not include that species in its list of "cobras" and instead discusses it separately, below the list. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My only problem is that, as a high priority page in the reptiles project and extremely high in the Africa project, it seems kind of ridiculous for it to be a stub. Because the species listed have very few similar traits, it's difficult to piece together information about a group so general. Maybe I could make it more like wasp in that it could have the history of the general "cobra" relationship with humans. Cheers, Mstearnsa (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Mstearnsa

I don't think it's a stub. It's a WP:Set index article. It's not marked as a stub. I don't think set index articles need to be lengthy, since their purpose is primarily to list other articles rather than to contain extensive discussions. I think all of the species discussed there are venomous elapids, except the one that is called "false" (which is venomous, but not an elapid). Most of them are highly venomous and primarily neurotoxic. They are all relatively thin-bodied and most of them also rear up and/or produce a hood. I think it is the combination of such characteristics that leads to the use of the common name "cobra". The basic problem is that "cobra" is a "common name" term rather than a scientific classification, so it does not align perfectly to the taxonomic classifications. It might also be better to have this discussion at Talk:Cobra rather than here. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello and introduction

Hi there everyone,

Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. I would like to introduce myself, my name is Howie and I am eager to contribute to wikipedia. I have started editing a few pages and love the new template editor.

I know there are a tonne of resources out there, but I would love to hear tips from more experienced members of how to be a more valued contributor to the community.

Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howiemann (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. See here. Thanks! Happy Editing! :) Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

How to add Infobox to Entry

Hi, I'm editing an entry called "International Space Station United States National Laboratory," and I'm having trouble adding an infobox to it. I used the Infobox Laboratory template with Visual Editor, and then filled out a few basic lines for it, but when I previewed the page, the infobox didn't show up. It only shows the title of the entry and nothing else in the box. Can you please tell me how to create this infobox? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfleming458 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mfleming458. It looks like Legacypac had just sorted that out for you, and moved your draft into mainspace too. (no pun intended) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I just did the move, another more talented editor fixed the infobox. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. It's a great article. I hope Mfleming458 will put it forward for Did You Know...? on the Main Page. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Bikram malati

Bikram malati actor was movie krodh reeleas on 2017 the page create Bikram malati krodh Short film Watch on bit liliys He channel on youtube Comedy channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alll she be (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Alll she be:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, not a venue to promote a YouTube channel or a social medium like Facebook. If you are interested in contributing encyclopedic content, please see WP:About for more information about this project and its purpose - sourced encyclopedic contributions are always welcome. But all other unrelated or promotional edits will likely get deleted, and you should look for other websites to publish such information. GermanJoe (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiWatchlister

How can I add a infobox for this page? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser - There doesn't appear to be an infobox template for essay pages. I looked through about 100 of the essays on Wikipedia:Essay directory, and not a single one used an infobox. Now, that by no means was an exhaustive audit, but it I did choose articles from almost all of the categories. Someone else might know all about it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about taking content from one page to create a new page

Hello, on Driving while black there is a section called Pretextual stop which is a redirect. I would like to take this paragraph out of this page and make it a separate page. A notice was given awhile back on the Talk page and nobody responded. So, is it OK if I just go ahead and do this? I'm new and don't want to step on anybody's toes! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01 - as per WP:SIZESPLIT, the rule of thumb is that an article should have info split out if it is over 50k. This link shows that this article sits at slightly over 40k, so should most likely not be split out. Contextually, it also seems to make sense to include it in the discussion of the article's main topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 and thanks for the reply. Actually, I also rethought this...I would like to create a new page called Pretextual stop, leave the paragraph on Driving while black, and then under the heading on that page have a link to the new page. Also, I would like to remove the redirect for this topic. Will this be OK? Thanks for the advice! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01 -If you can develop the topic beyond what is in the current section, then of course it would be okay. My point was that to simply remove the current short paragraph to create a separate article wouldn't meet WP:SPLIT. And I think that the topic goes beyond what is covered by Driving while black, since many of the instances of this have nothing to do with race. My suggestion would be to create a draft, and then when you have it developed enough, replace the redirect with your article. Or put a {{construction}} on the article as you work on it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. Thanks again for your help. I probably won't get a draft together right away, but it is good to now have a game plan on how to approach the matter. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Splitting an article

