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

mobile service[edit]

Please help me find an easy installment mobile service with mobile number2601:645:400:A76C:6111:5040:61F6:535 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with AFD[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedia editors! I (prematurely) nominated Mike Green and Sloan Thomas for deletion and then found out about WP:NGRIDIRON. However, I just read through Wikipedia's deletion policy for the 3rd time and found this statement: "Under Wikipedia policy, a newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article."

Wouldn't both articles be deleted because there is nothing sourced? Thanks! MrWooHoo (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Eliminate Citations and verification warning?[edit]

I've added a number of citations and verifications onto a page that has a warning n it. How to i get the warning removed?


Kmccall (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kmccall. The maintenance tag still belongs. The entire biography section is unsourced. Note that the lead section should be a summary of content written about in more detail in the body, and when that is the case, it does not necessarily need to repeat the citations already in the body (other than controversial claims and quotations). Here, though, the lead is content not found elsewhere, and everything after citation 10 is also unsourced. Sourcing an article is not finished by placing many sources in one area—adding four or twenty citations in one spot does nothing to verify content that appears elsewhere. By the way, all the external links in the body of the article (in the Discography subsection) should be turned into citations if appropriate for that purposes, but regardless, removed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

how to know if a website is official + watching teahouse[edit]

I would like to add an external link to the article Heather Barnett on English Wikipedia. The link would be to her official website. But how do I really know it is her official website, it certainly seems as though it is. This is what I think it is: [[1]]

Also, is there a way to watch "Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions" on my watchlist? I don't see a "Watch this page." Thanks Greg Dahlen (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, looks like I have to submit the question, then I can "edit" and watch this page. But I still would appreciate answer to first question Greg Dahlen (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg Dahlen. The website is linked at both [2] at [3] so it's clearly official. With default settings, pages have a tab with a star you can click to watch them. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


How does one become autopatrolled? Several thousand of the redirects I have created are yet to be patrolled and I think it could save time if future ones didn't have to also be patrolled. Rubbish computer 19:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AUTOPATROLLED says "A suggested standard is the prior creation of 50 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages." If you still want to request the permission, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled is the place to visit. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you. Rubbish computer 23:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Submitting signature images[edit]


I have never edited a Wiki article before, but I have used a company internal Wiki, and created pages on it. I found this very rewarding, and I would like to contribute information to a Wikipedia article or two.

I have gathered a few autographs from a few well known people (Red Skelton, Ian McHarg, others) that have a Wikipedia article about them. Just curious if 1. I have the right to submit these as enhancements to a Wikipedia article?, and 2. How do I do it?

Thanks! (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse. My guess is each person whose autograph you have, or their estate if the person is deceased, would have the copyright and could approve a request to put the autograph on Wikipedia if the correct procedure is followed. That's not to say the request would be approved because they have to give permission for it to be used for any purpose. In the case of a deceased celebrity fair use might be possible.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
An unofficial essay on autographs in Wikipedia recommends that "Signatures of living persons, in general, should only be displayed in articles when a person has published their own signature, and reliable secondary sources reproduce the signature." Depending on how complex the signature is, I imagine it could either fall under {{PD-ineligible}} or be subject to copyright (although I doubt we'd allow it under fair use). This is a very tricky area; if you could get any of the celebrities to consent to their signature being published under a free license, that would be ideal. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


I put a local children's nursery in the amenities section it is a very old established nursery that my son goes to, but a richard harvey keeps deleting my edit he says I am not allowed to advertise but there is a local brewery with a paragraph to itself advertising their beer? Crosshills North Yorkshire. Strategic1900 (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

For reference: Cross Hills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Strategic1900, first of all when someone keeps removing an edit, don't just keep reinserting it, instead discuss the matter on the article talk page, in this case, Talk:Cross Hills. (See Bold, revert, discuss.) My personal view is that the entire "amenities" section should be deleted. None of it is sourced except to the sites of the various businesses, it is at least an invitation to advertising and promotion, and Wikipedia is not a tourist guide or business directory. That said, if you want the mention of the nursery to stay, find an independent reliable source, such as a newspaper, that has covered it in some detail, and cite your entry. If the coverage is more than local, that would be better. I would suggest posting the info and cite to the talk page first, and possibly pinging Richard Harvey, to see if you can come to some agreement on the matter. DES (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I've removed a bit of the inappropriate information, although the section is still a mess.
Wikipedia is absolutely not allowed to promote any company, organization or person; it should be completely neutral. The existence of poor content in a page is not a reason to add more (sometimes this fallacy is called "other stuff exists"). Wikipedia should give due weight only to topics covered by independent secondary sources. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have suggested removing the entire section on the talk page. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have previously attempted to remove promotional advertising edits, back in April, see this diff, though I was more generous in leaving some of the less contentious detail. Regrettably I was reverted by an editor who's edit summary indicated he would edit war. I am happy that others concur with my original edit. :). The childrens nursery edit was purely promotional as the editor who put it in has no constructive editing to any other article. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the IB Times a reliable source?[edit]

Hi! I plan to use this article as a reference, so I was wondering if it would be considered a reliable source. Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I also plan to use this. Thanks. Bananasoldier (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Bananasoldier Both appear to be reliable, however, be sure not to copy verbatim anything from either site as you'd run afoul of WP:COPYRIGHT (not to mention the two sites copyrights as well!) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
IB Times is on the "just barely/sometimes" edge of "reliable". For the most part they are OK, but they also do things like the promotion of UFOs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding additional info on a US Naval ship.[edit]

I would like to find out how to add information about a US Naval ship Destroyer that would add to the history of the ship. Below is a summary of the information I have:

I served on the USS Chauncey DD667 during the Korean War. I have information on the USS Chauncey that is not covered in Wikipedia. Mainly it is the round-the-world cruise by the Chauncey starting in Jan. 1953 in Norfolk, VA. and completing in July, 1953. We left Norfolk, VA, continued through the Panama Canal then westward toward Hawaii and the battle location of Korea. We saw battle service off the coast of Korea during that time, afterwards continuing westward into the Mediterranean Sea and then headed back to our home port on Norfolk, VA. in July, 1953. We were written up in the Norfolk Virginian Pilot newspaper as the first warships to land in port in the US since the treaty was announced in July, 1953. I have a list of ports we visited and the dates and the article on the front page from the Norfolk Virginian Pilot newspaper with a picture of the four ships of DESRON 28 docked with the crowd of visitors welcoming us back home. I would like to submit this information to be added to the USS Chauncey portion of Wikipedia to make it a part of the Chauncey's Naval history. I would appreciate any help or assistance in accomplishing this matter. Thank You,

Walter A Brockway Storekeeper 2nd Class (SK2) USS Chauncey DD667

College Park, MD (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Walter (I presume that you are posting this personally, rather than on behalf of someone else). One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that article material needs to be backed up with reliable sources (you can read guidance on this here). That generally rules out personal accounts and memories of events, unless they are published somewhere. The fact that you say that this account has been written up in a newspaper is therefore promising. If you want to edit the USS Chauncey (DD-667) article using that published material as a source, you might want to consult Wikipedia:Citing sources for instructions on how to reference it. If you need help making the actual edits, come back to me here and I'll see what I can do to assist. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll see what I can find. Anyone know how long I hav till the page is removed? Or can I place it in a sandbox or something for the time being? Melourn (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oops, wrong convo... Melourn (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with my page? Socio-Economic Profiteering[edit]

I got a message saying that it "may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained."

I thought I followed the rules... Where did I mess it up? Melourn (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Melourn The message at the top of the page tells you that you haven't shown why this is notable. It suggests that you add a secondary reliable source to show notability.

Your'e sole source is investopedia, which is pretty much user generated content, so I'm not sure it would be considered notable here. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

So, if I find another source to back what I'm saying, then it should be ok? Melourn (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Not just "another source", you need to show that the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the topic - and cite these sources in the article.
If not, you should read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability", to understand why your article does not meet our notability requirements. - Arjayay (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll see what I can find. Anyone know how long I hav till the page is removed? Or can I place it in a sandbox or something for the time being? Melourn (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hey Melourn. No, what you need to find are multiple reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the subject and discuss it in substantive terms so as to demonstrate that a verifiable encyclopedia article is warranted, that contains no original research. Regarding your follow-up question, typed while I was editing, the articles for deletion discussion will normally last for a minimum of seven days from the nomination date. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Lead Section" in an article[edit]

Hi tearoom, please could you advise me Regarding the "lead Section" to an article. Would you recommend the "lead Section" is Titled. I.e. Introdution? or do you think it's best as a completely stand alone part of an article?--Dominoooo's (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Dominoooo's The lead section is never given a section header it just is the lead. It should concisely introduce the topic in the first sentence or two (with the subject bolded by placing three apostrophes on either side or if properly an italic title, five). It is an introduction and it should summarize the key points of the balance of the article, where one goes into more specifics. The link I provided earlier in this response has much more detail.

By the way, here's a trick: for any piece of information that is commonly referred to or is part of the interface, you can almost always reach a relevant information/help page about it by typing into the search field "WP:" Followed by whatever the item is, in caps, in the singular: "WP:NAME". These are shortcuts to those information/help pages. For example: redirects? WP:REDIRECT; dividing articles into sections? WP:SECTION; categories? WP:CATEGORY; and here, WP:LEAD leads to the page on leads, that I led with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the page?[edit]


I just submitted this page:

Got a message saying it doesn't conform to Wiki's guidelines.

I don't understand what's wrong with it?



CIPFAmarcomms (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that you thought it was a draft since you used the word "submitted" but it turned up in main space. By the way, this is Wikipedia, not "wiki". There are thousands of wikis, referring to the use of the Wiki software. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Improving references[edit]

Hi teahouse hosts I'm trying to improve the referencing for This article which is a little ambiguous, so I have made a LDR reference list and correctly added a new reference. For the Stephen Pope reference in the list I have converted it to a book cite, but put it in comments so I don't get a list defined reference error. The problem is I don't know which part of the article it relates to, same with the Bretano reference. Any suggestions? CV9933 (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

CV9933 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I haven't looked at what is "in comments" but of course ideally each reference should support a specific part of the article. But one reference that doesn't belong is a Wikipedia entry because Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source. The references for the information taken from that Wikipedia entry are what should be used instead.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

here, four book references are showing some problems, with the summary given being "Changes scheme from http to https and truncates url". Can these be fixed? If yes, how? Please let me know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, I don't think this is an actual problem. I believe that this is simply a side effect of the way the Internet archive's "wayback machine" works. If the links are in fact going to the desired pages, I think all is OK. By the way at least the first of these seems to be to an online version of a newspaper, not a book. And on Wikipedia we don't generally use the term "external links" for links included in a reference citation, even though they do link to sites outside of Wikipedia. That term usually indicates links for further information proivided in the article, most commonly in an 'External links" section, but sometimes in the text of the article. Putting such links in article text was once common on Wikipedia, but has been strongly discouraged for many years now. DES (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you DES. By mistake, i quoted it as an external link. I am reviewing an FLC at the moment and i found this issue to be addressed. So, do you think, i can support it now? Here is the project page. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Pavanjandhyala, I don't see why it would be a problem, but I'm not really up on the FAC procedures, so it would be best to confirm with someone who is. DES (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


I had re written an article on wikipedia which had multiple issues related with it. The article was last assessed in 2012. I want it to be assessed once again. Whom to contact for that? this is that article ( re written completely by me :D ) AIPMT And I want to find more such articles which need General Editing like expansion, referencing, reviewing and spelling and grammar check. Where to find them?

