Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

I have a question about signature

I need to have an acceptable signature for signing editing and talk pages can anyone tell me if this is ok? straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

it doesnt have any stub tages or venal statements i will change if change be need be straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green

I declined this draft at Articles for Creation. I noted in particular that the submitter had been advised by previous reviewer User:LaMona to trim the irrelevant material out of the "Awards" section, and asked why the draft had been resubmitted with no changes. User:Aagreeny4 has asked for my advice on my talk page, and I am bringing the question here for the input of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, initial reaction: the article is a compact mess. I don't think I can ever recall seeing the name of the subject of an article mentioned so many times. My advice to Aagreeny4 is to start with looking at other articles about similar persons and see how they are written. Right now the article is so dense, it is hard to see what is ok and what is not. But looking at just the references, as far as I can see, Mike "Greeny" Green is just not notable enough for an article here. The references are all to college websites except for the hearings and such does not automatically make you notable, one of the links to newspaper articles that are provided does not mention him at all and the other is just the results of a marathon. Hope this can help you explain things. w.carter-Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I will observe that when an AFC article is declined, there is a Resubmit button, with a notation: "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again." In this case, the issues were not fixed. If I see that a draft has been resubmitted without the issues being addressed, I wonder whether an editor is trying to game the system by hoping to get a different reviewer who has different standards. I will comment that trying to "slip one by" in that way isn't useful, because if one gets a reviewer who is quick with the Accept button, one's article is, for the time, in article space, but a New Page Patroller who thinks that the article doesn't belong in article space can always nominate it for Articles for Deletion, which can be more of a defeat than a decline. If you don't even try to address the comments of the reviewers, don't bother to resubmit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I still have sources from academic journals that state his notability. And why is something for congress not necessarily notable?

And I have been told that I can use some of th sources from colleges as long as I have established notability in other source such as the journals, newspapers, and congress. Is that not allowed?

I will also state that I was not trying to slip on by anybody or trying to game the system. The last reviewer was very confusing and contradicted what others have said and wouldn't remember other statements they have said. I was just trying to get some clarity. I'm not the kind of person to play the system. Aagreeny4 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aagreeny4: You don't become notable simply for appearing in a hearing in congress. And yes, as you said you can use info from college website if notability is established in some other way, but I can not see that here. Why don't you take my first advise and start cleaning up the article to make it more legible. Take a look at the articles listed on this page Category:American motivational speakers and take some notes from those on how an article should look. That would be a first step in the right direction. w.carter-Talk 22:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Aagreeny4, I was that last reviewer, and as I pointed out to you, you were given excellent advice by Bearcat (comments), although you appear to have misunderstood his distinction between primary and secondary sources, and what that means for your article. On your post on my talk page you said " I was told by username Bearcat last week the difference between primary and secondary sources, and that I can use both as long as I have enough of the notable primary sources, then I can use the secondary sources for additional information. This is completely different from what you are telling me." In fact, what Bearcat told you was the opposite -- you can use primary sources for additional information as long as you have fully established notability with secondary sources. That does not mean that you can rely on sources from college newspapers and sites, however. These are not generally considered reliable sources, neither primary nor secondary. At this point I also must note that there is a coincidence between the name of the subject of the article and the user name of the creator of the article: Mike Greeny Green and Aagreeny4. The name may merely reflect fandom, but it would be good to clarify if there is a relationship between creator and subject, before we go any further. LaMona (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How to go from C to B status

I'd like to upgrade my article from C to B status - could anyone give me tips what I should specifically improve to do this? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Fawzi Klhartog (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In general, it is better to use internal wikilinks to refer to an article as Ahmad Fawzi than to provide an external URL. Can someone else please advise User:Klhartog and me on the rating of articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Klhartog, one of the first things that should be done is to provide references for everything in the article. That is the first step to improve the quality of the article. The criteria for a B-class article can be found here. The references should also be complete with author, date and everything, not just urls. The text should be filled out with more in-deapth info on the subject, not just from online sources, but from books, newspapers and academic papers if such are available. The style of the writing should also be improved. Right now the article is very much a list of "he did this and then that". Links to other Wikipedia articles should be added in the text on a manner according to WP:MOS. Basic facts like date of birth (if published in a reliable source) plus an infobox could also be added.

This said, I am a little concerned when you say "my article". I also see that you have uploaded the pics of Mr. Fawzi in the article as your own work. Are you on his staff or in any other way close to him? If so you may have a conflict of interest. All articles belong to the Wikipedia, it's not yours, you just started it. And if you are referring to it as "your" article because you are Mr. Fawzi, the you definetly have a COI and should not be editing it any more. w.carter-Talk 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was also concerned about the use of "my", but looking at the article history, Klhartog created the draft and has been the only editor to substantively edit it, so it's understandable that they referred to it that way. If there is a potential conflict of interest, of course, that should be disclosed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:W.Carter for your feedback. Don't worry, I'm not A Fawzi nor am I working for him (LI profile: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/klhartog). I fully realize that I don't own any Wiki articles. Since I received feedback on the article I was simply wondering how I could make further improvements. Thanks for your suggestions. Klhartog (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Klhartog. Can I just check whether you took File:Ahmad_Fawzi_2015.jpg yourself? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There is Stub, Start, Good, Featured and then All The Rest. It is a classification scheme without any actual meaning or import; distinctions without any actual differences. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, TheRedPenOfDoom, that the letter grading of articles isn't really paid that much attention, but regardless of that, it's good to see Klhartog looking to improve the article in general. My advice would be to not pay too much attention to the grading, and instead just try to expand and improve the article as much as possible based on reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, all that matters is that the article is improved any way possible, but since the editor is a newbie I figured it would be helpful with some hands-on tips instead of the general "improve" to get it closer to Good. w.carter-Talk 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, and your advice is very good. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, your help and practical tips are truly appreciated. Klhartog (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Klhartog: I'm sorry, but I did a quick google search for the pictures in the article and they have appeared on the subject's Twitter and LinkedIn plus other websites, it is therefore highly unlikely that you have taken those pictures yourself. I think you have found them on the Internet and uploaded them, something that unfortunately is a copyright violation here. w.carter-Talk 21:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

w.carter Thanks for letting me know. Does this mean I should remove the pictures? Or should I get an approval by the UN to use this picture? Klhartog (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Klhartog: You can not remove them from Commons yourself, but they are marked for deletion now, so they will disappear in a couple of days. You should remove them from the article though. If you want a picture, you can use a system called the Commons:OTRS in which the Commons have to get permission from the copyright holder of the picture. This is a very complicated procedure! Be warned. Or you can email Mr. Fawzi's office and ask that someone there upload a new pic of him, one that has not been published anywhere before, at the Commons. Such requests sometimes work. Also, please 'ping' me the same way I 'ping' you if you want to get hold of me. I will not be watching this page all the time. w.carter-Talk 21:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

w.carter I thought I had used pictures which are labelled for reuse. If I cannot use the picture on top of the page, I could replace it with this one for instance: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unisgeneva/7420500442/in/photolist-bUCHY6-snS2Y8-63srRx-63wGdW-sjr4ah-smJ99Z-coscJU-8ZMJet-7dzVek-7dDPiL-tJk2NH-coscpm-coscPh-coscsN-rjBma5-coscCj-ciJ18N-cEyQUU-ciJ1fN-s8ecxP-rbqBxt-rbqBAz-rQCKL5-rQCKRA-8ZMJbx-AiFUM1-rbe47j-uAW6n6-uANAN5-cJj9Rb-u1qcN9-cEyR1J-tFSiKA. Klhartog (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Klhartog, images published under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike licenses (amongst a number of others) are acceptable and you can search for these using the advanced search function on Flickr. That image has rights reserved, though, and so couldn't be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Klhartog: Nope, sorry, you can't. It is marked with "Some rights reserved" and that makes it illegal to upload. You need to find one with "Public domain": or or . w.carter-Talk 22:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@w.carter & @cordless_larry Thanks, I'll try to find a picture with a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike license. As a last resource, I could try contacting the UN. Klhartog (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Klhartog: Just for clarity, a list of compatible free copyright licenses is set our here (locally) with further information here (from the Commons). PD (public domain) is even "more free"; a release of the copyright entirely. It may help you to remember one common demarcation point – whether a license provides for or disclaims commercial re-use. Those that are relatively free but are marked for non-commercial use are incompatible, which you can easily recognize by the abbreviation in the license "NC", e.g., "CC BY-NC 2.0". "ND" (no derivatives) is also no good. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

semi-protection

New editor here. I've been making minor edits when I can. Today, I was reading the page on Korea and have noticed multiple problems and after viewing the edit history can see it is a pretty contentious page. Many other country pages have at least semi-protection to prevent this. What is the process for getting this for a page like Korea? I think it could really benefit from it. Rgallagher8 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Rgallagher8 - You would start by placing a request on this page, a sysop will review it and it the page warrants protection, it will have it. Bear in mind there are multiple ways in which a page can be protected, like pending changes for example. KoshVorlon 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for a digital copy of a 2015 ACM paper

Would it be possible to get a digital copy of this 2015 Acm.org paper?: "Intuitive and efficient camera control with the toric space" by Christophe Lino and Marc Christie. Little bit hard to say anything useful with only the abstract at hand. It would be helpful in developing the article on virtual cinematography based on what the abstract says about it. The dl.acm.org site says it would cost me $15 but I'm not made of money. --Redress perhaps (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Redress perhaps. I urge you to try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request which was specifically set up for issues like yours.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Put request on resource exchange. Thanks User:Sphilbrick. --Redress perhaps (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would another contributor Undo every single edit that I made?

Since I am now semi-retired, I have more time to do edits of topics of great interest to me. By and large, this is going well. Occasionally another contributor revises something that I had added; no problem.