This is another stepping on toes question. On Wikipedia:Splitting it states that over 50 kB an article should be considered for splitting. I would like to work on Economic inequality, but it is huge! I think it is 202 kB. I just left a note on the Talk page that I would like to split it. On the Splitting page, it says I can be bold, but...I'm not that bold, yet. Do you think I should just split the page or try to notify some more people first? Seahawk01 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As an editor, my advice is "Yes, go ahead. The article needs splitting, and for two years has had a tag at the top saying so." As a fellow human, my advice is "No. It'll be far more work than you're expecting, and no-one will thank you for it." Maproom (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom for the practical advice! I contacted everyone who has edited the page in the past month and invited them to Talk:Economic_inequality to build consensus. Hopefully, someone else with take the leap and divide the page. Also, I contacted the following groups: WikiProject Capitalism, WikiProject Economics and WikiProject Libertarianism. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Maproom. I think we have a split in progress. All interested parties have been notified. A discussion has been started. I placed a new split notice at the top and two proposed splits in the article. I will wait until next week to go ahead with any editing. As a side note, I think, since this is such a hot button issue, it attracted lots of people offering a tremendous number of angles on causes and effects, which made it balloon to such huge proportions. I'm not sure if splitting it will tame this. On the other hand, it really should be a well-developed article as a point of reference for people. It needs a good editor watching over it (not me, of course). Seahawk01 (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is the appropriate field?

I have just created a stub Mannem Nageswara Rao and want to add Indian Police Service (IPS) to Infobox. But I'm not quite clear of what it exactly is. Is it a position or qualification or education or rank or something else? Any experts? Kindly guide. Thanks. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 05:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone changed my editing

I have added the date in which my grandmother died, she was a chess player named "Clara Friedman". Therefore I have edited the page. Someone decided to erase it and asked me if I have a proof. I don't know how to contact him or write a response. Anyway, I have no proof right now besides taking a photo of the grave... she has passed away in 2015. Thanks for helping. Clara Friedman — Preceding unsigned comment added by גליה פרידמן (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You could try citing as a source. Your edit might get removed again as it's not an independent source - or it might be allowed to stand, as uncontroversial. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom: Are you sure that is the same person? The image at the PeopleMaven.com profile [2] shows a quite different face, IMVHO... --CiaPan (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(after ec) @גליה פרידמן: I can understand you're disappointed, but one of most important rules of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. It means any information published here should be supported by external, reliable WP:SOURCES, so that a reader can (potentially) verify what Wikipedia says. That is especially important in case of people – it hurts much less if we don't publish information about someone's death than if we said someone passed away too soon. So, if you can find any public source confirming the fact Clara Friedman died in 2005, it will help in publishing the information at Wikipedia. If you can't, we better wait.

BTW, I have found this note: https://www.avelim.co.il/%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%96%D7%9C/

I can't read Hebrew, but I asked Google Translate for help. It said this is about Clara Friedman and it mentions a funeral date 15.12.15. However, it does not mention the birth date so I can't know if that's the same person. It also mentions family members, but they in turn are unknown to Wikipedia article, so this doesn't identify the person, either.