Also, can i be an assessor myself, to rate some important articles as A class or above? And, how can i make my own "workgroup" on wikipedia? Red Pen (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vr parashar: anyone can assess an article. Personally, I don't recommend rating an article you've significantly worked on yourself, though. Some Wikiprojects have special assessment request rules: WikiProject India recommends putting |reassess=y in the code of the banner, which will automatically list it at Category:India articles needing reassessment. In this case, however, I've reassessed the class as C so you don't need to do anything.
There is never a shortage of articles which need editing. They can be found in various different places: WP:BACKLOG contains a lot of categories you might want to take a look at.
You certainly can assess articles yourself BUT please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ's grading scheme very carefully before doing so. You might also like to look at some example articles rated in the various classes to get a sense of what they are like. I always keep a tab with the quality scheme open when I'm rating articles and still regularly consult it just to check I'm doing things right.
As for "workgroup", if you mean "WikiProject" then take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Thank you very much for your guidance. :) I will surely work on your advices.

multiple infoboxes[edit]

Can an article have two infoboxes? I wanted to help shorten a very long article and was considering combining their two infoboxes into one. I was wondering, are there even supposed to be two infoboxes? It's this article: Jeff Gordon. Louieoddie (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Louieoddie. I agree that it is a very long article that could benefit from trimming or perhaps spinning off some sub-articles. But I only see one long infobox. Maybe my browser only shows one. Can you clarify where you see two? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a smaller infobox than the first right next to his Personal life section, here: Jeff Gordon#Personal life Louieoddie (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Louieoddie, I think they could be combined, but that would leave the single info box at a very large size indeed. Also, I have not worked with the NASCAR infobox, ant it may be that combining would cause some sort of problem. I don't often recall seeing multiple infoboxes in a single article. Remember that an infobox is supposed to summarize the article, not list every possible fact. The whole article is much longer that I prefer, see WP:SIZE. But the place to discuss that would normally be on Talk:Jeff Gordon. DES (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I'll see what I can do. Louieoddie (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

New here[edit]


I got a note from the teahouse bot to stop by!

I see by the top question on this page that you discourage self work. I am going to be bold here. I am needing to get my company "back links" to my web site. My company has been around for 4 years with almost no web traffic. My products sell for very high prices (up to $200) at boutiques, but they triple the price, so that I have to keep the price so low that I can't make a living. Can anyone help me here?

Thanks so much!

Becky RMChaffee (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, we can't help. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise your business. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi RMChaffee, welcome to the Teahouse! This is a very good question, thank you for asking it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is probably not the place to do what you want to do. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that we are an encyclopedia, and throughout the years we've developed many policies and guidelines regarding what kinds of content we want to include here. We have three "core content policies": all articles must be verifiable, written from a neutral point of view, and contain no original research.
The reason we discourage editing or creating articles about yourself or your company is because when you do so, it can be hard to keep upholding the core content policies, especially the one about neutral point of view (neutral point of view means that Wikipedia explains sides fairly and without bias, as opposed to taking a side or being biased). When you are closely attached with a subject, you have a tendency to write in a biased manner, for example including more positive reviews of your company's products over negative ones; we call this having a conflict of interest. While editing in areas you have a conflict of interest in is not exactly prohibited, it is strongly discouraged.
One important policy we have is that Wikipedia is not a means for promotion. Our goal is to create an encyclopedia, not to help out companies. We write about what other people have written; we are not a publisher of original content. It is important to understand these principles because in the past, editors have had to have their editing privileges revoked because they chose to ignore them. As harsh as that sounds, I hope you understand, and I wish you the best of luck. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to ask. Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC
Hi RMCHaffe. I'm afraid that after reading User:RMChaffee/sandbox that it seems like you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about. As explained above, Wikipedia is not really the place to try and promote your company. If, by chance, your company has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for specifics), then it might be possible for an article to written about your company. Any such article, however, would have to adhere to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines in order to avoid eventual deletion. Unfortunately, as currently written, your sandbox has very little chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article, so you might find it beneficial to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article for more specific advice on writing articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I am so brand new.[edit]

Is there someone out there who would be willing to adopt me? I would appreciate some guidance. Thanks, Denisemedium Denisemedium (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Denisemedium: Hi Denise. Thanks for your question, and welcome to Wikipedia! The Co-op is a space where you can get matched to a mentor based on how you want to contribute to Wikipedia, so you can request a mentor there if you'd like. I did notice you were working on an article here that appears to be autobiographical in nature; if that's the case, it's important to understand that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is discouraged and that it is not a space to promote one's self. I'd encourage you to consider editing another topic that you're interested in. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Talk Page[edit]

Hi Teahouse, just wanted to ask if I'm allowed to edit my own talk page without being in violation of the guidelines??? - Thanks.--Dominoooo's (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's. Absolutely, you can edit your own talk page – and you already have, responding to other user's messages to you there. Since you ask, there are some things you should not do at your talk page though. See the section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines known by the shortcut WP:TALKNO. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

style question, em dash vs. en dash vs. hyphen[edit]

I would like to edit this page to make consistent use of either em dash, en dash, or hyphen. In particular in the technical names of the connectors which are of the form "5-15" or "L5-30". As a user viewing this page, I wanted to use my browser's seach feature to skip between all mentions of one of these. I of course used my keyboard's minus key and this only found a subset of them, despite being visually able to see other occurrences that my browser wouldn't search/jump to. I noticed that this was because some were hyphens and some were em or en dashes. The only quick way I could search for these was to cut/paste the em dashes from the article into the browser search and this skipped to the other subset of occurrences I was searching for.

I've read the style guide yet can't answer my question.

