From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:THQ)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.



WP teahouse logo.png

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


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

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

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

Editing help[edit]

please help editing the article at the link Prinshukr (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

CSD tag removal[edit]

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

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

Noad Lahat's location of birth[edit]

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

Welcome to the Teahouse, ImTheIP. Please be aware that the Arbitration Committee has imposed discretionary sanctions on all editing pertaining to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and anyone who engages in edit warring concerning such matters risks being blocked. Regarding the specific issue, I think that the precedent set at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem should be followed. Jerusalem is obviously much larger than Alfei Menashe, but neither should be described in the infobox as being part of Israel, Palestine or the West Bank. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari[edit]

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

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

Feel free to give me any other advice.

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

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

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

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

Re your Google and image questions: we really aren't concerned with Google rankings, we are here to build an encyclopedia.
  • If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
  • If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

creation of new article[edit]

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

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

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

Photo copyright issue[edit]

Hi Everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks guys for helping me out.

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

Picture of the writer's husband instead of her's[edit]

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

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

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

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

why did it delete my new article?[edit]

I just made a wikipedia article on my sister cause I wanted someone in my family to have one but it deleted it right away! I didn't put anything rude or inappropriate in it so I can't think why it was deleted!? Pipi98longstocking (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pipi98longstocking: Wikipedia is not a social network like Facebook or Myspace, and it is not a memorial. Wikipedia does not allow articles about someone unless multiple unaffiliated persons have professionally published mainstream journalistic or academic works about that person. In other words, you need to cite at least two books or magazines or newspapers that are specifically about your sister, that are written by someone who is not a friend or family member, and that are professionally published (not pay-to-print, but a real publishing company). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

adding a name to an open list- please help[edit]

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

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

Updating a Image[edit]

I've noticed on the wiki page for North Walsham the picture of St Nicholas Church is outdated (It's had significant building work on the tower). I wish to submit an updated image which is my own to update the image. Can I, and How do I submit this image to editors so its suitability can be assessed for inclusion on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbannorfolk (talkcontribs) 13:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Urbannorfolk (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Urbannorfolk. You don't need to submit your image to other editors for assessment. Providing that you own the copyright to the new photo and are willing to release it under a Creative Commons licence, you can be bold and replace the existing image. The best place to upload the image is to Wikimedia Commons. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Urbannorfolk: The form for uploading an image at Commons is here. Deor (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Then, Urbannorfolk, once you've taken your photo and uploaded it to Commons, you can go to North Walsham, hit Edit, find where it says [[File:Tower-ruin.jpg|thumb … and replace File:Tower-ruin.jpg with the name you've given your photo. You may need to reload the page a couple of times to get the new image to show up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Valletta Film Festival, User:Cmallia/sandbox, and COI[edit]

I reviewed User:Cmallia/sandbox and tried to move it to Draft:Valletta Film Festival, which failed because there is already a draft there. I declined it, although I said that it was better than the existing draft. User:Cmallia then replied to my talk page: Dear Robert, is it possible to reconsider the declination of the page "Valletta Film Festival"? I form part of the organising team of the Valletta Film Festival and the information submitted is accurate and approved by the organisers of the festival. I have tried to explain conflict of interest. Can other experienced editors give this new editor, who probably is unfamiliar with Wikipedia’s policy on conflict of interest, some advice? My advice is to go to Draft talk:Valletta Film Festival and request edits.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting any COI aside why don't they just edit Draft:Valletta Film Festival and request another review? Nthep (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
That was my original advice before I was aware of the COI. I suppose that, because the existing draft is in draft space, the COI is mitigated because it will be neutrally reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
One of the reasons why the Articles for Creation process was implemented is to allow a legitimate way for editors with a confict of interest to draft an article for independent review. The draft should be evaluated on its merits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
True. That allows neutral review of material written by editors with a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, most or all of the material was not only conflict-of-interest, which the AFC is a workaround, but was copyrighted. Like many promotional editors, this editor doesn't understand that Wikipedia does not allow the posting of copyrighted material even by the owner of the copyright unless the copyright is released under CC-BY-SA or into the public domain. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the equivalent of the Teahouse on the French Wikipedia?[edit]

Just wondering as I've encountered an article on the French Wikipedia which has been rewritten to be "politically correct" while removing awkward details coming from sources. --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bienvenue! Try fr:Wikipédia:Forum_des_nouveaux. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I find out why an article was deleted?[edit]

The article on Euston Tower has recently been deleted and replaced with a redirect to Euston Road (which does provide some information about Euston Tower, so I suppose it could be considered a merge rather than a deletion.)