Can you, please, provide any (WP:SOURCEd!) additional family facts, which could allow us connect the obituary notice with the subject, hence use it to document the death fact/date? --CiaPan (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor

What happen if I click the publish changes and got denied 9 times? - 114.124.175.218 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's simple: You will get blocked from editing because your actions are seen as disruptive. Oh, you have been! Well, there you are. When you come back after your block expires, just edit constructively, and consider using your sandbox if you want to do some test editing. Remember, this is a live encyclopaedia, and we can't simply tolerate people mucking around with our 5 million articles - or the inevitable happens. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding Links

Am I allowed to make references to my work 'live' by linking? or does this come under COI (conflict of interest). There are many mentions of my work, especially in numerous classic album articles where I have given a rating in one of my ((Colin Larkin (writer)) books - (Encyclopedia Of Popular Music and All Time Top 1000 Albums). There are many times when I am quoted by name and/or referenced by my books, but the balance is inconsistent. Sometimes the reference is linked and other times not. Advice as to ruling please. Thank you. Colin Larkin (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Colin Larkin. It is not encouraged to add links to your own work (of any kind), because of the possible COI. What you can do is to make a suggestion on the talk page of the relevant article: if you add the template {{edit request}} then your suggestion will be put on a list of requests waiting, so somebody will see it even if few people look at that talk page. Then an uninvolved editor can look at your suggestion and decide whether or not it is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

About Adding Unreleased Songs To The Page Mars Argo

Hi, i'm new here. I've been editing the page mentioned above, but I have a quick question: are unreleased songs allowed to be added to a discography if it is specified that they are unreleased, or are they not? I am specifically talking about leaked songs. I just don't want to make any mistakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by El zafiro solitario (talk • contribs) 08:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, El zafiro solitario. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for asking. In general, Wikipedia doesn't care whether things are released or unreleased, real or made up, good or bad, famous or unknown: what it cares about is whether there are reliable published sources talking about them. That is more likely to be the case if they are real, released, etc, but sometimes there is plenty of material about something that hasn't happened or is a complete invention.

So, in this case, the question is, what material has been published about these unreleased songs? If the only reference to them is from the artist or their agents, then I would say that they should not go into the article yet; but if a critic, or a writer known in the industry, has written about these songs in reliable published sources, then they can probably go in (with a citation to the source). It is always a matter of judgment, and different editors may make different judgments.

One further point: I'm pleased that you want to avoid mistakes, and well done for asking here; but as long as your edits are well-intentioned, the worst thing that can happen is that somebody reverts your edits, and then you can have a discussion with them if you wish. See BOLD for how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin Fine! Your reply is very much appreciated. I will definitely check to see if any of the songs have credible sources, if I do add them. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by El zafiro solitario (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks for helping. I think we should surf on the internet and discuss something Kim thuy tran thi (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Scugog

Dear Wikipedia, It has come to my attention that some administrators don't do there research. I had changed the wikipedia page for scugog to repreasent the newest election and change the mayor to Bobbie Drew, but it was changed back to the previous mayor. I would like to spread useful information so which ever asshat keeps changing it back to the previous mayor and council please stop.

Sincerely, Guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.168.130 (talk • contribs)

Hello IP editor. It's really not for administrators to do their research - that's actually your job, if you're adding content or correcting articles. We require citations from you to support what you say. I'm in the UK, so how would I know if you say one person has become the mayor, and others have disagreed? That's why well-meaning edits get reverted when their changes are unsupported with evidence. This is even more important if other editors say you're being unhelpful in making your changes. Add a reference, and you can take the moral high ground. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Need help with articles about notable comics creators

Well, here I am, I guess. I tried submitting a draft about the Italian Disney artist and writer Casty (Andrea Castellan), which was rejected (which I then used elsewhere, to very positive reactions I may add...). I completely re-wrote the article from scratch, but am at a loss when it comes to adding references - and this was the reason it was rejected again. Realistically, how often do you find articles about cartoonists in newspapers or on institutional websites? Under such strict regulations you may as well throw out 90% of the already existing articles about cartoonists. Most of the information about these people, and most of the critical reception, simply takes place on blogs, fan sites, review portals, and the like. That does to me not equal that they are not notable. I also made a draft in my userspace for Massimo De Vita but stopped working on it for the same reasons.