Do we defer to the standards-creating organization for their own definition of the style suggested for their connector names? Their site (free sign-up required) while having PDFs of their standards, have only image-capture PDFs, they are not searchable and you cannot tell what hyphen or dash they use themselves.

Personally I'd prefer hyphen so the browser search works but I'll follow what more experienced editors suggest before I do this edit.

Mucm (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Chris the speller is a hyphen-expert (I've probably misused a hyphen already) but he doesn't usually edit at this time of day - hopefully he will pick up this notification early tomorrow UTC - or you could leave a message on User talk:Chris the speller - Arjayay (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
My first inclination would be to go with hyphens. Is there a strong argument to use a dash instead? There is nothing that I know of in Wikipedia style guides that covers this case. Unless some standards organization screams in 50-point type that en dashes must always be used and that people who use hyphens should be tarred and feathered, why not go with hyphens uniformly? It will be easier for most editors (and readers) to handle, and will be what most will expect. Generally, letter/number designators in WP use hyphens exclusively, e.g. General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, and there is little chance that "L5-30" will be taken to mean that 30 should be subtracted from anything. And using an en dash in "5-15" might be seen as an indication of a range of numbers. I would keep it simple. Chris the speller yack 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mucm. I think Wikipedia:Short horizontal line will shed some light. In short, do something consistent and don't worry too much about it. Purely for prurient interest, there was a ridiculously overblown dispute (now listed at WP:LAME) centered on hyphen versus en-dash in the title of Mexican-American War and related titles, which that essay is an outgrowth of.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mucm. I agree with other editors who have commented in preferring the hyphen, entirely because it is easy to type. Anyone who thinks differently is free to change any of my edits to some other difficult-to-type short horizontal line, as long as they keep me out of their endless arguments about something that 99.99% of our readers care nothing about. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, my article was rejected because it did not include enough indepedent links (music page)[edit]

I've added a couple more - but I've now been told it's a duplicate of the previous article. How many changes do I need to add before it's not a "duplicate"? Thanks!Sazgoz (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You have two versions of the article, Draft:Litte Red and a version in your sandbox. Why not add the references to the version in draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sazgoz. I have history merged the two and the only version now is the one with the additional sourcing. The draft can be resubmitted for review, using the blue button in the decline labeled "Resubmit".

However, your sources are inadequate to demonstrate notability and I would expect, if you resubmitted, that it would be declined on the same basis as before. The BBC Berkshire interview (which is described in the text but the link in the citation reaches a page that does not mention the band) would be a primary source; the record label is not independent of the topic and is just a tiny blurb; the local magazine, for what it's worth, is a mere mention of where they will be playing – as far from detailed coverage as can be; and the BBC Oxford source cannot be assessed because it just comes up with a page that says "Sorry, this episode is not currently available on BBC iPlayer Radio".

The question is whether the band has been the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, secondary, independent sources upon which an article could be based. It does not look like it has. If I'm wrong, you need to find those sources. If I'm right, no amount of further editing will produce an acceptable article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi I have been submitting this article and it keeps getting rejected.....can someone please help me correct the issues?[edit]

The article is located in under Paul Soubry, can someone please let me know what kind of references are required as they keep rejecting mine as insufficientXcelsiorXE40 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi XcelsiorXE40, I'm not surprised the article has been rejected, as your only 2 references are to his companies own website, and it reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article.
Can you show that he has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of him - if so, you must cite these in the article.
If not, you should read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability", to understand why your article will not be accepted. - Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please check my article?[edit]


I have been working on a Wiki article and its had some copyright issues, so it got deleted. After a little bit of back and forth with very helpful Wiki editors I think I have finally understood the subtle differences between copyright and non-copyright text. I cut alot of stuff out of the article and only left in factual information that is verified by independent news sources. I'm hoping that I have finally understood what it takes to get an article approved for Wiki entry.

Can someone please take a look at the article I am working on and let me know if you think it has any more issues. And also I don't see any text below the article saying that the article itself is in line waiting for approval. I'm not sure if that is because the original article was deleted, or I still need to add some text or lines of code in order for the article to be officially submitted. I would love some help with this as well.

Thank you in advance for any help and assistance you can give me.

Here is the article;

Sacredcocreation (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sacredcocreation (talk · contribs) -- I added the code you need to that now it is in the review queue. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Page to coordinate a narrow topic[edit]

Where is the most appropriate place to create a page for coordinating a narrow topic?

I just created a portal for a rare disease. It was immediately tagged for speedy deletion. Is there a better place to coordinate? Project page? My user page? POIS22 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.--ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On Portal talk:Postorgasmic illness syndrome, you wrote "there is only one main article". If this is true, neither a portal nor a WikiProject are necessary. Talk:Postorgasmic illness syndrome is the right place to discuss the article in question. If you want, you can post various things somewhere in your user space (any page starting with "User:POIS22/", or "User:POIS22"): you could list useful sources, tasks you want to do or anything else that helps you improve the article. But for just a single article out of 4.9 million, usually the talk page is the only page needed to discuss Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please fix URL title[edit]