But now I have a more significant situation. Over the weekend, I did a major edit of Rideau Hall adding quite a bit of new information, every bit with at least one citation. The individual who seems to have written most of the Rideau Hall item simply did an Undo of everything I had edited (03:40, 9 November 2015). My Talk page discusses this in detail. User talk:Peter K Burian#Rideau Hall is not the monarch's residence

I don't know if Teahouse is the correct place to raise this question, but perhaps you could lead me to the area where I could ask someone to mediate this issue. Thanks, Peter K Burian 13:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Peter. Good citations are the keys to the Wikipedia kingdom. A good citation provides basic attribution information about the source being cited, making verifiability accessible. For example, when citing a book, common things to include are the URL to the page you're citing, if it's online, the name of the author, the work's title, its year of publication, the page number(s), the publisher, its location, and the ISBN number. For a newspaper article, the newspaper name, title, author, date, page number etc. for a journal/magazine, the URL, the issue no., volume no., page nos., month and year of publication, author(s) name(s), title of article, title of the journal, ISSN number or doi and so forth.

We have templates that make this easier, such as {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}}. We also have some resources like Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books to easily get the citation to place. Naked external links, as all your citations were, is far from ideal. Also, if you click "cite" in the toolbar above the editing window you will be provided a guided form for entry of a citation. See generally Help:Referencing for beginners.

I can't read User:Miesianiacal's mind, and the edit summary accompanying his or her revert was opaque where it should not have been, but I believe this was at least a major factor in the revert. Fixing the citations would require quite a bit of work on another user's part. If that was the sole basis, it may be that leaving the edit, but asking you to fix the citations would have been a better route, only reverting if you did not after some sufficient time had passed. Anyway, all your edits are in the page history. You can click on the date of the version in the page history before the revert, click edit, fix your citations and save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC) P.s. If you need any help with understanding how to format the citations, I am happy to provide some concrete examples for you from your draft to get you started. Just drop me a line on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is this being asked here, behind my back (so to speak)? (I wouldn't have known about it had Fuhghettaboutit not pinged me.) Peter K's "major edit" (which it was indeed) was rife with problems; too many to cover in one edit summary. He can ask for my reasoning at my own talk page or at the article talk page, which is standard practice, per WP:BRD. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, please remember that the Teahouse is the friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia, and that Peter K Burian is a relatively new editor who should not yet be expected to know all the intricacies of Wikipedia social norms. Please also remember to assume good faith. Now that you're here, you can discuss your reasoning civilly. Or are you refusing to use the Teahouse venue for some reason? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal asks why this question was asked here: Miesianiacal, that's one of the main reasons this page exists – for perplexed new users to ask why their (usually!) good-faith efforts to edit have been unsuccessful. So, yes, Peter K Burian, this was a good place to bring your question! At this point you could either continue discussion of it here, or take it to the talk page of the article as Miesianiacal suggests.

It's particularly difficult to conform with the referencing system in that article because it's a sort of muddled hybrid between two very different systems. My personal suggestion would be to use the {{Rp}} template to deal with all the page numbers so as to simplify things, but that (like any other solution there) would need (a) consensus and (b) a good deal of editing experience and/or technical knowledge (I'm willing to offer what help I can if there's a consensus that change is needed).

The really important thing, though, is to not let yourself be deterred by one setback. If you don't feel like engaging in extended discussions of that particular page, you could just move on to another that interests you. As you gain experience you will find it easier to judge which edits are likely to succeed and which are not. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

New article - help!

Hello,

I have submitted a new article about a regeneration project in Camden and I'd appreciate some feedback on whether the content contains enough detail to be notable.

Draft:Camden Collective

Nw1cmdn (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nw1cmdn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry for the delay in answering your question. (Note: I did not watch the ITV video, because I'm somewhat hard of hearing and have difficulty parsing voiceovers without captioning or a transcript. It may be an excellent, okay, or useless source as regards establighing the notability of Camden Collective.)

One of your sources, this article in the Independent, is pretty much perfect: It's a reliable source not connected with the Collective, and it discusses the Collective at length and in depth. That's the good news.

The bad news is that you need at least two more sources similar to the article I linked to. To give you the best chance of passing AfC review, the new sources should ideally be at least half as long as the Independent piece (though 2-3 substantial paragraphs might suffice). They should be in well-known newspapers or magazines (or TV programmes) with reputations for reliable reporting — that leaves out most websites that don't have a print or broadcast version. And the sources need to not be connected with the Collective, so definitely no websites of organizations that collaborate with them, and no press releases either.

I'll also warn you against adding any more sources to the draft that don't meet the conditions I laid out until after that article passes. AfC reviewers often find it frustrating to a review a draft that has two dozen sources they need to check in order to find the four that actually establish the subject's notability. Good luck finding the kinds of sources you need, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any more questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

That is really helpful. It would seem by adding more references I may have actually hindered the process!

I have included links below from local and national press that I think satisfy the criteria and are included in the article:

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden_collective_labour_cut_business_rates_rachel_reeves_mp_1_3976134

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden_collective_c_159_retail_space_cheap_rent_creative_start_up_businesses_1_3488248

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a843076-4a6f-11e5-b558-8a9722977189.html

http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/news/article-17568.php

Grateful for your help.

Nw1cmdn (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Nw1cmdn. Could you help me understand what kind of website hamhigh.co.uk is? The name Ham & High does not come across as very professional. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Ham and High" is short for "Hampstead and Highgate", two of the wealthier suburbs of Northern London. It's a local newspaper. Maproom (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

help with references for beginner

Hi I am trying to draft and create a page for my daughter who is Hattie Gotobed - an up and coming actress. I have drafted and submitted but came back saying needs referencing. I have looked at the videos and read through but am still a little lost and would appreciate some help - ideally if someone can show me how to do the first one - what I need to do/ add etc... I could then hopefully do the rest.

Thanks very much in advance Tracy Romeha3 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tracy, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question you need to address before anything else is whether she is "notable" enough (in Wikipedia's sense of the word) to warrant having her own article at this stage of her career. Most "up and coming" actors do not yet have enough of a public profile to have an article. The over-riding consideration for notability is that the subject significant coverage in a good number of reliable sources that are independent of the topic. So your first job is to assemble a collection of all the newspaper articles and magazine features and details of television coverage etc that are specifically about her (i.e. not just listing that she was in a performance, but talking about her in detail). If you can't find that, then it is probably too early in her career. If you can, and you just need assistance with how to lay them out in an article, I suggest reading "Referencing for beginners.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tracy. In addition to the advice given to you by Gronk OZ, I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, in particular the subsections titled "Writing about yourself, family, friends" and "Law of unintended consequences". Editors who have a conflict of interest regarding a particular topic sometimes find it hard to maintain a neutral point of view; They are not prohibited from editing, but they are often encourage to refrain from doing so (except under certain conditions) because it can be a little tricky to do. Many articles created by COI editors often end up being deleted not too long after they are added to Wikipedia because they tend to be overly promotional and have other problems that are too hard to fix. It's OK for you to continue working on and improving your draft, but at least at first glance none of the sources you've cited so far are considered sufficient for establishing her Wikipedia notability. Her personal website and her agency's website are considered to be primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability, while IMDb and wiki pages are considered to be user-generated content and thus typically not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, this may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON#Actors and actresses for an article to be written about your daughter. If, however, you believe your daughter is truly notable enough for a Wikipedia article (i.e., has received the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources referred to in the General notability guideline or in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers) and you can find those sources, than add them to your draft. Another option you might want to consider is requesting that an article be written about her at Wikipedia:Requested articles. One of the editors who works off that page may decide that there are sufficient sources for an article to be written, and go ahead and write one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, shooting down the draft on grounds of bad references is correct as far as it goes, but inadequate. It points to deeper problems less likely to be fixed. Besides the problems already mentioned, there is Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing, which can be roughly summarized as, we don't cover the up and coming. We wait until they have arrived. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tracy a good article to read for new beginners is Your first article. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Although I am a newbie on Wikipedia, I can clearly find User:Delta13C is overtagging a page Nigma Talib knowingly, even there are no such issues, Can someone check his contributions. He seems to be linked with Michael Uzick, check his contribution at Draft:Michael Uzick and attacking the page with a biasness.(refer to the talk page) Please help me to understand if I need to know under Wikipedia editing policies. Perogrimadi (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Perogrimadi your concerns are valid; I skimmed the article and the tags are not applicable to what's there. They can probably be removed and the editor who added them questioned on their motives. If it gets worse, an admin may need to have a word with them. Add: I went ahead and removed those tags. I may send this user a message later explaining that tagging is not indiscriminate and shouldn't be used except for real issues. Their edits on Michael Uzick page are almost to the point of libel. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I also reviewed the article and found the tags to be no longer necessary in the article's current state. I fixed some reference issues, too. (@White Arabian mare: Friendly reminder to be very careful how you use the word "libel" on Wikipedia, because anything that can be construed as a legal threat can get you blocked.) I'm glad we were able to help you, Perogrimadi; feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification, can you suggest (GrammarFascist or White Arabian mare), how can I find other articles which I can improve? Perogrimadi (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Perogrimadi. You could try Wikipedia:Article development, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention or Wikipedia:Cleanup, which are all good ways to find articles that need help, or you could just use the "Random article" link in the sidebar on the left-hand side of every Wikipedia page. Wikipedia:AFD is also a good place to find articles in need of improvement (and sometimes articles under attack from editors with POV agendas). —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist. I tend to stay away from BLPs--biographies of living animals are much safer! White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Perogrimadi, another place you can find ideas to work on is to join a WikiProject on a topic that interests you. Most of these projects maintain work lists in their field.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

hi can anyone tell me what is disruptive? I know editing but is it when you change the page when someone else is editing simultanously? thanks straight☆shooter^{BLUSTER AT ME, BLOWER} 00:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

creating page about clup society

Please help me to create page about our community. Before i created but was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulwant Ladhar (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kulwant Ladhar and welcome to the Teahouse.