There is no information in the Euston Tower talk page, however. How do I find out whether this deletion/merge followed official Wikipedia process - I'm struggling. It seems to me that this is a notable London building, even if the existing article may have had some problems.

EDIT: I can see how to view deletion discussions for a particular recent day, but I can't figure out how to find the deletion discussion given I don't know on what day it took place.

Roybadami (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Roybadami. It seems that Ritchie333 turned the article into a direct because its content was unsourced. For future reference, I found this out by going to Euston Tower, which redirects to Euston Road, and then clicking the link back to the Euston Tower redirect at the top of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, I saw that. Is unsourced material sufficient grounds to delete an article without discussion? Roybadami (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it hasn't been deleted - all the article history is still there, which it wouldn't be if the article had been deleted. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy, and the article had been unsourced for a long time, so I don't think it was an unreasonable thing to do. Ritchie333 was being bold in turning it into a redirect, but that is encouraged. If you are willing to work on the article by adding sources, you could try reinstating the material. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia not like stubs anymore then? Wouldn't it require an argument about the notability of the building to justify deleting the article, rather than just deleting the unsourced content and leaving a stub? Roybadami (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome to turn the redirect into a stub, Roybadami. Just bear in mind WP:BRD. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
*shrugs* I don't really care deeply. I just don't see how removing useful articles rather than improving them makes Wikipedia better. Roybadami (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that it is better to redirect readers to well-sourced discussion of a topic in a more general article rather than have an unsourced, separate article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you and Ritche are probably both right. My frustration was born of the fact that I failed to find content I was looking for (I was browsing on my phone at the time). I've made the redirect more specific. Roybadami (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As Larry said, it hasn't been deleted, and you can revert my change by clicking the "history" tab and selecting "undo" on the edit you want to revert. To give a bigger picture, the edit was part of an London Monopoly street project I'm working on, which merged the two Euston articles together, creating a larger a more comprehensive one in the process. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Ritchie. Maybe your way really is better - I'm not sure. I was just trying to understand the rationale. Roybadami (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I've updated the redirect to point to the '20th–21st century' section of Euston Road; hope you're OK with that. My main frustration was that Euston Tower took me to somewhere that didn't obviously provide me with much information about Euston Tower. Roybadami (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that's exactly the right thing to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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


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

How do I get this article published?

Regards, Vishakha (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wildlife artists[edit]


You have a page titled 'Wildlife Artists' it states this is a list for ANY wildlife artist. 1.So I added my Name Fiona Hayward & added a link to website - this was deleted by and editor 2.I thought then it would be best crate a small about me page and link this with my name on the list for any wildlife artist so that my name could then stay on the list from 1. 3. this is when things turned quite ugly, I was accused of vandalism by a different editors who was unreasonably harsh with criticism with no indication of what I was doing wrong, it was all about his scathing opinion. 4. then another editor kindly sujessted I try this foram for assistance. So what is the criteria to add a name to the page that is a list of any wildlife artist? My intention is only to add my name to the list which given that it is a list for any wildlife artist is not unreasonable. I am a wildlife artist. My art work has appeared in two independent publications and I currently have art work hanging in a gallery. 7. I have no desire to ever edit other pages or articles. Is there any point in my trying to add my name to the list or shall I just give up now? Newzealand007 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Basically, the advice to how to create a page about yourself in Wikipedia is: Don't try. The draft article about you has not been deleted. It has only been declined. It is still in draft space. I declined it because you provided no footnotes and no information on your biographical notability, and it is a sub-stub, not even a stub. If I had known that User:Newzealand007 was Fiona Hayward, I would also have advised you that the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. You should indeed give up now. Wikipedia is harsh on people who try to get themselves listed who don't meet notability guidelines. If you are a notable artist, one of your admirers may be able to develop a real draft article about you. I do agree that the allegation of vandalism was harsh, but the allegation of edit-warring was accurate. In general, Wikipedia is not kind to people who are persistent in trying to get articles about themselves. If you are notable, someone else will write about you. Maybe you are a notable wildlife artist in New Zealand; maybe you aren't. I haven't researched that, and will leave that up to other editors possibly. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