I cannot figure out how to fix this URL title ( See, this former university (Southern Polytechnic State University) has somehow been changed to this new name (Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology). However, SPSU exists historically as a formerly-existing university with alumni. The new "college" name is specifically a school INSIDE of a new consolidated university called Kennesaw State University. The article about Southern Polytechnic State University has mistakenly been connected to the new school. Though the new school is named IN MEMORIAL of the former university, it is NOT the former university. Sirkevinalot (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(UPDATE: I think I figured out how to repair it. Looks like a redirect was not completely undone. I believe I repaired it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirkevinalot (talkcontribs) 14:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sirkevinalot: Actually, you tried to make matters worse by requesting to have the whole history deleted. If you think the article title needs changed, you need to discuss it at Talk:Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology; you'll probably need to go through the WP:Requested moves process also. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"tried to make matters worse" sounds a bit mean to me; they were clearly trying to help.
As C.Fred says, changing the title of an article should be discussed at the article's talk page. In this case, things are complicated by the existence of redirects (you can't simply move the page), but copying and pasting content without proper attribution is not something appropriate in any situation. Per the terms of the CC BY-SA license Wikipedia uses, attribution needs to be given for every edit made. This is usually stored in the page history, but if someone copies and pastes material between pages without proper edit summaries and/or talk page notices, it removes this attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, y'all. It has been a while since I edited and yes I guess I mucked it all up. SOMEONE tried to connect the university with this new school and it shouldn't have been. I can't figure out how to undo their redirect. The history looks like it did have it fixed, but the name way up top is NO WHERE ELSE in the article except a one-time reference for the honor/memorial connection. I'll research how else to further revert the article to its proper SPSU name. Any advice (or help) would be greatly appreciated. Sirkevinalot (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sirkevinalot: I can somewhat make out what you are saying as I am facing the SAME problem! :) I think all that can be done is to request the administrator and "request move" of the page. It works. I solved my problem about moving a page through request to an administrator. :) Red Pen (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


I have submitted this article ( countless number of times now and it keeps getting rejected either for reliable sources or the most recent reason, notability.

I don't get what I'm doing wrong. I have at least 3 really good sources that I'm referencing. Wikipedia also doesn't like that I reference the program's website which is where I'm getting most of my information. How do people write Wikipedia about themselves if they can't reference themselves?? Judtrap (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"How do people write Wikipedia about themselves" – They're not really supposed to. If that draft is about an organization you are involved with, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia has to be neutral and does not serve to promote any person, organization or cause. Most of our articles are written by volunteers who might have an interest in the subject but aren't really related to it.
There's nothing wrong with primary sources in certain situations (WP:PRIMARY says they should be used "with care" and explains when to use them). But they don't establish notability. "Notability" on Wikipedia means that other reliable sources unrelated to the subject have taken note of the subject.
Sulfurboy is the one who has rejected your draft; you can ask them if you want some more feedback or an explanation on their talk page. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


How do Users design their own unique Userpage?Arindam Skywalkar (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Arindam Skywalkar and weolcome to the Teahouse. For making your user page look nice, see: Wikipedia:User page design center. You can also "clone/borrow/steal" the code from someone else's user page. Just ensure that you change it enough that it does not look like you are trying to impersonate the other user. Wikipedia:User pages is a good guide as to what kind of things are appropriate in user space. And when you use the work someone else has created, in the edit summary please attribute the work to them by naming the user you copied the content from. If you want to add userboxes you can start here: Wikipedia:Userboxes. There are also many, many customized userboxes floating around on user pages in the Wikipedia, if you find one you fancy just copy the code from the page. If you are further interested in defining yourself and your style there is also the Wikipedia:WikiFauna. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

New Story[edit]

How do I start a new story, given worldwide headlines about the person?Chasdflynn (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Chasdflynn: !
The requirements for a stand alone article are that multiple reliably published sources independent of the subject have covered the subject in a significant manner. Merely being in the news is not sufficient, particularly with regards to living people. (see also WP:ATTACK and WP:NOTADVERT. )
The recommended process for a topic that you believe passes those requirements is outlined at: WP:AFC. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And note that we are writing encyclopedia articles, not stories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dont Delete my page[edit]

Dont delete my page. because now am constructing the page G Raj Narayan (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: user has been banned for suspected sock puppetry and the article in question has been deleted, not that this is the right place to contest a CSD tag anyway. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what's wrong within this article's format (below)?[edit] (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the formatting for you with these edits. There were a couple of problems you were having:
  • Firstly, section headings are written using equals signs. An article has a lead, with no heading, and then a "level 2" heading, with two equals signs on either side, like this: == Section title ==. If you want a subheading within that section, you can use more equals signs (e.g. with the "Music" and "Release" sections in that draft).
  • The table of contents is created automatically if you do this; you don't need to write one yourself.
  • The <ref></ref> tags are only used for "inline citations" (small references above a certain piece of text like this: [1]).
  • In the lead, there was a '''Bold text''' and a ''Italic text''. These were presumably accidents created using the toolbar at the top of the edit menu.
  • The categories are written in an article like this: [[Category:Category name]]. But because your article is still a draft, we don't include the categories yet. I've changed them to things like [[:Category:Category name]], which just links to the category instead of including the page in it. Don't worry about this too much. They can be changed to normal categories if the draft becomes an article.
There is still a big problem with the draft, though: phrases like "This is a highly story-led awareness film, driven by a strong female character" and "An honest, compelling feature film" are opinion. Wikipedia must be neutral; it's not an objective fact that the film is compelling, for instance, so we can't say that. If you find a review of the film that says this, you can write "Person X from Reliable Source 1 said that the film was "description"." or something similar. But you can't put your own opinion into the article. I've not read the entirety of the draft so there may be other issues remaining as well. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Declined Article[edit]

Hi experiences editors, I have submitted my first article for review and his been declined twice. Can someone please help me publish the article?

Please find the link for the article below:

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFG (talkcontribs) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you show that the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the topic - if so, you must cite these in the article.
If not, you should read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability", to understand why your article will not be accepted.
It may be that the subject will become notable in the future, but it is currently too soon to have an article, as there is no significant coverage to meet our notability criteria. - Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I lose Autoconfirmed Status?[edit]

I was reading the User access levels page and I came across this: "Autoconfirmed or confirmed status is required to move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file." The use of the word required has confused me, do I have do all that stuff just on a regular basis just so I can keep the right to do that? AncientAryan (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello AncientAryan! I've never heard of someone actually losing their "autoconfirmed" status once they got it. That sentence that you've quoted just means that you need that autoconfirmed right to be able to do those things, not that you have to be active to keep it.
(On a somewhat unrelated note, admins can lose their tools temporarily if they have been inactive for quite a while.) CabbagePotato (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"Autoconfirmed" refers to an account with 10 edits that is at least 4 days old. There's no way to lose it. It's just a way to prevent vandals creating accounts and immediately causing damage by moving pages etc. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Improving draft:All power labs[edit]

I am creating an article on a company that I have begun to work for: I had previously followed their work for years and believe I can in good faith create a formal, neutral and well-cited article about a project I respected before I became employed there. I have addressed the comments made by a series of editors following their rejections, and feel it now meets wikipedia's standards for formality, notability, neutrality.