These guys are not simply some no-name creators; they have been celebrated for years and when you look at the fan ratings on Inducks, they are clearly on the same plane as Carl Barks, Floyd Gottfredson, Don Rosa and the other Disney artists that already have in-depth Wikipedia articles. (I bet these didn't start out as perfect articles either...)

Now a) I don't really get why I am hit with a very harsh interpretation of the rules when I've seen lots of articles that were/are much more flawed, but received no complaints, b) I would never write anything that I simply made up out of thin air (I'm just miserable at remembering where I read the stuff I'm writing) and c) maybe somebody else could help me to find more sources? Problem is that these are Italian artists and I don't read Italian. Going through every article with Google Translate is not really something I have time or patience for.

In general, I find it very difficult to apply Wikipedia's guidelines in the same way to artists as to politicians, sportsmen or other public figures - for all the reasons I cited above, plus the fact that art is obviously subjective.

Any help is dearly appreciated.Jules TH 16 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jules TH 16, and welcome! The criteria are generally the same, that the subject should be covered substantially by multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the article subject. Fan ratings, popularity, etc., don't factor in at all to whether we should or should not have an article on something. All articles require references, but we are especially strict on that when it comes to the biography of a living person. Blogs and fan sites are generally not reliable, but reviews, dependent on where they come from, might be. If solid reference material actually doesn't exist, the subject is not a suitable one for an article and your efforts would be better spent on another subject. If you have questions about using a particular source, you can ask here, or check at the reliable sources noticeboard. Try a search before asking there, many sources have already been discussed at that board. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Jules TH 16: as you've found, that's how the rules work. Yes, it's tough on cartoonists. Another such unfortunate category is stunt doubles. Maproom (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

How to improve an article?

I want to improve the draft Wrestling Revolution 3D.Please tell me how to improve ?Satin17 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You can click edit and start rightaway! Fishingforfangs1 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Satin17: Looking at that draft, here are some things that could need improvement:

• Add spaces after punctuation marks.
• References should go after punctuation marks, not before them.
• Add references to reliable sources to establish notability. While there isn't a specific guideline for video games, you can probably assume that they would be similar to those for films and those for books.
• The text not very readable for those who aren't very familiar with that type of video games. If it uses some word that people unfamiliar with the genre (or with video games in general) can't be expected to know what they mean, either explain them in the article or link to articles that explain them. People who read the article probably haven't played that game or other games similar to it, so don't use words those people wouldn't know without explaining or linking them. When writing about words themselves, those words should be written in italics, but it's probably better to use italics too little than to use it too much.
• Fix the informal language. "Jumbled up" isn't an expression I'd expect to find an encyclopedia. And it's not really clear what it means. Do the people who look like some real people have the names of other real people? Do they get renamed to weird things like "Asdf" or "Clalc"?
• So it says there are seven promotions. I don't think what the word promotions means in that context (so that's one of the words you could try to explain or link) but another issue with that list is it should probably be turned into a bulletted list. Like this one, but without the indentation.
• There's also the option of adding information. But I think the other issues, especially notability, need to be fixed first.

I think that should be plenty of stuff to do to that draft for now. – Pretended leer {talk} 18:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Kya Tum edits not updated

Hi Team,

My edits on Kya Tum is not updated. It is upcoming movie schedule to launch in 26th October.

Please revert on the same asap.

Regards, Onlymailers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlymailers (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Onlymailers. That is because Ratnesh Roop has created three separate draft articles about the page: User:Ratnesh Roop/sandbox, User:Ratnesh Roop/sandbox/Kya Tum, and most recently Draft:Kya Tum. You have been making edits to the first of these, and your edits are visible there, but not in the other versions. (It looks the best-developed of the three to me).

Ratnesh Roop, you need to decide which of the three you want to work on, and get rid of the other ones. Normally I would suggest just putting {{db-user}} at the top of the ones you want to lose, and an admin will come along and delete them; but because Onlymailers has edited your sandbox, it is no longer just your work, and can't be deleted in that way. You might need an admin to help sort this out.