Christian Yuva Morcha was deleted because the article did not show the subject's notability. You can draft an article at Draft:Christian Yuva Morcha, or at User:Kulwant Ladhar/Christian Yuva Morcha and change the title using the "Move" option when it is ready to be an article: you can also ask for the dleted article back so you can work on it at Wikipedia:Refund, but please do not attempt to write the article on other pages. Notability is the general influence something has had on the world. A good way to establish notability would be to have sources seen as reliable-those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as many newspapers. The sources would also need to be third-party, meaning they are not directly related to the orgnaization: for example, a newspaper reporting on the organization because it is newsworthy, and not because of an affiliation they have with them.

If you are a member of this society, as your use of "our" suggests, it is recommended that you do not edit the article, as you are classed as having a conflict of interest, or a connection to the subject which may affect your editing. You are not forbidden from editing the article, however, although if you choose to you will need to include your membership or connection to the organization on the article's talk page. Please note that per One person, one account, if several people are using this account you should stop doing so and create separate accounts, although you are free to work together.

Please also note that Wikipedia articles are required to be written from a neutral point of view, meaning viewpoints must be presented without taking a side, a rule which is often broken unintentionally. This is particularly difficult if you have a conflict of interest, so it is recommended that you work with other editors to help keep the article neutral.

Feel free to ask if you have any more questions, and happy editing. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Lleyson Hopkin Davy

Hello, I have just created my first Draft article for "Lleyson Hopkin Davy"

Would any experienced Wikipedians be interested in please taking a look and helping me get the article up to speed? I have no experience in formally adding the citations etc.

Thanks in advance

note. Williams reference is a published book with many citations. London. Womens printing society. 66 Whitcomb st. Davy ref. on page 154 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

davymi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Davymi. Draft:Lleyson Hopkin Davy is a good start, and you've included some references, which new people often don't. But it needs some work in how you're presenting the references: as well as using footnotes to tag individual sentences and paragraphs with the particular source (which you have done), you need to give full bibliographic information to let the reader locate the references, and to give page numbers (or at least chapters and sections) so that the reader can find specifically where in the source the statement is supported.

The good news, is that Wikipedia can do some of this for you. There is a tool called ProveIt, (which I believe is automatically enabled when you are editing) which will help you cite the reference properly, and create and number the footnote for you automatically. Please see referencing for beginners. (Full disclosure: I don't use ProveIt, because I was already familiar with how Wikipedia does references before it was invented. So it's possible to do it manually as well).

There are also some guidelines about how to lay out an article, most obviously that you use paired equals signs for headers, so eg

==Early life==

on a line by itself (without the leading space I've put in), and with two = before and after, will display a level-two header. Please see Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Davymi: You can find information about formatting footnotes at WP:REFB. I would also note that family histories are not considered reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial oversight and would not be usable to demonstrate that the subject of the article meets the requirements for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD: I took "Williams C (1873) A Welsh family history from the beginning of the 18th century" to be a reference to a regularly published book, rather than an (unpublished or privately published) family history. Davymi: this shows the importance of giving proper bibliographic information with your references! --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it might actually have been published - see this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank your for the comment, I have made some edits to the article and will hope to continually improve the information. As mentioned above, C Williams "A Welsh family history" is a published book with many citations, I have updated the reference. If this is insufficient I can add further references. Thanks for the help, I would be appreciative of further constructive edits/advice to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not put the words "New page under construction" in a draft page. I have removed them. The fact that it is a new page under construction is implied by it being in draft space and not yet submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How to delete the wikipedia page?

Someone created this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gounder it irritate my community or caste how to delete this page?

Ranjith KonGu (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ranjith KonGu. We do not delete articles because they "irritate" any group of people. We have many articles that irritate many people, because that is the very nature of an encyclopedia that strives to present all of human knowledge, and which now has over 5,000,000 articles.

So, you need a much better reason to try to delete the article. If you truly believe that the topic is not notable, or that is so filled with falsehoods that it is not worth saving, then take it to Articles for Deletion. Be prepared to base your argument on policies and guiidelines, not on your own personal preference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

it would probably be best to be WP:MERGEd into the main article about the group to which it is applied, otherwise it seems just to be a WP:DICDEF. Or if it is applied to disparate groups, conversion to a WP:DAB page. pinging @Sitush: who has a lot of insight into these topics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

How to get the lock protection for existing page?

https://ta.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=கவுண்டர் this page irritate my caste.i changed the content but one user blocked me i need to delete that page or i want to get ownership of that page?

Ranjith KonGu (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ranjith KonGu, welcome to the Teahouse. The page you linked to is on the Tamil-language Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the English-language Wikipedia community is only equipped to deal with issues on the English Wikipedia. The Tamil Wikipedia may have different rules than we do, so you may receive more help if you ask your question there. If you have been blocked from editing, that means that the administrators on the Tamil Wikipedia believed some aspect of your contributions were disruptive to the goal of making an encyclopedia. My advice would be to wait until the block expires, and in the meantime, attempt to understand why you were blocked, so that way it never happens again.

To answer your question in the context of the English Wikipedia, this is a collaborative project, meaning users must work with each other to build articles. To support this principle, English Wikipedia has a policy against ownership of articles. No editor "owns" an article on Wikipedia, and content you submit may be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone (see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content). If you believe there is a good reason that a page should be deleted or changed, the most effective thing to do is almost always to discuss it with your fellow Wikipedians. If you need further help with editing on the English Wikipedia, feel free to leave a follow-up here at the Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Ranjith KonGu (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite Error

In the article "Lotti Golden" I noticed a Cite Error was listed on reference #42, " Cite error: The named reference Toop was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." I looked at the help page but I am still not sure how to remedy the Cite Error. Can someone be so kind as to assist me with this? Thank you! Magdalamar (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magdalamar, welcome to the Teahouse. You almost had it in [1]. Before that there was another error message about two different definitions of "Toop-2000". A correct solution would be to change one of the definitions to say <ref name=Toop-2000/> in order to invoke the other definiton. I have done this.[2] If you want to rename one of the definitions to only be called "Toop" then you must keep the definiton text. You cannot say <ref name=Toop/> when "Toop" is never defined. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Magdalamar. Based on my experience, this is the most likely cause of the error message, though there are other possibilities: At some time in the past, someone created a named reference, with a "ref name=Toop" parameter. The reference naming in the master citation allows the same reference to be easily reused in other parts of the article. But if a subsequent edit deletes the main citation, then any secondary usages will be orphaned, as it were. Use the article history to check previous versions of the article, until you find a version with the named reference intact. Check subsequent versions until you find the one that deleted the reference. Unless there was a good reason to delete that reference, for example that it was unreliable, you can copy the reference from that earlier version and paste it back into the article in the proper place, thereby eliminating the error message. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, Thank you so much for responding. It's confusing as to why the error was posted in the first place. Due to the tedium involved in locating the source of the Cite Error, your suggestion to review the history until I find a version with the named reference intact is much appreciated. I will keep you posted! Magdalamar (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I looked at the the most recent version of the article "Lotti Golden" and the Cite Error message seems to have been magically removed. I use the term "magically" because I don't know how this happened. There is another article I've contributed to, "Warp 9" that used the same Cite Error message for the same reference. I went back to the earliest page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warp_9&oldid=506844626, and the Cite Error message appears even though the reference is used only once, so multiple times is not even a reason for the Cite Error to be posted. Checking on a more recent version of the "Warp 9" article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warp_9&oldid=555137720, the Cite Error is repeated several times on the same reference, see: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Toop-2000" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Toop-2000" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Toop-2000" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Toop-2000" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Could this be some sort of vandalism? Thank you so much Cullen. I'm concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdalamar (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Please remember to place <ref> tags in <nowiki></nowiki> tags to avoid parser errors, e.g., <nowiki><ref></nowiki>. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 15:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Magdalamar. Citations can take a while to get familiar with, but it looks like you're getting the hang of them. The reason the error "magically" went away from Lotti Golden was because PrimeHunter edited it. If you look at the History of that article and use the option to compare the revisions before and after PrimeHunter's change, you can see how this "magic" was achieved. Then the same technique (i.e. changing the name on each distinct reference) on other articles. Looking at Warp 9, I see that you have managed to get rid of the errors already - well done. I took the opportunity to clean up your other references a bit, especially Fitxpatrick.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Magdalamar, I have another suggestion, if I may be so bold. When you edit a page, it is very helpful to provide a brief description of what you changed in the "Edit summary" (near the bottom of the edit screen). This way, when you look at the History it is much easier to navigate around who did what. --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Magdalamar, I have taken the liberty of moving your recent comments and the responses to them to the section of this page in which you posted your original question. It is best practice to reply to comments in the existing section, rather than starting a new one, in order to keep the discussion together. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Rights

What kinds o rights are there are Wikipedia? Is there a page about how to become one of those users to gain new privileges?Art234789 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Art234789. Please read User access levels. You are already autoconfirmed, which is the first step up from a brand new account. More advanced user rights are based on an established consistent record of making constructive edits. At this time, you have only 51 edits. My suggestion is to concentrate on improving the encyclopedia for a few months. Then take another look at advanced user rights. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking for more specific reasons for the rejection of my article

Here is the draft about a band from Seattle called THE FAME RIOT that appears to be noteworthy. The feedback I am getting seemed to be helpful at first, but it's vague enough to confuse me. Here is the draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Fame_Riot&action=submit Michael Sullivant (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Michael Sullivant. Please review our Notability guideline for bands, and let that guide your selection of sources.

When I read your draft, two problems come immediately to my mind. First of all, the draft article has a heavily promotional tone. It should be rewritten from the neutral point of view. Secondly, most of the references are interviews with the band, and I see at least one press release. These sources are worthless for establishing notability. For that, we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Far better to have five strong references that twenty weak references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think this is the right place to post this, but can you direct me to the right place?