Given my respect and involvement I may not be able to fully eliminate my personal biases, and so would appreciate any review that might point out specific ways in which it violates standards that I might be missing. Nesdon (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nesdon. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest when asking your question. I recommend that you set up a user page where you also disclose that you are employed by this company.
I have indeed set up a user page User:Nesdon as you suggested. Thanks!Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
When I read your draft, I perceive an overall promotional tone, which may be difficult for you to perceive since you are involved with the technology. One symptom is the use of promotional jargon. Another major shortcoming of the draft is that most of the references are bare URLs, which are difficult for reviewers to evaluate. These references should be "fleshed out" into complete citations. Referencing for beginners is worth reading and following. As a general rule, six or eight solid sources are far better than two or three times as many marginal sources. There is some strange syntax including inappropriate use of italics. An effort to comply with our Manual of style is time well spent. I hope my comments are useful to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
They are indeed useful. I have fleshed out my references and tried to limit them to the most useful and comprehensive. I did not find a section in the refTool dialogue to enter paragraph number as is APA style practice, and which I think would be helpful to judge the validity of a citation. How would I add a paragraph number to a citation, especially since I now have 3 cites to the same article. Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The "inappropriate use of italics" was due to misunderstanding the wikipedia link markup. It should be fixed. As to strange syntax, I have tried to simplify the language in accord with the manual of style, but numerous edits can often accumulate odd syntax. Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
As a specific example, please consider these sentences: "Inspired by this experience with do-it-yourself (DIY) power, Mason's original vision for APL was to expand this community into a larger, power-hacking culture, analogous to the one that had grown up in Silicon Valley with the development of personal computers and the internet. He hoped this culture would be able to help create, in a similarly disruptive and agile way, novel renewable energy strategies." That is promotional marketing-speak, more appropriate to a company brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. All such promotional language must be removed from the draft article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that my use of certain words like 'vision,' 'inspired,' and 'agile' gave that impression, and while they sound like 'marketing-speak', were not intended to be promotional, but were references to failures, which I hope I made be clearer in my most recent edit. Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to help me improve this draft. Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Memphis Depay[edit]

Now that Depay plays for Manchester United should the picture in the infobox be of him in a United shirt? (there is one in the article I could use) Or is it best to leave it as it is? TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The lead photo should generally represent the subject as current (unless there is an image that is iconic relative to their notability). So a free use photo of Depay in his current Manchester United jersey would generally be most appropriate for the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
But image quality is also a factor. I don't think File:Memphis Depay - July 2015c.jpg is well suited to an infobox and I doubt it's a normal expression for him. File:Depay PSV 2011.jpg isn't optimal either but better. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


In the edit section it say encyclopedic information must be verifiable, now easy to do if using Wikipedia online, but how is information placed in book encyclopedia's verified, is it by the publisher? and what if information changes? Any help appreciated in this matter. Thank You TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @TeaLover1996: - while free, online, reliable sources are preferred, any reliably published source can be used, even if not free or not online. It just needs the appropriate information in the citation so that the source can be properly identified.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello TeaLover1996. If I understand your question properly, you are asking about the editorial processes of printed encyclopedias that predate Wikipedia. The publishers of high quality printed encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Brittanica had respected editorial staffs and retained academic experts to write their articles. Many such encyclopedias published an "annual", a supplementary volume each year that updated the reference work. Of course, not everything called an "encyclopedia" had such high standards. If you have a question about the reliability of a lesser known printed encyclopedia, I suggest discussing the matter at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

JPG Uploads[edit]

I'd like to be able to upload music album covers/artwork.Shadowarchitect (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Shadowarchitect:, your account has to be 4 days old and have more that 10 edits to it before you gain the autoconfirmed right to upload images. You have the edits but your account was only created today, so you'll have to be patient and wait another three days. Nthep (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Shadowarchitect. As album covers are almost universally copyrighted, their usage on Wikipedia must be limited, in most cases restricted only to the article about the album in question. The image must be low resolution, and uploaded here on English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely licensed or copyright free images. Please read our guideline about use of non-free images. Item #1 applies to your question. Once you are autoconfirmed, you can proceed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Tracking....should have read up on a few of the specifics before asking a basic question, so thanks for the replies.Shadowarchitect (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Shadowarchitect. The purpose of the Teahouse is to assist less experienced editors by answering any good faith questions about editing this encyclopedia. Feel entirely free to ask such questions at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How to handle the buttons in the steps to create a new article?[edit]

I’ve got an article in my sandbox, User:Clockchime/sandbox, that I want to move to Wikipedia to create it as a new article. I have questions regarding the handling of a few buttons on a particular page. So, from the sandbox, I click on: “More”, a tag opens that says: “Move”, I click on “move” and now I come to a page that asks: Move page? and it offers many choices. I think the right choice is “Wikipedia”. Am I right about that?

Second question. Then on that page it says: User:Clockchime/sandbox. I should leave that alone? Am I right?

Third question: Then it says: To new title: ___ Now, at that point I’ll type in the title: Charles Hamilton (Handwriting expert). Am I right?

Then it says: “Reason”, and I think I can handle that one okay.