I very much doubt if this film currently meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: that several people unconnected with it have chosen to write about it at some length in a reliable publication. Unreleased works rarely meet those criteria: see TOOSOON. If I am right, then the draft will not be accepted on review, and you are both wasting your time. (It is possible that the film will become notable after release: but since that depends on somebody choosing to write about it, the draft will need to be substantially rewritten at that point, to be based on what the reliable independent sources say). Certainly at the moment it contains some highly promotional language ("thrill in every shot frame", "promises the viewers a sure shot entetaimnent"). Release dates are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, (There is no deadline): an article will take as long as it takes to write and review. --ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

To upload photos

I don't know how to upload photos to the Wikipedia content, so please somebody reply to my question! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan DV (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello I am reply. You use page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard

Fishingforfangs1 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"ZORROSTIANISM"

I read in the article sited above that ZORROASTER, (The Founder of the Relion sited above) may have lived around the time of Jesus Christ. My question is: DID HE EVER MENTION CHRIST (CHRISTIANITY) OR HAVE ANY SCHOLARS OR ARCHEOLOGIST WRITTEN ANY MATERIAL CONNECTING THE TWO IN ANY WAY?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:5151:BE00:1090:22F8:5C80:3BE1 (talk • contribs)

@2606:A000:5151:BE00:1090:22F8:5C80:3BE1:. You may want to ask this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is designed to handle general knowledge questions like this. The Teahouse is really designed for new users who have questions on how to use Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

...however, you read wrong. Our article about Zoroaster states that he lived around a millenium before JC (there is some disagreement as to when exactly, but it is pretty clear that it was before the 5th century BCE). If anything, Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity, not the other way around. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Good morning Wikipedia!

I am new, I say hello. Thank you for having me my friend Fishingforfangs1 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, @Fishingforfangs1:. Do you have any questions about using Wikipedia we can answer for you? --Jayron32 17:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron32. I am still learning but I hope to be helpful. Thank you! Fishingforfangs1 (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of Template:One source articles

Hello,

I would like to review articles with the template above. Filtering: article names containing "(Unix)". Sorted by age descending. Is this possible? Many thanks. --Hundsrose (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hundsrose. It's a short list so the sorting is not important: intitle:Unix hastemplate:"One source". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dai Sil Kim-Gibson draft approval

Hello all! I hope this is an appropriate place for my request. I have been working on creating an article for the Korean-American documentary filmmaker Dai Sil Kim-Gibson. I am hoping to have my article approved soon and I would appreciate any feedback on how to improve my draft! Draft:Dai_Sil_Kim-Gibson Casey.ha (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Casey.ha, I think this is the best-looking draft I've seen linked at the Teahouse in quite awhile. I haven't investigated your sources, but if they're decent, this should pass. Is it ok with you if I edit it directly (I should have asked first)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Two pages with duplicate subject

In checking the wiki on Frederick Douglass, I discovered links to two different pages that refer to the same speech by different titles. The Speech is available online here: Frederick Douglass, Oration, Delivered in Corinthian Hall, Rochester, July 5th, 1852. Rochester: Lee, Mann &co., 1852. Frederick Douglass Project. University of Rochester. [3]. It is titled "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" in the print volumes of the Frederick Douglass papers, and was delivered on July 5, 1852. The two pages are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_to_the_Slave_Is_the_Fourth_of_July%3F and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hypocrisy_of_American_Slavery. I think the former should be preferred and the latter deleted or converted to a disambiguation page but I'm not sure how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulick (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi unnamed editor (and I couldn't discern who added this from the article history). I think your best bet is to request a merge of the latter article into the former. I would also suggest that the verbiage in the first article's lead be changed to reflect that while some consider it untitled, that it is titled in the FD papers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. How do I request a merge? Signature added! Meg Zulick 13:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Reinstate Laura Summer page

Hi: Was just in discussion here and was wondering if this is valuable to get my page updated and restored.