I do not know if this topic warrants a page or not. It is my understanding that mathematical formulas cannot be the subject of copyright or proprietary information. I really do not know if this is true or not, but I know that Weight Watcher's could not keep the mathematical formula they use to determine how many points a particular food has a secret and the formula was here on Wikipedia. Anyway, Airbnb.com has this sliding scale for their commission that they charge guests. It is between 6% and 12% of whatever the host charges the guests. The guests often ask me how much the commission will be but I cannot answer this question because Airbnb.com will not tell me the formula. Is this legal? I asked if this was proprietary information and they said yes. Basically, how it works is, if the guest is paying a small amount the commission is higher, and if they are paying a lot it is lower, but they will not reveal the points at which it goes up or down. This stupid company prides itself on honesty and transparency, but that is only for the users, not for them. Is this a topic that would warrant a page or investigation. Would it even be possible to find out? (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015

I posted this somewhere else on Wikipedia and a notice came up that said this topic warranted something(????) and other people had discussed it, but when I looked at the other stuff around it, it looked out of place. I am new to this and I am really not even sure if this is really an issue that has any merit. I just have a gut feeling it might or maybe Airbnb just annoys me and I have no point, but this place is like a maze to me, and I do not know where to post my potential input. Can you point me in the right direction? I know this is the wrong place, but I do not understand the terms here. Yes, I understand editing, but um... the other stuff mostly not. Annforbes86 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Annforbes86. Wikipedia doesn't publish "investigations", because it has a policy of no original research. It might, however, be appropriate to cover this issue in the Airbnb article, but any such coverage would have to be based on reliable, published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just thinking about it and I was thinking it may not be the same thing as the mathematical formula as the Weight Watcher's thing because they are just keeping the point at which the percentage they charge a secret, they are not keeping the percentages a secret. Still really against what they preach... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annforbes86 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would be particularly careful to avoid making any accusations on illegal or improper conduct. If somebody else says that in a reliable source, or if there is a court decision, then that could be quoted, but Wikipedia editors' personal opinions are not relevant.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Annforbes86, many businesses do keep standards that they use for pricing decisions confidential. AS far as I know, there is nothing illegal about doing so, but I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. As others have said above, such a formula might be included in the relevant article, but only if it can be sourced to a reliable published source. I don't know of such a source myself. DES ^(talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to correct false birth information about me on my wiki page. Please help!

Someone posted an incorrect birthdate on my wikipedia page and I would like it removed immediately. Please advise. Tfrancis 1 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

press esit go to it and remove it yourself its fine if someone really did Kaiwen0115 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tfrancis 1. Can I ask what the name of the article in question is? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Jon Mack, Cordless Larry. Another editor has removed the birthdate for being unsourced.

Tfrancis 1, feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article was Jon Mack. Since there was no reliable independent source for the date of birth, I've removed it. Please do not add it back again unless you can find it published elsewhere in a reliable independent document. In particular, the year 1977 should not be added. Dbfirs 22:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tfrancis: you may also find the information at Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

blocks?

can you get blocked for helping but doing somthing wrong if you did not khow it was very worred thanks. Kaiwen0115 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kaiwen0115: it depend upon what the "something" was. WP:SOCKing for instance will get the sock account blocked at a minimum. Most first time blocks however, are for short periods and can appealed and shortened if the blocked person demonstrates they have learned and are unlikely to go back to disrupting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Kaiwen0115, if another editor believes that you have acted inappropriately, in most cases you should receive a warning message on your user talk page advising you to stop. As long as you take notice of such messages and explain your behaviour if there has been a misunderstanding, you should be OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Kaiwen0115:, and thanks for bringing this to the TeaHouse. Looking over your edit history, it seems that the article you are concerned about is probably Temperate rainforest. There are two issues with these edits, and neither is so serious that it would result in being blocked - you're new to Wikipedia so you are not expected to know all our practices yet. The first issue is that you replaced the existing information with different information without adequate reference (a citation with nearly all the details missing or "forgot" is not verifiable). The second issue is that you were starting to get into an "edit war" - this is where editors repeatedly make and revert the same changes. A better approach is to start a discussion on the article's Talk page. Explain specifically what changes should be made and why, and the references to support it (you will have to do a little more homework for that part). Other editors can put in their comments and references. Different references may give different information, so the editors can discuss how to reconcile those differences. Then once there is consensus about how to handle it, the article is updated accordingly. I hope this helps - if you have specific questions, please feel free to come back and ask them here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't find anything about a deleted article

Hello,

I am told that a recent article written about Wil Maring (a musical performer from Illinois) was deleted and I am trying to find the original and either restore or fix it. Batting zero. Who gets to delete articles?

i am also told that the original article was thoughtful and lengthy (whatever THAT means) so I am hoping to find the original and fix it. Author unknown.

Thanks, Joe Joetho (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Wil Maring. If you click on the red link, it will show you the deletion history. It was deleted in 2008 as providing no information as to notability, and in 2014 as an unsourced biography of a living person. For information on the deletion of articles in general, see WP:Deletion. You can go to Requests for Undeletion to ask to have the article moved into your user space to work on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You "were told" by whom? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The two attempts at creating an article on this musician were never more than three sentences long and have contained no sources at all. Joetho, if you can find reliable sources about the person, it would be easier to write an article afresh than to request userfication of the previous attempts. Deor (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Joetho, with regard to your question about "who gets to delete articles" - the answer is the people with the mops clean up the messes identified by other users. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• and as navigation trick, if you go to the deleted page Wil Maring, click on the sidebar "what links here" it will take you to this page: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wil_Maring where a little investigation shows that one of the versions of the page was most likely created or edited by User_talk:Tracymacl#Proposed_deletion_of_Wil_Maring who received a notice of its pending deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Joetho, I took a quick look at the deleted article and concur with the advice above. There's not much worth saving. The best approach is to start over. Make sure to check out Wikipedia:Your_first_article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I didn't know that. Now I do. Thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-english sources

Hi, I'm a newcomer and I wanted to know if I can use sources which aren't in the English language.Gwoomba (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gwoomba, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that yes, you can. They do need to meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, however - as do all sources, regardless of language. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That said, if English-language sources of equal quality to the foreign-language ones are available, they are preferred. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Cordless Larry!Gwoomba (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User pages pretending to be admins or other misrepresentation's ?

Hi, I've been looking and can't find if there actually any policy of having things on your user page that say/imply that you are an administrator? Similarly for other false claims of work done on Wikipedia? I just noticed the following two cases:

• User:ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi below has claims of "25× Administators Barnstar" as well as others that look fictitious.
• User:VampireProject23 has a large number of false claims to being an admin, arb com, commons admin, etc

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting this edit by User:ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi where he admitted they were fake barnstars that he had awarded to himself (95 from one account and 3 from another). He deleted them from his user talk page, after some pressure, but continues to list them on his user page, as if they were genuine. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the claims of being an admin etc from User:VampireProject23. in general you can report instances like this at WP:ANI. Nthep (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nthep, thanks - I just wasn't sure if there was a policy to justify a report or not to WP:ANI. It has no direct effect on me or probably any editor that's been around a while, but I just thought it was not a good thing for new editors that could be mislead by such claims. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And User:ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi has removed the claims - Arjayay (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Both of these editors are pushing the limits of what they can do. One of them is clearly pushing the limits on purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:VampireProject23's userpage has been nominated for miscellany for deletion. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

How to use Vector/Victor

How do I use Vector the editing tool? We Hail Wikipedia! (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello We Hail Wikipedia! and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortuntaley this tool is no longer active and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia: see WP:Vector. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not correct, We Hail Wikipedia!. Vector is a skin, not a tool, and has been the default skin since 2010, so unless you have actively changed your skin, that is what you are using --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

About Blocking

How many times can you be warned for vandalism or any disruptive editing before your user gets blocked? User:ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi. There is no hard and fast number of warnings that automatically leads to a block. It depends on individual circumstances and how serious the disruption is. The way to avoid blocks is to avoid disruption and misrepresentation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! It depends on many factors. The normal low-level vandal will generally get 2 or 3 warnings. But more serious disruption may result in an immediate preventative block.

The best bet is never to vandalise. (My definition: deliberately making Wikipedia worse.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC).

It is clear that you are deliberately testing the limits to what you can and cannot do. I am not an administrator. I would block you for one year to give you a chance to come back when you are sixteen. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

accusation of original research

I have been accused of original research in the article "Instrumentalism" when I report what someone has written and the response of others to it. I don't find that charge accurate, and wish to engage others in the discussion. How can I do that?TBR-qed (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: Can you please link to the page? --Xavier (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It's Instrumentalism, Xavier. TBR-qed, the place to engage others in discussion is on the article's talk page, which you appear to have contributed to regarding this issue in the past. If you want wider input into those discussions, consider posting about the article at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Abusive Behavior

how can Abusive Behavior like [3] be dealt with --Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Aryan, welcome back to the Teahouse. Is this about something other than their mistakenly tagging Gomti Chakra for speedy deletion? —teb728 t c 11:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The reviewing admin declined the speedy, and I left the other user a message on their talk page thanking them for trying to help but explaining that neither of the speedy categories they used was appropriate to the article. —teb728 t c 11:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The abusive behavior in question was some sort of insult or threat by an editor since banned for making similar comments elsewhere on Wikipedia. I can't tell exactly what, because I don't understand whatever language it's in (possibly Urdu). In general that kind of behavior is best dealt with by recourse to AN/I, where you will also find instructions for what to do in the case of imminent threats. But note that AN/I is not for reporting behavior that is merely annoying; for that, you'll want to read the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy, and start by talking to the annoying person and asking them nicely to be less annoying (though you shouldn't say it that way). —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @GrammarFascist: ,@TEB728: its not about that .--Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

writing an article

What are subjects that i can use in making my artacle interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonkhe magongo (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is depended on the type of article .--Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bonkhe magongo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is there is a specific article that you are looking for help with, or are you trying to find an interesting topic to write an article about? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

VFX Articles?