Thank you very much for any help on this. Clockchime (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Clockchime and welcoem to the Teahouse. On your various questions:
First: no do not choose "Wikipedia". Choose "(Article)". "Wikipedia" is for pages about how the project runs, such as this very page, not for actual articles.
Second: yes, that is the page you are planning to move. Do not change it.
Third: Thjis will be the title of the article. As there are several other articles about people named "Charles Hamilton" using "Charles Hamilton (Handwriting expert)" is reasonable.
however, you might want to review the page first. The formatting of the references could be improved, see Referencing for Beginners. (But that could be handled after the move. I would suggest using citation templates, but that is not required. Please do combine duplicate references.) The page needs more wiki-links to other articles. For example "graphologist" "US Army Air Corps", and the names of cities could be linked. Double check that all significant facts are supported by one or more references. Please make the tense consistent: use simple past, not a mix of past, past perfect, and present. I hope that these suggestions are helpful. DES (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

VERY helpful, -- all the advice -- thanks, very much. Clockchime (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Clockchime. Unless the creator of an article is very experienced, I would always recommend requesting a review: edit your draft to include {{subst:submit}} at the top (just as it appears there). This will put it in the queue for review, and if it passes, the reviewing editor will move it to mainspace. If it doesn't the reviewer will give reasons, and you can ask them for clarification. One of the reasons for recommending this is that sometimes articles are so incomplete that they get summarily deleted as soon as they are put in mainspace, though I don't think that would happen with this draft. By the way, I don't think you mean 'paleantologist'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and advice, it's much appreciated -- and you have a very sharp eye -- not least regarding paleontologist -- I meant paleographer! Thank you again. Clockchime (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Clockchime and DESiegel, shouldn't that be "Charles Hamilton (handwriting expert)"? I had a hard time learning not to overuse capital letters here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

English translation/version of the wiki languages sidebar[edit]

Is there a setting to view the languages sidebar in English? The heading is in English and the languages are written in their local alphabet. I can scroll over the languages to see the English equivalent, but I would rather just see that directly. It would also allow searching by "control-F." Thanks.Lucas559 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lucas559, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "SidebarTranslate, changes the language links in the sidebar so their text is displayed in English". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks PrimeHunter that is exactly what I was looking for. (And such quick service!) Lucas559 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice on first article[edit]

Hi there,

I have submitted my first article for review and his been declined twice for :- "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."

However, I am unsure as to what the problem is and thought that I had done this. Would someone be able to point in the right direction and explain what I have done wrong? Many thanks.

The article is at :-

Many thanks Tim Tim B Haigh (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. It's important that medical claims are sourced. We have a rather more onerous requirement here, the details are at WP:MEDRS. It's also good to source any claims such as "he was the first..."
The reviewing editor will generally happy to explain what their specific concerns are, if you reproach them on their talk page,
Hope that helps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
Although approaching them first before reproaching them is likely to improve response quality ;p --Elmidae (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing an article with two titles[edit]

I recently edited Richland Creek Reservoir. It turns out someone created this article under the title Richmond Creek Reservoir and realised that was a wrong title. I read somewhere that copy pasting an article to a new one and blanking the old one is the wrong way to rename it. I hope I haven't done anything wrong by editing one of the two versions. Should I now try to make the same change to the other article or would that just make it worse? Pretended leer (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing to do is tag the two articles for "mergeing". Let me take a look. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
OK I have redirected the wrong title to the right one (presumably this is a mistake that could easily be made by someone else, the redirect will land them in the right place). The original author had made a copy-paste move, but in this case it's not a problem: since no one else had (significantly) edited the old article, there is only the original author's attribution to worry about, and that is given by the first edit of the new article we are good to go. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks! Pretended leer (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Data Removal and city/town template questions[edit]

My tiny contribution revolves around my hometown article. Information was posted by me from a resource citing crime stats and likelihood of crime. Someone edited that and added their own arbitrary stats that differed. Both are from sketchy sources so I didn't protest.

I have since added statistics from the FBI NCR and left the new sketchy stats. Am I right in removing these new sketchy stats given the FBI says not to use them in that manner as they can be twisted many different ways to skew the results?

Also, is there a good template to use for adding and organizing town/city information? I have been adhering to the setup of St. Louis since it is the closest fairly major city. Thanks for what you all do. Dirtvoyles (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Different organisations collect crime figures for different reasons, and from different sources, and categorise them in different ways. I have seen work in "respected" journals misuse these figures, so you are right they can be tricky. Some of them also need interpretation, for example, 17th worst means nothing unless you know out of how many. I don't know where the figures from come from, so making a judgements is tricky.
  • {{Geobox|Settlement}} is a perfectly good template as far as I know, but most places use {{Infobox settlement}}.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

My Article declined[edit]

Hi Team,

I am trying to submit the article about Insync, but after so many edits, I am still unable to pass it to mainstream. The article is at Draft:Insync

Can you help me on this regard please.

Abhi2434 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

some subjects simply are not capable of "passing to the mainstream" if they have not been covered in a significant manner by third party reliable sources. Most of the "sources" appear to be PR regurgitation sites or merely business directory listings. You want to find actual content about the company written by somebody not involved with the company. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I change the heading of an article?[edit]

I've done some editing on-and-off for a while. My current project involves the history of defunct historic canoe companies. I did one for the B.N. Morris Canoe Company and discovered someone had begun one for the E.M. White Company, but it's titled "White Canoe". In an effort to be consistent with the naming of these articles (and to avoid confusion, as white is also a color), I'd like to change the title to "E.M. White Canoe Company"... or at least "E. M. White Canoe". I see the Old Town Company article is titled "Old Town Canoe"... but I think that also would be better if titled "Old Town Canoe Company"... the article is about the company and its canoes.