Awards

1 nomination Laura Summer 2018 Behind the Voice Actors Awards Nominated, BTVA Anime Dub Movie/Special Voice Acting Award Best Female Vocal Performance in an Anime Feature Film/Special in a Supporting Role for Digimon Adventure Tri. 3: Confession (2016) As the voice of "Patamon".

Truthfeelsgood (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Recent nomination

Hi Truthfeelsgood - The article was originally deleted as a result of an AfD discussion back in 2012. It was recreated as an AfC draft in 2015, was rejected, and then went stale, and after six months the draft was deleted. In September 2016 it was recreated in mainspace, and was speedy deleted since it was an uncited stub of an AfD'd article. It was again recreated in November 2016, and was again requested to be speedily deleted. That request was rightly declined since the new article did not bear a resemblance to the AfD'd article. After much work, and a much better looking article, it was moved to draftspace in June 2017. It languished in AfC until it was recently resurrected and resubmitted by you today. It can take up to 2-3 months to get reviewed at AfC. I'll review it for you today, and make my comments there. However, you have a conflict of interest, and working on an autobiography is frowned on. Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography and WP:COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Gabe Mirkin

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and I just submitted my first article; however, it got denied. The reason was that the article sounded more like an advertisement. I wrote about Dr. Gabe Mirkin and I would like some help on how to look for reliable resources that Wikipedia will accept. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baladtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 2018-10-24T22:54:19 (UTC)

I've made a start on copy-editing the draft (I've covered the first four paragraphs), but there's a lot that still needs doing. All the direct external links will have to go. And the most important issue is that the draft cites no references. 28 sources are listed, and the better ones may be good enough to establish that Mirkin is notable; I haven't checked. But they need to be cited from within the article. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

New articles

Hello i was wondering if there was any articles that have not been created or can be recreated in a different way. If you make a list of the articles please post it on my talk page Thanks CanadiaNinja 21:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You may want to visit Wikipedia:Articles for creation. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for 4 months to have a new article approved

Hello. I submitted a new article for review on July 6, 2018. It was initially reviewed and declined with recommendations for improvements. I made those improvements and resubmitted the article. I have confirmed that I did resubmit the article correctly. One of the Wikipedia editors did confirm that it meets the standard for notability and I believe it is written in a NPOV. Please review and advise me if the timeline for this review process is normal, or are there issues in play I am unaware of? Thank you very much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Leder EllenSheehy (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@EllenSheehy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As there are thousands of drafts to review, and reviews are done by volunteers, it does take a long time to get through them. Please be patient- even though it is likely frustrating. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Help to improve Trinbagonian nationalism

Hello, I'm in the midst of a possible deletion on my page Trinbagonian nationalism. I would love to keep working on this page, and am hoping for help in improving it to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. Any recommendations would be warmly received.--SammyJ1234 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SammyJ1234 and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, do please feel free to improve your article whilst it is up for discussion. In fact, I urge you to do it! Waiting until it's too late to improve it would be a great shame. Having your efforts potentially thrown out by a seven day discussion can seem terribly hurtful and off-putting to any editor. You have my sympathy. But if you can take it as a challenge and listen to the criticism that editors make, and respond to it quickly, you stand a very good chance of improving the article to a point where it doesn't get deleted. The key things coming out are that it is rather essay-like and not encyclopaedic enough in its style, and that you've not cited any/many sources that use the phrase "Trinbagonian nationalism". We normally strongly discourage editors from bringing deletion discussions to the Teahouse, or any other forum for that matter but I do feel sorry that your attempts to improve the article by seeking input at Peer Review has possibly led to someone spotting it and trying to stamp on it, rather like a scary insect. I hope you'll forgive me for interfering with a topic I know nothing about, but I believe it would be helpful to retitle the article. But whilst it's under discussion for deletion, that would be inappropriate. But for now I have created a Redirect to it from Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago, and my recommendation will be to move it there after the decision is made to keep the article (which I am sure it will be). I do suggest you try to simplify some of the style of writing, add wikilinks to related topics and add more inline references. I'm surprised your article hasn't used some of the sources that come up whern you Google "Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago" If you can get hold of a copy, "Race and Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago: A study of Decolonization in A Multiracial Society by Selwyn D. Ryan" looks to be a seminal work on the topic. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Need help reviewing new article: Coffee flour