I am very interested in visual effects - CGI, stop motion, models, miniatures, animation, etc., and I'd like to know how myself or other people could improve on these articles. I figured out that adding a list of commercials that a certain company has done would be WAAAAAAY too long for this site and probably of extremely little interest. Would adding a list of films and TV shows that a particular company has contributed be OK? I added the feature film filmography of Pacific Data Images on the Wikipedia page for this company, used a lot of sources and did a lot of research on IMDB, TCM and BFI, and I'd like to know if that's OK for articles like this. WhiteWool1997 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @WhiteWool1997:, welcome to the Teahouse!

The major test for a Wikipedia article is: Have reliably published sources talked specifically about the subject in an in-depth manner?

One article that can use some tender loving care is the main article Special effect - it is severely lacking in citations to reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, WhiteWool1997. In addition to what others have said, I would answer your specific questions thus:

• A full list of works or products is rarely appropriate in a Wikipedia article. Unless the list is short, only selected items should be in the article.
• In any case, only those items should be mentioned that a reliable independent source can be found for: the company's own website is not adequate for this, and nor is IMDB (which is not regarded as a reliable source). In my opinion, finding the company in the credits for the film or series would not be adequate either (it would demonstrate that the company had contributed to the film or series, but not that their contribution was notable) but I don't think everybody would agree with me. But by far the best would be an independent critique that mentioned some of their contributions. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, I've recently noticed the article Animal treatment in rodeo is in pretty bad shape. It was created and mostly written by a now-banned sockpuppet (Buttermilk1850) of ItsLassieTime, who is permanently banned. The other editor who worked significantly on it has apparently left Wikipedia since then. I see the following issues with the article:

1. It violates NPOV. It's written like an animal rights propaganda piece.
2. The creator and primary author was a sock who is known for POV pushing and copyright violation.
3. The subject has already been covered in the main rodeo article.

What I want to know is, should I nominate this article for deletion, or can it be saved? I'm looking for some opinions on this. Thanks, White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi White Arabian Mare,

Thanks for coming by the Teahouse. I can see that this article has had ongoing issues with NPOV, but I don't think deletion is the appropriate response. The treatment of animals in rodeo is an issue that has been debated and studied extensively and merits inclusion. It looks like you're something of an expert in animal, horse, and farm issues - the best bet would be to use that expertise and skill to help find sources to better balance the article. Given that the user in question has been banned (along with their sockpuppet) there should be less concern around your edits being reverted.

I'll own my bias in that I almost always lean toward inclusionism, but I welcome other opinions. Arianna the First (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Arianna the First that the topic is obviously one that should be in the encyclopedia. Is the article so hopeless that the current content/structure/history will so poison the well that nothing good can grow from this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Arianna the First. I am typically an inclusionist too. I've decided to try to edit the article; I started by removing the section that was using PETA as a source, because I don't think anybody could consider them reliable. I plan to do more tomorrow, like finding some newspaper or magazine articles to use as sources.

TRPoD, I think that it may be saveable. I'm going to try anyway.

White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

White Arabian mare, I agree that the topic is notable. Even if the opposition by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, cited to sources they control, are neither independent nor reliable, there are certainly reliable sources that report on PETA's opposition to traditional rodeos. So, neutral description of their opinions should be included in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I left the independently sourced section about Peta's protests, like the news report of them smashing a tofu pie in Miss Rodeo America's face. I removed the part that was simply giving a long list of what Peta claims rodeo does to animals, which was using their website as a source and not citing any other sources. There is still coverage of Peta's opposition. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 13:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion

I got this on one of my articles i just wrote how do i get rid of it...i looked though it a i have followed all the guidelines.I need help!Eroncam3 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eroncam3: I don't think you have. There is not one footnote to a reliably published source as is the minimum requirement for a stand alone article. Without such coverage no Wikipedia article can exist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion 1

I'm getting this come up and I don't know what to do? Eroncam3 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Eroncam3: and welcome to the Teahouse!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a directory of stuff. In order to have a stand alone article the subject must meet some basic criteria. The content that you posted fails to make a credible claim that the subject has encyclopedic value. You can request that rather than speedy deletion, the content is moved to your User space to give you more time to provide the sourcing required for an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Folks, I take on board brushing up on ref'ing better and will take advise.

I note that many startup (not yet flying) airlines are listed on wikipedia. Why should CobaltAir be different? I'm working on a couple of projects, locally Tus is included on the 'list of airlines in Cyprus', has a page and is not operational. Bishwo (nepal) is another project I'm involved with and it too is listed and far from operational. Have I listed under an incorrect heading perhaps? agree it's not notable! Thanks for your time and consideration. Thirstyforeigner Thirstyforeigner (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thirstyforeigner. Whether an airline is operational or not is of no consequence of itself. All that matters is whether people unconnected with the airline have thought it worth publishing substantial material about it. Tus Airways has three references, at least one of which appears to be independent (though it does not say very much). But among our five million article there are many which are not satisfactory - if you find an existing article which does not meet our criteria for notability, you are welcome to argue that it should be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the article that was nominated for speedy deletion, because it was deleted. However, I will note that I didn't nominate Draft:CobaltAir for speedy deletion. I only declined it via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing help requested re: Article for Deletion

Help! My article was accepted but then moved to Articles for Deletion for discussion. Where can I find help with edits to make the article more neutral? Any advice welcome! This is my first teahouse visit so I'm a novice here. I hope I can locate where any replies are sent. Thanks in advance MarilynStableinMarilyn Stablein (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Marilyn Stablein and welcome to the Teahouse.

A major problem with this article is that it appears to be an autobiography. While you are not forbidden from writing an article about yourself, this is strongly discouraged, unless you are correcting an obvious factual error. An article a person writes bout themself, however well-meaning they may be, usually does not meet the requirements of the neutral point of view, a core policy of Wikipedia (this means the viewpoints should be presented without talking a side.) It is very hard to write neutrally about yourself. An autobiography may also be unverifiable: everything on Wikipedia must be able to be checked by its readers, and it is possible to include facts in an article about yourself that only you know; while they may be true, people are required to be able to look them up. Another problem is that articles written as autobiographies can contain original research: this is what a person thinks themself, or has researched, and is not permitted on Wikipedia in order for all articles to be verifiable. For these reasons, it is recommended that you suggest improvements at Talk:Marilyn Stablein, and collaborate with other editors, rather than continuing to edit the article directly: this is likely to help.

One of the article's main problems concerns the referencing, in that many of the references are to primary or self-published sources. A primary source is a source that is directly related to the article's subject; for example, a press release for a person or business would be seen as a primary source. A self-published source is a source published either by the person or business the article is about or by an individual or business affiliated to them. Both of these sources affect an article's verifiability: for example, a business' significance could be exaggerated by a self-published souce intending to promote their business. One way in which the article could be improved is through the addition of secondary sources: sources not directly connected to the subject. For example, a newspaper could write about a business or individual solely because that business or individual is considered newsworthy, and not because of any affiliation they have to them.

A more quickly fixable problem is the article's wording: statements such as "a number of" could be seen as peacock terms, meaning they promote something without supplying real information, although this is often not intended. Statements such as these should generally be replaced with specific statistics, if possible, with an inline citation.

I hope this helps, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I want to take out all the External links and put ISBN # for books to begin. Also take out the "a number of" phrases. Can I go ahead and do this or should I wait to collaborate with an editor? How do I find an editor to collaborate with? Marilyn Stablein (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult question and a difficult case. This is the best autobiography I have ever seen in Wikipedia, but it is an autobiography. It should be the best autobiography that I have ever seen, after having been declined and resubmitted so many times, and the author, who is a professional writer, does seem actually finally to respond to the comments and criticisms. I would have declined it, simply because it is an autobiography, but I can see that this is a case of ignore all rules, since the autobiography guideline does not forbid autobiographies. It only strongly discourages them. My comments to the original poster (that is, Ms. Stablein) are, first, a few suggestions have been made on the talk page and in the AFD, and, second, you shouldn't be surprised that it was nominated for deletion, since the autobiography guideline strongly discourages autobiographies, and since you had it quoted to you so many times. My more general comment is that the closer of the AFD has a hard job to do, because the autobiography guideline strongly discourages but does not forbid autobiographies, and, after more than a year, this is the best autobiography that we have seen in Wikipedia in a long time. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please will editors who enjoy editing challenging articles continue to join in, and improve Marilyn Stablein - the article so that it is elevated to our full standards. My skills are not in that arena or I would join in myself. I can see what I believe is required, and have said so on the article's talk page, but feel I am insufficiently skilled to put this into practice. There most assuredly is an article here. WP:BIO is fine, but, now the article is in main namespace it is hard for the autobiographer to make any edits without falling foul of COI issues. Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I save my changes to the article?