How to find reliable sources for a comic book? Captain Spark (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Spark! Welcome to the Teahouse. What comic book are you hoping to write about on Wikipedia? As you know, reliable secondary sources are required to have an article on Wikipedia, and those include magazine and newspaper articles and reviews about a comic, which might be your best bets. But, by knowing the name of the comic, we might be able to take a look and see if it passes notability guidelines to have its own article. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse! Missvain (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Kirigi Ka Kahar --Captain Spark (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Captain Spark, your best bet is probably simply Google, Google News, Google Books, etc., at least in terms of online sources (I don't know whether print-only sources are likely to exist or not?). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding notability?[edit]

I have been attempting to create my first page of a semi-famous celebrity chef. He has been on Anderson Cooper, personal chef to Janet Jackson, has been featured in two books by Kathy Ireland and Janet Jackson, contributing recipes. He is on the Nutrisystem council, discussed in several articles and shown on television programs and movies. However, there is a question of notability??? How can this possibly be? There are several profiles on wikipedia of far less famous people with little citations?? Why is this so difficult?? Help????? Ignisstatera (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Draft:Andre Carthen? Please tell us the name of the article when asking questions about it. - Arjayay (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ignisstatera. I think the problem is that in order to demonstrate notability, we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Most of the sources you have cited only seem to mention Andre Carthen in passing. What you need to provide are sources that discuss him in more depth. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation Extent[edit]

To what extent should we be citing information? In other words, what is considered common knowledge? What if a page refers to another that has a citation for the information; should I cite it a second time? Apragin (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Apragin. Common knowledge is what the vast majority of literate English speakers know: A day is 24 hours, the sun rises in the east, Paris is the capital of France, and so on. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged should have a reference. Readers should not have to travel to another Wikipedia page to find a reference. Read a few Featured articles to see best editing practices in action. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

Hello, I just now created a template Koimoi. But when I added the template in Sunny Deol article, the template was successfully working, but on clicking the template, the page says "Not found". The actor do has a page on Koimoi. See here. Can you help the template to work. ЖunalForYou ☎️📝 18:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kunalforyou and welcome to The Teahouse. You created Template:Koimoi/doc but not Template:Koimoi. I don't know anything about templates, but I'm sure someone here can help you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)‎
I think that it was created, but has been deleted since Kunalforyou posted here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I glanced at it when Kunalforyou first posted. It appeared to be an attempt to link to the subject's Koimoi page like the IMDb and Twitter templates do for IMDb and Twitter. It has since been deleted as a test page. —teb728 t c 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Although Template:Koimoi was deleted it has now been restored (though still tagged for speedy deletion). As not apparently a test page I see that teb728 has now removed the speedy tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know how in a template to convert spaces in a page name to hyphens? I posted a {{help me}} on Template talk:Koimoi. —teb728 t c 08:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Do we actually need a template like this? Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
We do not. Its purpose is to insert a direct external link into an article, where such links are not wanted. Maproom (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user name is not recognized[edit]

Hello, I am creating an article in the draft page. Even though I am able to use and navigate around wikipedia as a user, when I click on my user name: carrieruggieri, it states there is no user with that name. I scroll down and find something like 'pages or article with that name ' and that is how I find my way to the article I am working on.

why is my user name not recognized. how do I fix that? Thank you. Carrie RuggieriCarrieruggieri (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The message doesn't say that "there is no user with that name". It says "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title." That message is somewhat misleading; in a sense, there is a page with that name, User:Carrieruggieri, but there's nothing written there. To fix that, you write something there, at User:Carrieruggieri. By the way, the draft you have been working on is at Draft:AEDP: Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy. Maproom (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
To fill in a little background, Carrieruggieri - each registered user can optionally construct a "User page". There are endless variations on these, but typically they tell other editors relevant information about you - your interests, your skills (languages, technical, etc.). Click on any editor's username in this page to see what they have put there - every one is different. You don't need one, but a lot of people find it useful and also it helps to personalize Wikipedia a bit. If you feel keen, you can read about them at Wikipedia:User pages. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Carrie, for examples of user pages, click on any of the names of editors who have responded to you here and you can see our user pages. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of page Daniele Bongiovanni[edit]

Hello, I requested the removal of this page, this italian artist doesn't have any page in its original language (Italian), rather it was already removed twice in the past on wikipedia Italy see here: the user "Artmimi" probably is the same who wrote time ago this entry on italian wikipedia, only for advertise it. However, it does not seem to have a high encyclopedic relevance.