Hi there! I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm doing this for a uni assignment. I've just recently submitted an article titled "Coffee flour" out of the "requested articles" list. Because English is not my first language, I desperately need help with the article. It would be great if someone can kindly review my article, perhaps check the style, grammar, and structure of it. Thanks so much! Evkgoh (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Evkgoh. Welcome to the Teahouse. I've left you a few cookies (normal flour, I'm afraid), along with a few welcoming links. As I see you've also submitted this article to Peer Review, it probably needs little input from us here as well. That said, it's not a bad article for a newcomer, so well done. Maybe a bit promotional in places. I would like you to address your use of capitalisation, please. This is extremely important in this article (above many others) because you've written that "Coffee Flour" is the name of a company, and that "coffee flour" is the product it makes. So lose the caps when talking about the product. (like Hoover and hoover - vacuum cleaner manufacturer; any type of vacuum cleaner). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters for guidance on use of capital letters here.

When you say "Many efforts have been made to handle the stink of mounds and honey water leftovers at the coffee mills, including catchment or composting, but the impact is small. It leads me to think you've done your best to avoid copyvios without actually considering what you're saying, or how the reader might perceive your sentences. "Perplexed" springs immediately to mind! One helpful trick when writing articles is to read them aloud to yourself. If you listen as you speak, or if you find yourself tripping yourself up as you try to read it, you know your sentences are not flowing quite as well as they ought. But please don't be put off; I think you've not done too badly at all. Oops, and I've just remembered you said that English isn't your first language, so actually you've done very well indeed. Try getting me to write in another language and the article would be deleted in no time at all, I can assure you! Hope this helps a bit. I'm off for a decaf coffee before going to bed! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

New Draft

Hi, I'm creating now my first article's draft and i need some help wiith how good it's and if it's good enough to move to main space Draft:Smartworks, Hope you all enjoying your day Rou-2 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Jamai Raja (TV series)

According to Earwigs Copyvio, this article is a copyvio Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser - I'm pinging Diannaa who is my go-to admin on copyvio issues. I can't access the one sight which is 62%, but this might be a case of WP:MIRROR. Need better expertise to take a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I was able to access the source website using the Wayback Machine. The Season 1 plot description was copied from the network's website back in 2015. I have replaced it using material from an earlier revision. Thank you for reporting this problem. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sincerely apologise

I sincerely apologise for my copy in the article that i crated and i hope that to would not repeat it again. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunging (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence in entry on Critical Theory

This entry seemed quite clear and lucid until I reached the short section on Communication Studies. The lone sentence in the second graf is a dangling phrase. Since philosophy is not my field at all I do not want to post an edit, but I venture this guess: that the first word "When" should be edited out, and then it is a sentence. I do not have resources to check whether it would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinThorson (talk • contribs) 02:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I want to create a page, but very few references exist for this topic

Hi everyone,

My apologies if this question has been asked. I am a student living in India and new to the wiki community. Here is some detail about my topic -

'Rugra' is a type of mushroom that grows in parts of Jharkhand, India. It is very rare and only harvested after the rains. Since this edible mushroom is limited to this area (where English is not spoken much, nor much internet penetration), there is not much documentation about it. There are blogs that talk about the cleaning and cooking process, however, I read in Wiki guidelines that using blog as a reference would not be correct as it is not noteworthy.

I request your advice to figure out how to proceed to create a page for this (if I am correct in thinking this warrants a page).

Thank you!