Everytime I click the save button the window just pops up again and asks another CAPTCHA question, incredibly irritatingDamcn174 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain in more detail. What browser do you use? Computer type? What exactly is happening? --Xavier (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A common (but not the only) cause of this is people trying to add a blacklisted website, as an external link or reference - try a small, very simple, edit, without any references - does that work? - Arjayay (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Damcn174: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question. Per Arjayjay, this is a common problem which isn't apparent unless you have been introduced to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Wikipedia maintains a list of websites we do not allow to be linked to in order to limit abuse of Wikipedia; usually this means that a) the site is of no utility as a reliable source and b) Someone has tried to spam the site on Wikipedia, that is use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their website. When someone tries to save an edit containing a blacklisted website, the software "kicks back" the edit. It should (if I recall correctly) post a warning about why it was kicked back, but this warning is often so obfuscatory in its technical language, users often ignore it; it isn't always clear it is a warning, nor does it easily explain what the problem is or how to fix it. My suggestion is, leave out any websites URLs from the edit you are trying to make, if that works, then you know the source of the problem. I hope this helps! --Jayron32 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet, but this seems like a good spur to hunt down the MediaWiki page (or whatever) and clarify its output.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. I think it's pretty clear if someone bothers to read it. People become very used to entering captchas and ignoring surrounding text. Maybe the first line should be made significantly larger, underlined, and prefixed with a shouting "READ THIS", etc.; some form of attention grabber.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fuhghettaboutit's comment just above. It needs a short, sharp summary, and maybe then a link to the fuller explanation. --Thnidu (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:CHI St. Luke's Health

I declined this draft at Articles for Creation, because it was tagged as having close paraphrasing. User:Kbkrenek has asked for input, and, in accordance with my talk page banner, I am asking for the advice of other experienced editors here. It appears from their talk page that a previous draft of the article was nominated for speedy deletion due to copyvio, and, in particular, the list of awards is taken directly from the hospital's web site. Since the timestamp of that notice precedes the creation of the current draft, my assumption is that the previous draft was in fact speedied. Since there is agreement that the list of awards is copyrighted, and it isn't always easy to rewrite the descriptions of long awards, one possibility would be to provide a very short summary of the awards, but to provide an external link to the web site's own list of awards. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: If the article's writer is affiliated with the hospital then the article should not be accepted. The article needs to be written by someone who is not affiliated with the hospital. --Xavier (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether the author is affiliated with the hospital. It is true that if the author is affiliated with the hospital, that is a conflict of interest. It is also true that the simplest way to provide access to copyrighted web sites is to make them available as external links within the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is not in and of itself a reason for an article to be declined, Xavier. WP:COI strongly discourages COI editing, but it doesn't prohibit it altogether. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you did well to decline that, Robert McClenon, for several reasons:

• it's unambiguously promotional (a good candidate for G11 in my personal opinion)
• it's excessively based on self-published or connected sources
• it contains substantial copyright violations (see this useful tool; it may be worth noting that it's already been deleted twice as G12
• most, though probably not all, of what it is trying to say is already covered in our articles on Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center and The Texas Heart Institute (which also seems to have copyright problems, I'll look further in a minute)
• I believe it is reasonable to ask any editor whose first edit here is a 42k advertisement whether he or she is (a) connected to the topic and (b) editing here for financial reward. Kbkrenek, do you have any personal or professional connection to CHI St. Luke's Health or any company connected with it? If so, you must declare it.

Robert, to try to answer your question about copyright in lists: in general, lists of factual information are not copyrightable (e.g., the telephone directory, the discography of a singer, or the list of hospitals in that draft), because they contain no creative content; if there's running text (as in the awards section there), or if the list is selective ("selected discography") or based on subjective judgement or weightings ("my ten favourite cocktails", "the 100 greatest albums of all time", "the world's most friendly cities"), then copyright probably applies. The best thing to do with those awards, though, is to remove them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, the article needs to be written by someone who is not affiliated with the hospital. And as stated by an earlier comment, their already is substantial information on the hospital in another article. --Xavier (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, you are still very new to Wikipedia; you should give more consideration to what more experienced editors have to say. Cordless Larry was correct that Wikipedia policy only strongly discourages COI editors from creating articles, and does not forbid them from doing so. Using the AfC process ensures that even when created by an editor with a COI, a draft article will not become a mainspace article if it is still missing reliable third-party sources, or is filled with promotional puffery or copyright violations, or any of the other problems frequently seen with articles created by novice COI editors outside the AfC process. If the subject is notable in the first place, there are worse things than to have several rounds of AfC review transform a COI editor's contributions into something barely distinguishable from what might have been written by an uninvolved editor. I have worked with a number of COI editors and turned out what I think are some helpful articles that improve the encyclopedia. Be as wary of bias against COI editors as you are of COI editors' contributions; remember that we are all expected to assume good faith about one another. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Thank you for the wealth of information. However, my previous comments were simply just reiterating WP guidelines, which I have read all of in a thorough manner. Again, I use the word "should" as it is a guideline. Whether or not I am new is irrelevant. On that note, just because I am new to WP does not mean I do not know what I am talking about, or doing. Thank you again for the info but I have read all of the guidelines on this subject.

P.S. I have no bias agendas.--Xavier (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascistr: To add, your statements are very true but, I do not think they apply in this situation since I have done neither of what you cited. Please understand that I am trying to reiterate WP guidelines, not make my own assumptions. --Xavier (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, I'm sorry, but there is no basis in the guidelines for suggesting that a draft article should be declined based solely on the fact that the creator has a potential conflict of interest. One of the advantages of the articles for creation process is that it allows such situations to be monitored and to ensure that a CoI does not result in a POV article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascistr: Again, I pointed out two reasons, not one. Those two reasons and the afore mentioned articles that are related, combined give a reason for deletion. Also as I pointed out, there is a consensus brewing that agrees. Now, I must be getting back to higher agendas for my projects.--Xavier (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Where have the scholars gone?

Since my adventures begin here at WP I have noticed an enormous amount of seemingly uneducated editors. Please tell me that there are still a large number of educated editors out there. I would hate to think that all of my hard work will eventually be overrun by idiocracy. I know this is off-subject but I am questioning whether or not my work will just end up being thwarted eventually. --Xavier (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In the course of trying to clean up so many articles that my current projects have basically abandoned, I have begun to ponder the thought, did they give up for the same reasons? --Xavier (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like a lone soldier in all of my projects trying to desperately fend off the uneducated ones who are constantly adding original research that I have to continuously spend time undoing. Rather than spending time adding to articles, I find I am spending more time undoing bad edits. I will not give up so easily but, I do need to hear that I am not alone. --Xavier (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am tired of trying to educate all of these original researchers. I spend more time typing and explaining things to editors than I have available. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --Xavier (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I am going to throw my phone through the window if I see one more 10 year old writing some incomprehensible garbage in a plot summary. Note to self: never EVER look at a Twilight article again. The problem is, a lot of people writing the books we use for sources are not doing their own research. They are rehashing something that somebody else wrote (a phenomenon very common in the horse world). So it's a vicious cycle. Editors get frustrated at the bad sources, so they do their own research. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare: Thank you for the agreement. I really need to know if I am a small number and it seems I am. --Xavier (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare: This would be a great time for one of those college pre-game pep-talks. (chuckles) --Xavier (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare: Maybe some of the articles I am working on need to be protected? --Xavier (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a new issue. Editors who have never edited Wikipedia before cannot be expected to understand Wikipedia norms they have not been told about before. Your weariness at the fact that new people are born, and grow up, and thus need to be educated doesn't change this. --Jayron32 16:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: You make a good point but, it is not relevant to why I posted and the questions I am asking --Xavier (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume that the comment about protecting the articles on which you are working is facetious. Full protection will lock you as well as inexperienced editors out. Semi-protection is of very limited value against incompetent editors, because they will very soon get autoconfirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Some of these articles are not even Semi-protected and honestly, I think they are being vandalized by users who are not auto-confirmed. --Xavier (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you are referring to two different problems that are both frustrating. The first is vandalism, which is normally by unregistered editors. The approach to vandalism is to revert the vandalism, report the vandal to WP:AIV, and request semi-protection of the page. The other problem, which is in my view harder to deal with, is incompetent editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

To the point of competency, that's what I was talking about above. People who have not been educated cannot be held to the standard of competency. When a new user shows up, and makes a mess of things, the proper course of action is to educate them on how to do it correctly, not to get upset with them for not knowing what no one told them. I appreciate that the work is never ending, but how could it be any other way? New users don't get born with the knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia correctly. The problems noted above, with constantly having to clean up after new editors who screw things up, is how it has always been, and will always be. One cannot expect that to change, nor should one ever expect it to change, because no matter how long Wikipedia exists, people will still not be born with the knowledge of how to do it right, and will still need to be educated. The OPs frustration at having to deal with this may be a genuine frustration, but it is misplaced as one cannot expect any different, nor should anyone. --Jayron32 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Again, you are correct, but I think my message got misunderstood. I am not upset at any editors nor have I shown them such behavior. I have always followed guidelines and done exactly what you suggested. In fact, that brings me to my point again. I am not on Wikipedia to educate my fellow editors on how to edit, rather I am here to improve articles. I could definitely devote my time to helping new editors learn how to edit but, I want to spend more of my time doing other important tasks. --Xavier (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: On that note, I think The Teahouse is doing a fine job of taking care and helping the new editors, the ones that seek help that is. --Xavier (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It may seem like that shouldn't work, but it's got us this far. Comparable projects with more exclusive memberships have tried and, frankly, failed. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally see more of a problem with editors who cannot write properly because their English as a Second Language is not good enough, than of editors who appear not to have finished Anglophone high school, but that is just my observation. Both can be frustrating, and it is hard to be patient and do not bite them too hard. (Once an editor cites the bite essay in their own defense in response to friendly advice, I know that they are not a true newbie but a combative editor.) If they submit bad articles at Articles for Creation, decline them. If they enter bad articles in mainspace, follow any of the deletion procedures. If they make bad edits on top of your good edits, read the dispute resolution policy, and, as a last resort, a competence block may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, they should be kindly directed to the correct Wikipedia for their native language. They may not even be aware that Wikipedias exist in their native language, and their contributions would be more welcome there, where the could contribute in a more constructive manner. --Jayron32 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. I have a comment. The suggestion is occasionally made that editors whose English is not fluent should be directed to the Simple English Wikipedia. No. Readers whose English is limited can be directed to the Simple English Wikipedia. However, a level of command of English that is roughly equivalent with at least an Anglophone middle school or high school classes in English as a foreign language is at least as important to edit the Simple English Wikipedia as it is to edit the English Wikipedia. Editors who demonstrate that they can't write coherent English should be advised to contribute to Wikipedia in their native language (not in Simple English). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me that there are still a large number of educated editors out there. The straight answer, Xavier is that we don't know. WMF has little knowledge of the background of editors, especially in a longitudinal way (whether the average educational background of editors has changed over time). One doesn't even need an email account to edit on Wikipedia so WMF doesn't have demographic information on the age, gender, education, nationality, etc. of its editors although some academics have done some limited studies. It would be nice if this information has been collected since Wikipedia was founded almost 15 years ago but it goes against Wikipedia philosophy that anyone can edit Wikipedia anonymously. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Well that is the point of my post, I do not need a stats chart, or anything of that nature, calling out to the community through its social channels works well enough. --Xavier (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want one data point: I'm a 39 year-old public school science teacher with 15 years of classroom teaching experience, and two degrees: A Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry, and a Masters Degree in Education, with a concentration in Instructional Leadership. Whether that qualifies me as "educated enough" to be able to read, summarize, and cite reliable sources for Wikipedia articles I will leave for you to decide. Still, my bona fides aren't much of anything. I know people with Master's Degrees who aren't intelligent enough to trust with boiling water correctly, while my parents and brother are all very well read and intelligent, though none of them has any certification beyond a high school diploma. And, though none of them do, I would consider them perfectly capable of being able to properly edit Wikipedia. A degree is just a piece of paper that says you jumped through the hoops in the correct order, and it is no indication of ability or intelligence. --Jayron32 20:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: @LukeSurl: @Robert McClenon: Thank you for the links and info. On that subject this project is getting way over my head! I probably should reduce my goals a little bit as they are so numerous and are taking over all of my time. I have literally spent the last 8 days overhauling my projects and have spent almost zero time editing articles. Yikes! --Xavier (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia is the only project that can truly achieve the encyclopedic goal. --Xavier (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that there are still a number of members who have some sort of education judging by the length of this discussion. I have already received plenty of material to read on, and have read all of your comments. Thank you all for helping me but for now I think this discussion is mute. I definitely need to get back to those important articles I was talking about. --Xavier (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