Thanks Gprosso (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Each language version of Wikipedia is effectively "self governing", and sets its own rules regarding which articles to keep and which to reject. It is entirely possible that the Daniele Bongiovanni article might be OK on the English Wikipedia, whilst it:Daniele Bongiovanni is not OK for the Italian Wikipedia. In general, a decision made on the Italian Wikipedia has no impact here (and vice-versa).
You are welcome to edit the English-language article Daniele Bongiovanni to improve it. You have previously nominated the article for speedy deletion and another editor disagreed with you and removed the nomination. If you still feel it should be deleted, you should submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion following the process outlined in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article(s)_for_deletion. You will need to provide reasons why you think the articles should be deleted, and other editors will discuss whether they agree with you or not. --LukeSurl t c 18:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
To clarify what happened, Gprosso didn't actually nominate the article for speedy deletion but rather added a speedy deletion notification that is supposed to be placed on a user talk page to the article. Theroadislong then removed it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Correction User:Joseph2302 removed it. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops, so he did. I was looking at the following edit. Anyway, we got there eventually! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please help me with adding a reference on a page i created.[edit]

Dear All,

Recently I created a page as, and now it will be deleted as I have not put up a reference on the page. Kindly help me with the same.

Thanks Abhishek43.252.102.123 (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Shakeisbaked: firstly, you need to register in this site and then follow the new article guidelines to start one. You have to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Follow Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources to learn how to put references. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ikhtiar H: The IP already has an account: Shakeisbaked. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

When I will be able to put external links[edit]

I've tried to edit an article at While putting some external links for reference it is showing error and I was unable to put link. Please help regarding this.Breakingknowledge (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Breakingknowledge. Just what did the error message say? Was it for example something about a blacklisted website? —teb728 t c 09:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the links issue, Breakingknowledge, can I ask what the topic of News and more is supposed to be? It's not clear to me from reading the article, and it seems likely to be deleted as a result. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It appears to be trying to promote a blog at - --David Biddulph (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Page/Adding to one[edit]

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

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

Help with Photo Copyright Tags[edit]

Hi Again,

I have a question about the correct usage of photo copyright tags. It is SO confusing. Here is my situation.

My article Jerome Coopersmith was accepted and is now published on Wikipedia. Someone informed me that I needed to address a copyright issue with the photo I had used in the infobox. So I clicked on the photo and found that someone else had flagged it on Jan 29 that it was not appropriately tagged.

I am able to get the permission form (which I have) completed by the owner of the photograph, and they are sending it to the permission-commons email address directly tomorrow (Feb 5). Meanwhile I added the tag "cc-by-sa-4.0|Photo by Judy Coopersmith" (brackets removed here) which I thought I read I was supposed to do.

I am also confused about who the form should be coming from? Judy Coopersmith TOOK the picture of Jerome Coopersmith using Jerome's camera. So does Judy or Jerome own the copyright?

I can't tell if I am doing any of this correctly, and I don't want the photo to be deleted tomorrow, which will be day#7 since they flagged it. (I truly just discovered this yesterday).

Can someone offer me assistance?

gggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gggoodgggirl. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons sometimes apply different rules when it comes to images, so you might be better off asking this question at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. For reference, the Commons' editor who tagged the photo is c:User:Jarekt, an administrator on Commons. You may of course ask them directly at c:User talk:Jarekt about what you need to do the resolve this matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Gggoodgggirl, I changed the "No license since" tag to "OTRS pending". Be sure that Judy send the permission email promptly to OTRS. I also changed the author name in the Information block to Judy Cooopersmith. —teb728 t c 04:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome back to the Teahouse, Gggoodgggirl. The best person to give you specific answers is Jarekt, the Wikimedia Commons administrator who left you a helpful message about this image on your Commons talk page.
In most cases, the photographer is the copyright holder, but there are exceptions. Professional photographers usually retain copyright but sometimes will transfer the copyright to their customer in a written agreement. When a family member takes a photo of a relative, the circumstances matter. If Judy borrowed the camera with no strings attached, and said "I will take a bunch of photos of London" and one ended up being a photo of Jerome with bobbies and a double decker bus in the background, then Judy probably owns the copyright. If Jerome said, "Please take this photo for me", and he picked the backdrop and chose where to stand, and thought about the lighting, and adjusted the camera settings, and told her where to stand, and when and how many times to click the shutter, then Jerome probably owns the copyright. So, the copyright holder needs to submit that form.
There are contradictions now. You uploaded, there is a claim that it is Jerome's work, but Judy is listed as photographer. Those contradictions must be resolved. Ask Jarekt for help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, Thank you for your suggestion. I have contacted jarekt to help me ensure I have fulfilled the necessary requirements.
Thank you so much, teb728. Your edits really helped me. I have received confirmation that Judy sent the permissions form and received a ticket#. I am now awaiting jarekt to let me know if there are any additional steps on my end.
Thank you cullen328. Interesting decisions around how to determine copyright owner. In this case it is most definitely Judy, based on the description above. Also, I believe I corrected the conflict, and will work with jarekt to confirm.
Thank you everyone for all your continued assistance!
gggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Seek video teaching citing videos +Seek atheist/skeptics task groups +Seek how to message Susan Gerbic[edit]