Hello SeraneNorton, and welcome to the Teahouse! You have grasped clearly one of WP:s limits, if there are no reliable sources (as in WP:RS), "we" wont have an article on it. So it's possible that a WP-acceptable article on this mushroom can't be written, in which case I'd advise you to choose another topic. However, on google books I quickly found [4] and [5] so there may be sources out there you haven't found, and they don't have to be online or in English. Try asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, you may find interested editors there. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Rugra" is a species of Geastrum. If we knew which species, we could check whether Wikipedia has an article on it. If there's already an article, information could be added to it. If there isn't one, an article could be created, with the botanical name as its title - I believe (though I can't find a guideline that says so) that any multicellular species is notable. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences), but not that helpful (because "failed"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Geastrum fornicatum? Really? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance, Gråbergs Gråa Sång . I will do a more thorough research before attempting to write this article. SeraneNorton (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SeraneNorton: Remember that, if this is a truly wild mushtoom, there will probably be a page about the species under its scientific name. So, avoid the temptation of creating an unnecessary page which will later have to be merged with it. From a quick search, its seems to be a local term applied to one or perhaps two species of Geastrum. (http://www.ijset.net/journal/495.pdf See this). I was surprised by this as I had always understood the earthstars to be an inedible group. Good luck with researching this, and in gaining the remaining 14 badges of The Wikipedia Adventure. And do remember to sign your posts with four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). Regards fom the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nick Moyes . I only ever knew it by our common local name, and am happy to see that it is indeed part of Geastrum . I will take your advice to contribute to the existing page. I would like to add some referenced details about the edible nature of 'rugra' as it is quite a unique delicacy in Jharkhand. Thank you for the time you have taken to advise me. - SeraneNorton (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

i would like to find out the year all of Canada was declared an aerodrome

I just can't find the answer anywhere. I saw it on a tv show from 1990's in Canada. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.189.65 (talk • contribs)

That's not really the function of this page, but to answer your question I think you're misunderstanding for the most part, all of Canada can be an aerodrome (my emphasis) in the AIM. It's not that all of Canada was declared one giant airport; it's that, under Canadian law, anyone preparing an aircraft landing site is legally considered to have created an aerodrome (so if you clear the junk out of your back yard so a helicopter can land, you've created an aerodrome), so it's theoretically possible to create an aerodrome anywhere on Canadian soil. ‑ Iridescent 08:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

2nd attempt at article draft - is there a submission process?

Good morning, I work at a school and have been asked to create a Wikipedia entry for this school. The page I initially created was removed as I had just used content from our website. Having learned from that, I created a second draft using my own language, including citations and keeping to just the basic facts. I took my cues from another Catholic School Wikipedia page in Cambridge, MA. I have also disclosed my relationship to the school on my user page. Now my page is in DRAFT mode - but I did not see where I can submit for review, or is this just a natural queue where all drafts eventually are reviewed? Here is the page that I have created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St._Peter_School

In addition - we have many photos of our school from over the years - the two or three that I had tried to upload resulted in an error saying possible copyright conflict. Is the only way to upload a photo to a Wikipedia page if I go out and take my own photo of the school? That is possible, but we have, for instance, a logo - which I assume the school has copyright on, and an old photo of some Nuns which I have NO idea about - probably a digital image taken from an old physical photo. Is there a good resource for understanding how to manage photo copyright in Wikpedia?

Thank you. --ALB (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alewisbowen: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have declared your conflict of interest, thank you. If you work for the school, you will need to declare as a paid editor per the paid editing policy. You may add this declaration to your userpage as you did with your COI declaration.

Regarding your draft, I will shortly add the appropriate template to allow you to submit it. If you had any independent reliable sources to add to the draft, that would help a great deal. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

On photos, I suggest you take a photo yourself. You can then go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard and submit your photo to Wikipedia Commons. Ask for help here or there if you get stuck. Once a photo is uploaded into commons there is a simple means of copying that into your draft. Other people can advise on how to use a logo image. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)