King James Version the Book of James in the New Testament

Who is the judge of everyone? Who is charge of the future? 97.81.192.63 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 97.81.192.63, welcome to the Teahouse! This is a forum where new editors can ask questions about editing Wikipedia. You might have more luck with your questions at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities although these are pretty philosophical questions.

Do you have any more practical questions about this editing Wikipedia? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::the help desk reference desk might be able to direct you to philosophy discussion forums where questions such as yours are welcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, TheRedPenOfDoom the Help Desk is not for this type of question either. Liz is correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

oops, i was thinking reference desk! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

create a new page

Hi, I am totally inexperienced in Wikipedia and would like to create a page, based on the website (I am the administrator of)of my husband,the Belgian sculptor Philippe Desomberg: www.philippedesomberg.org/ what is the easiest way? thank you for your help Jutta Koch Desomberg Juttadesomberg (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jutta and welcome to the Teahouse. We don't recommend anyone that has close ties with someone create an article due to problems of conflict of interest However you may request an article to be created here. If you have any questions please come back to the teahouse or ask me on my talk page Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Juttadesomberg. The truth is, you probably can't write an article about a website you are administrator of, especially one about somebody close to you. It's called conflict of interest. We have lots of people who want to write articles about themselves or their companies, and in most cases the best thing you can do is go to WP:Articles for creation and request that another editor with no interest in your website write an article about it. Self-written articles tend to be too promotional in tone, which is a big no (see WP:PROMO). Also, your website may not meet notability guidelines either. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare, AFC isn't where requests for an article to be created are posted, AFC is where newbies are helped to create articles themselves. The right place to request that someone else write the article is Wikipedia:Requested articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox edit

I made an edit to a template for an userbox Template:User WikiProject Metal. The syntax appears to be fine but, the change is not reflected on the external userboxes, such as the one on my user page. I refreshed and double checked my syntax. What gives? P.S. I made the edit at least over 8 hours ago. --Xavier (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The syntax was written long ago by someone else, maybe it is outdated? --Xavier (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xavier enc. It's called a userbox. An infobox is the box at the top right of articles. When a template has been edited, pages using it may have to be purged to propagate the changes quickly. I disagree with some of your changes. WikiProject Metal is an entity where "WikiProject" is part of the name. We don't usually say "the" before a WikiProject name. {{User WikiProject Metal}} uses colored text so links are the same color as other text. That means that the removal of bolding makes it hard to identify the link. All userboxes I examined in Category:WikiProject user templates use bolding of the WikiProject name, even those where there is also different color for links. WP:METAL is a convenient shortcut users can write faster, for example in the search box, but it's a redirect and gives a "Redirected from" message at top of the target. I don't ses reason to replace the full title with the shortcut in a piped link in a template used on many pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I will agree. As for infoboxes that was a typo, oops! I only added the "the" because I see a lot of other userboxes this way, why do they do this? I will make the links bold again. --Xavier (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: A lot of the syntax was written by an unknown editor so I am trying to clean it up. So far the color is removed and the links are bold again. As for "the", still not sure as my other projects userboxes have been doing this for quite some time. --Xavier (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The links are differently colored now but not bold. "member" shouldn't be bold and I think the WikiProject name only has to be at least one of bold and differently colored so it seems OK. I'm not sure which userboxes with "the" you refer to. On User:Xavier enc I only see {{User WPMusInst}} which says: "This user is a member of the Musical Instruments WikiProject". It doesn't use the actual name of the WikiProject, so "WikiProject" becomes a description instead of part of the name. With the actual name I guess it would have said: "This user is a member of WikiProject Musical Instruments". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: That is funny you only see one userbox because I actually have 4. I will make more changes that you suggested. --Xavier (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean only one which says "the". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I see! You are right! By the way, I used a trick I read about that fixes the issue, just simply edit the page the userbox is on without making any edits, then save. It works every time. --Xavier (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That trick is called a null edit. It's a "stronger" version of a purge which I linked earlier and also works in this situation. There are other situations where a null edit is required. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Woot! Look at my userbox edits now. I think I cleaned up a lot. --Xavier (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: CobaltAir

I reviewed the draft of Draft:CobaltAir and declined it. The airline is not yet in operation, although it is hiring personnel, and I cited, among other things, not a crystal ball. User:Thirstyforeigner has asked me to reconsider. I am seeking the input of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not notable and does not exist as far as I am concerned. Who knows what could happen to this company. --Xavier (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The user should keep the draft until the company becomes established and notable, if and when that is. --Xavier (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be guided by the references. At the moment, I can't see anything there to satisfy WP:GNG. But patience is a virtue: once they start operations, which sounds like it might be soon, there should be plenty of coverage to bring it up to notability. It also looks like the author could use some guidance about how to lay out the references properly. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

About: Writing Articles

Can we write an article directly from a book? Moreinformation 222 (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Moreinformation 222. Not if you are asking about copying from a book, that would be a copyright violation. —teb728 t c 10:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

all content claims must be verifiable as having been previously published in a reliable source. However, all subjects must demonstrate that other publications not related to them have found the subject worthy of discussing at length - and so a book does not do anything to establish that there should be a stand alone article about that book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous nomination of Draft:Olfactory Art for speedy deletion

I'm an olfactory art specialist trying to start a Wikipedia entry for Olfactory Art, so far a glaring omission on Wikipedia in terms of art. I started with a paper I wrote on the topic as part of my postgraduate research. First, my submission was declined for copyright violation; so I worked with the admin who deleted it, Diannaa, to grant Wikipedia permission to copy the material. The admin then restored it and put a note clarifying that "This submission has now been cleaned of the above-noted copyright violation and its history redacted by an administrator to remove the infringement. If re-submitted (and subsequent additions do not reintroduce copyright problems), the content may be assessed on other grounds." But then a tag was placed on the draft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Could you please help? I'm trying to offer my own research and expertise as a basis for a non-existent but much needed Wikipedia article, yet I seem to be caught in a vicious cycle of bureaucracy and absurdity! Thanks. Archmemory (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Archmemory, don't worry. See [this, speedy tag has been removed. It was mistake but it is fixed now. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 10:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Archmemory (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Archmemory: while no longer being in danger of speedy deletion for copyright reasons, it is still a long way away from being an encyclopedia article. all personal commentary such as "With the digitization of sight and sound, smell has become one of the last bastions of materiality in an age of immaterial globalization." will need to be stripped from the content. and something will need to be done with this whole section: Draft:Olfactory_Art#Resources ... either converting it to something like "List of olfactory artists]]" while converting every external link to an internal Wikipedia link and removing from the list everyone who does not have an article and a third party reliable source identifying them as an olfactory artist - or complete removal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

and you dont even mention Polyester (film) ???? probably THE most famous olfactory art piece ever. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be playing so fast and loose with encyclopedic entries. I doubt if most of this is sourced. Is Marcel Duchamp really an olfactory artist? Was his output sometimes olfactory art? Would this be because it smelled? Do good quality sources assert this? Is the whole article giving undue weight to relatively minor comments that might exist in sources? You can't spin tall tales and make them into lengthy articles. "Other artistic lineages from which olfactory art emerges are conceptual art, minimalism, site-specific art, and installation art." Really? "Like many genres of contemporary art, olfactory art is interdisciplinary in nature, or takes on hybrid forms. Olfactory art can engage with a range of subjects such as Arte Povera, land art, pop art, found or environmental smells, explorations of the human body, sculpture, and an ever-expanding set of subjects that are part of the current discourse of contemporary art." Stop it. The reader isn't here to absorb mere possibilities. Anything said in an encyclopedia should be well-sourced. This is essentially un-sourced. Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@TRPoD: Yes, it may not be a perfect Wikipedia entry yet, but it is much better than what is there on Wikipedia right now, which is nothing. And the whole point of Wikipedia is supposed to be that it's collaborative, right? So people can add what they think is missing and fix what they think is wrong. As for Polyester (film), it has its own entry; in fact, there's an (incomplete) category of Films with scents, more than can be said for olfactory art.
@Bus stop: Did you read beyond the introduction? Did you actually read the whole section about Duchamp, and the following sections establishing the links to Fluxus, Arte Povera, etc? Do you even know of the exhibition Belle Haleine – The scent of art which demonstrated all that? Did you see the 50 sources at the bottom? And have you seen other comparable Wikipedia art entries, like that for Sound Art? They are far more thinly sourced, yet they exist, no problem, better than nothing.