I am looking for a good YouTube video on how to make attributions and to make it easier. Especially adding video sources. I always have something on. I watch a lot of documentaries with good information but I like to verify or go more in depth online (especially if the pacing sucks) and generally multitask.

This YouTube video was good but didn't address the above: 'Susan Gerbic Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia JREF Workshop' videoID#5rS92GguJwU. As a rational person I've battled BS as I go, but now I realize it might be helpful if I joined the skeptics/atheists team as well as continuing adding my general knowledge two cents here and there. I was hoping to send her a message over Wikipedia or even email but don't know how.

JasonCarswell (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi JasonCarswell. Probably that's User:Sgerbic. Her user talk page is User talk:Sgerbic. —teb728 t c 04:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good to know. I just chatted with her on Facebook. JasonCarswell (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wondering about using Wikipedia educationally[edit]

I'm sure I've seen something somewhere about using Wikipedia for educational projects (and I mean editing it as an exercise, not just looking stuff up), but now that I'm thinking about actually doing it I can't seem to locate anything helpful. Is there a guideline someone could point me to? And would there be copyright issues about getting students to translate articles from the French Wikipedia and post them to the English one? MHAN2016 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:School and university projects.--ukexpat (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
With respect to translation, you might find this link to be helpful. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! MHAN2016 (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Nomination[edit]

Hi all, I am working on the entry "Daniele Bongiovanni", which seems to me respecting the Wikipedia guidelines. Could anyone help me understand why I got the "Speedy Deletion Nomination" and how to prevent deletion? Thanks a lot. Artmimi (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Artmimi. Joseph2302 has removed that template. Strangely, it was added by a user as their first and so far only edit to Wikipedia. Incidentally, are you actively co-operating with Genterdub and Ludcon on this? The three of you started to edit around the same time, and have all only worked on this article so far, which stands out as rather unusual. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Curiously, the user who added the CSD template has also asked a question about this above, at #Speedy Deletion of page Daniele Bongiovanni. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page deleted but any link to solve the problem isn't working. Help. Please. Someone. Anyone.[edit]

Hi. I am new to using wikipedia. So, please forgive my ignorance. A page was created about me by fans of some tv shows I was an Executive Producer on. It's been up for a decade I'd guess and suddenly it's not there anymore. I assume some wonderful fans of the shows put it up for me. My business partner's page is up. When I did a search I had a page come up that had some discussions which I later realized must have been a discussion about taking it down -- I don't think it had been edited in a while and I had no idea that was necessary. Anyway, any link (I think there was a red link under my name on other pages) disappeared and I could never get back to the discussion page no matter how many archived and deleted links I clicked on. For my business and considering I am still Executive PRoducing every year, it would be helpful to get it undeleted (but those links didn't work either). Can anyone help me?

Thanks, Kelly Souders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly Souders (talkcontribs) 06:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kelly! You're right that the article has been deleted. There was a discussion where other editors decided that you don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements to have an article about you. We can undelete the page, but for you to have a page in the main Wikipedia, you do need to meet either the general notability guidline or the Notability (people) guideline.
If you think you do meet those guidelines, and can provide the reliable, independent sources to back that up, we can recreate an article for you, either writing a new one or resurrecting the deleted one. Having just had a quick look myself, all I could immediately find are things that mention you incidentally, or interviews with you rather than articles about you; neither of these normally count for establishing notability by Wikipedia's guidelines. That was only a very cursory search, though, so there may well be sufficient sources out there for a Wikipedia article.
For completeness, while Wikipedia does technically allow you to write an article about yourself, this is strongly discouraged, because it counts as a conflict of interest.
me_and 10:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Kelly Souders welcome to the Teahouse. Provided you haven't violated copyright or anything serious like that, you can get your article back using WP:REFUND, but as you have been told, writing it yourself is not a good idea.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Need some guidance[edit]

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

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

Barbara Liella King, Creator[edit]

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

Hello, Barbara Luella King. I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about, but unless it is related to editing Wikipedia, this is the wrong forum for it, and there is unlikely to be any help for you. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)