It seems some people's idea of "help" is putting spokes in the wheels without doing anything constructive. This introduction to the "Wikipedia community" is proving to be a sobering experience in misanthropy. With a "friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia" like this, who needs enemies?! Archmemory (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to pull the wool over the reader's eyes. It is not our province to elaborate on that for which sourcing is sparse. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

While you might not see this article critique as helpful, the editors are actually trying to tell you what improvements the article needs to avoid being deleted. If you don't find the Teahouse useful, you can also try going to the Help Desk with your questions. If you are looking for editors to collaborate with, I recommend visiting one of the WikiProjects that make up Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts and starting a discussion about your article on a talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Recovering a deleted Commons image for non-free use

The article An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments used to have an image of the cover of the book. Unfortunately, that image had been placed in Wikimedia Commons (Commons:File:An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments Cover.jpg), and it was deleted from there. I want to recover it so I can put it into en-wiki with a non-free use justification. Is there any way to get a copy of that original image so I can do this? Gronk Oz (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your question raises several interesting issues, Gronk Oz. Our article An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments indicates that the book was published under a Creative Commons license, which hints that the cover art might be eligible for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. However, not all Creative Commons licenses qualify. If the license restricts commercial use, for example, it is not adequate for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. I have not examined this issue in detail, since you can do so yourself. If the image is not appropriate for Wikimedia Commons, then I would not bother to try restoring it from there. Instead, just do a Google Images search for "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments". There, you can find the cover art. Download it to your computer, use any image editing program to reduce its resolution, and upload it in accordance with WP:NFCI #1. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. I didn't even consider the Creative Commons aspect: I will check that out. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the Commons Deletion request the book is licensed CC-BY-NC, which is not free. —teb728 t c 07:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TEB728 - that also agrees with the book itself; the C-C licence is "non commercial". So I will do as Cullen suggests and find a suitable image online that I can use with a non-free justification. Thanks to you both for your help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Referencing archives of non-Wikimedia wikis and other ongoing websites

The game Ingress is being continually modified by its creators, with an ongoing back (and front) story. The page's § Unofficial sites lists several non-Wikimedia wikis and other player-run sites. Like the official web sites, they are continually developing, but their durability is less reliable, and so I feel it is more important to list archives for them. But since the archive will frequently lag behind the site itself, I feel uncomfortable giving the archive URL as the lead link, as Cite web does, so I've listed it separately after the Cite web. Is there some policy or standard way of doing this? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thnidu, I'm sorry to say that no matter how you cite it, you cannot use a Wiki of any description as a source here, not even Wikipedia itself. WP:RS is very clear on the subject--nothing user created, be it a Wiki, YouTube, or a blog, can be deemed reliable enough to cite. A source must have some mechanism of fact checking in order to be considered reliable. John from Idegon (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, you misunderstand. I am not citing these external wikis as sources or references for any content in the article. Rather, I am listing them as websites associated with the game and of interest to players. Perhaps, though, I should reword the descriptions so that they don't seem so much to be recommended sources for verifiable information. Would that be satisfactory? (And I shouldn't have used "referencing" in the title of this Talk section.)

PS: "anything nothing user created...can be deemed reliable enough to cite", yes?

--Thnidu (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thnidu. There is a section in many articles called "External links", but it is not a collection of all the "websites associated with the game and of interest and relevance for users of the game". I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:External links, especially the sections on "What to link" and "Links normally to be avoided", and consider whether each of the sites you have fit the guidelines there. If you're not sure, feel free to come back and ask at the Teahouse. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is enshrined in policy, but my personal rule of thumb is "If I can't use it for a reference, in most cases, it shouldn't be an External link either." John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Thnidu. Standard procedure is to include one link to an official website in an article about a commercial product such as a video game. It is completely contrary to policy to include links to "unofficial websites". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and accordingly has no interest whatsoever in what may be "of interest to players". Fan sites cater to such interests, not a neutral encyclopedia. I urge you to remove these excessive external links immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328, John from Idegon, and Gronk Oz: Thank you for your advice. I will remove these and keep them as a private reference. Since the game is web-based, I'd like to keep them in my user space; would that be OK? --Thnidu (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Your userspace is for work in progress for Wikipedia. If you cannot use the links on Wikipedia, there is no reason to keep them here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Trying to create a wikipedia actor page

I'm trying to create a wikipedia page for myself. I'm an actress and am mentioned on a feature film page I'm in and saw an opportunity to link it a wikipedia page of my own. I'm not sure how to format it to it has the sections like 'early life' 'career' etc. At the moment it's under 'grace gray' and I'm being flagged as doing it wrong. No clue whatsoever! :)

Thank you! 12.185.51.138 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user at 12.185.51.138, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two main issues here. The first is that the subject of any article on Wikipedia needs to meet what we call our notability standard, which can be summed up as stating that there must be substantial coverage of the subject in multiple sources independent of the subject, and that those sources must be what Wikipedia considers reliable sources.

The second issue is that anyone with a close tie to the subject of an article is strongly discouraged from creating or editing the article themselves. This is Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.

If there are enough reliable sources that have devoted significant coverage to your career, however, I might be willing, as an uninvolved editor, to finish creating the article about you. In that case I would move Grace Gray to Draft:Grace Gray until it had proper citations to those reliable sources establishing notability, so that the article wouldn't simply be deleted, as is currently likely. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Grace Gray has been proposed for deletion under WP:BLPPROD as an unsourced biography of a living person and will be deleted in seven days unless improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, User:Cinderellastory16, you posted this question to the Teahouse without logging in. Since you have a registered account, please log in and use it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would so appreciate that, and understand what you are saying. Thank you for explaining it simply! If you were to google my name 'Grace Gray' there are multiple other platforms and sources that verify who I am and my career (IMDB, getty images at film festival events, screenings etc, aswell as all my websites and social media platforms..).

What can I do to help? 38.125.121.5 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Grace. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not accept references from IMDB or (usually) from social media platforms, because they are not reliable sources; and will accept references in only a limited way from your website, because it is not independent of you. Essentially, Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a person says about themselves (or what their friends, relatives or associates say about them) and is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them. If there is little such independent material, then no article on them will be accepted, however it is written; which means that sites that verify who you are and what you have done are probably not enough either, though they could be used to support specific information if other sources confirmed your notability (in Wikipedia's special sense). --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, please remember to log in before editing. As you can see, you are editing under multiple unrelated IP addresses (probably from two locations). Since you have a registered account, please use it. I realize that you are probably just forgetting to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I recommend having an unrelated editor write the article about it due to the Conflict of interest rule here on Wikipedia See the Article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zppix (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

1. bonkhe_magongo

Write about the latest things that every one is talking aboutBonkhe magongo (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Nahimana: How can I make this page as good as possible?

Hey Teahouse,

My name is Nicole and I need to write a wikipedia page about Thomas Nahimana. Nahimana is running for President of Rwanda in the 2017 election. There isn't much information published about Nahimana specifically, and even less in English. I am working on the page now. It's a draft. I found a couple wordpress sites that I'm citing, and I'm also citing reputable articles about his biggest competitors for the election. Can I cite Nahimana himself for providing me with information about his age, schooling, etc?

Thanks for your help.

Cnd2015 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Cnd2015: and welcome to the Teahouse!

Almost universally*, Wikipedia only accepts content that is verifiable as having been previously published in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Blogs are almost certainly not appropriate and will not help to establish that the subject meets the requirements for a stand alone article. You may also be interested in WP:POL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

* Wikipedia would not accept that Nahimana had sent you an e-mail that "confirmed" facts. If your email encouraged Nahimana to post facts on a website that is positively identifiable as his official website, non-promotional information bits about Nahimana could be cited to his website, but that would do nothing to help establish that Nahimana meets the requirements for a stand alone article in the first place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Cnd2015, I'd just like to add one comment to TRPoD's advice. It is not unusual for there to be little information in reliable sources about an election that will be held in two years. While it might not be possible to gather verifiable data today, that doesn't mean that a fact-based article can't be written at some point in the future, as the election nears. However, Wikipedia is not a good tool to get word out about an upcoming event if it hasn't been discussed in mainstream newspapers, books or other secondary sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And, Nicole, if your purpose in writing the article is to get him better known, or to help his campaign in any way, that would count as promotion, and is strictly forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. (I don't know that that is your intention, but your use of the phrase "I need to" suggests that it is. Apologies if my assumption is wrong). Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a person (or a band, school, company, or anything else) wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have published. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine Hey, ColinFine, thanks for your help! To be honest, I was asked by a friend of his to write the article. I am definitely a third party with no bias in the upcoming election. My intention for writing the article would be to provide information in English about Thomas Nahimana to those interested when they google him. The problem is, Rwanda really does not have a proliferation of reputable new sources that publish information about candidates opposing the incumbent. I'll see what I can do by looking through international new sources, and I will work with others to help translate interviews, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnd2015 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 November 2015‎ (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources, even not in English, that's fine, Cnd2015; but "to provide information ... about Thomas Nahimana to those interested when they google him" is pretty much a definition of promotion - only the words "In English" (which I omitted) may save it from that. --ColinFine (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hasso Plattner

Hello, can anyone please help me in adding the missing citations from the Hasso Plattner article? I'm an SAP employee and cannot directly make these edits. Though the citations would certainly strengthen the article, and have been called for at the top of the page. I've posted the citations on the talk page, and have reached out to a few editors directly, but with no success. Any help or advice is most appreciated!! Harper70 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Harper70