While I'm at it, I should mention that each time I've launched into writing an article, I find I cannot remember my old password and, after wasting a bunch of time, need to create a new "handle" and password as I am told "someone else" has my name. Is there a way to lump my current self with all my past selves? Under one of my previous identities I contributed to several things that I'm proud of. Thanks! Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While we strive for consistency in some ways, article titles should be the common name as used by the preponderance of the sources - for example DuPont rather than "E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company". As to user names, you can make a request to WP:USURP (one of) your previous user names.--ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If "someone else" has your old name, then your old account will have been moved to a different name. If you tell us the original name we can probably track it down quite easily. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
the "someone else" who has my name is me-- unless there are other women named Kathryn Klos who posted under that name. I did like using my real name. I posted under Kathrynklos too. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I am an "old canoe geek" and the White Canoe is known within the Wooden Canoe Community as "E.M. White"... i.e. "I just got another E.M. White, and my wife wants to kill me."Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody seems to have answered you first question, Squirrelwhisperer: you change the title of an article by moving it. You should find 'Move' under 'More' at the top of the page. If you do move it, it will automatically leave the old name there as a redirect to the new one, which is usually what is wanted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
But, don't move an article just because you don't like the title. Titles must follow the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines and if a page move is likely to be controversial, it should be discussed on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

citation needed[edit]

I am currently editing an article and it is saying that a citation is needed, please could you tell me if there is anywhere that I could check this out without using google. ie... somewhere on Wikipedia.Dominoooo's (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's, you cannot cite any information from Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
However, Dominoooo's, if you can find a relevant article already in Wikipedia, it is possible that that article will already have citations that are appropriate to what you are writing. I wish I could say that it will have, but there are many, many, substandard articles in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Declined Article: Revision Suggestions[edit]

I have submitted an article for creation that was declined... please see link below for details I have taken care to write in a neutral point of view while focusing on key points that give credibility to the artist I am writing about. Before submitting the article I have read many wikipedia pages on artists from a similar era and genre of work and have made every effort to use a similar format to those examples. I have also included 12 references from online and printed sources. I would very much appreciate feedback on what can be done to improve the article so that I can resubmit with better chances of acceptance. Thank you for your time and assistance.TKTSFTKTSF (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@TKTSF: claims like "pushed the boundaries" need to go or be attributed to a notable critic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste of copyrighted text[edit]

Hi, I found text in an article that has just been copied and pasted from several websites. After reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I removed all the instances of copied text, added a copyright notice for each instance I removed, notified the user and added the page to the copyright problem list. How will the notices be removed? What to do if the user continues lifting copyrighted material? The article in question is Gatwick_Express. Thank you. Widy9 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You have done everything correctly. You should consider leaving a talk page message for the user who added the copyvio material explaining why it has been removed and asking that they not readd it. If they persist, it is a serious matter and grounds for a block.--ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Widy9 has already left talk page messages. @Widy9: there's nothing more you need to do; the user will hopefully see the messages and avoid making the same mistake in the future. If the user continues, try leaving a personalised message on their talk page, trying to engage them in discussion or, as a last resort, post on a relevant noticeboard (I think WP:ANI would be the right choice here although I'm not too experienced in these areas). But hopefully the user will just stop. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Query regarding deletion[edit]

Raghav Sood is the article I am referring to. I wanted to ask how can I list the article for deletion. I think it failes Speedy Deletion Criteria and any deletion discussion would be better. You can create the discussion it's fine. Durgamahajan (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Durgamahajan, This needs work, but not, i think, deletion. See my post on the article talk page. DES (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DES, I do agree that CNBC is a reliable source. But the point of debate is that what the reliable sources write and what's written in article are different. Durgamahajan (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually, if the topic could support an article, but the current article is bad, a rewrite is considered better than deletion. Exceptions of course are copyright infringement and anything slandering a living person. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Date Vandalism[edit]

I've seen many cases of date vandalism. However, to check that this is vandalism one needs to search the event/person related to the date- but what sources of information is to be trusted? I've seen even official news sites having conflicting records before. Thanks in advance, Dakar (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Dakarias, If there are conflicting reliable sources we should say so. Changing a date to match a reliable source may be incorrect if other sources disagree, but it isn't vandalism. Changing a date to something no reliable source supports may well be vandalism. It isn't easy to be sure in such cases, sometimes. Check the sources cited in the article before the change, if any were, first, would be my advice. DES (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Dakarias. If there is a serious question as to the pre-existing date, a conflict between sources, then treat that as its own issue and note that you can even do something like was done with the date of birth in Hadji Ali (see the date form in the first sentence and click on the note at the end). If, however, a date that is sourced within the article is simply changed without a replacement source and its not clearly just vandalism, refer to the section of the verifiability policy known by the shortcut WP:BURDEN – revert and I suggest leaving an edit summary something like Revert unsourced change in date. [[WP:BURDEN]] controls. Do not add back without citing a reliable source using an inline citation, and even then we need to work out issue btw conflicting sources. If there does not appear to be any reliable source for the date and it has been challenged, then it should be removed entirely, also under WP:BURDEN. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all for the helpful replies! Dakar (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Found an External link that says something but actually links to a completely different thing. What to do?[edit]

Hello - I found a few external links stating that they link to a certain website and the URL is correct in the code, however when you click on the link it sends you to a completely different page. What do you do in this case? I assume you would flag the link and report it? But I am not sure how to do that! Can you please let me know the steps that should be taken to take care of this or lead me to an article that deals with how to approach this!

Thank you in advance! Kingoptimizer (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kingoptimizer: Welcome back! I suppose it depends on the situation. I'm guessing the URL is set to redirect to another domain. Perhaps the domain expired and someone else snatched it, or the website is simply old and gone. If the page you end up on is irrelevant, spammy, or otherwise inappropriate, then I'd just remove the link entirely. If you're still not sure and don't want to post the link here, feel free to email it to me and I can take a look. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that sometimes people refer to "external links" as just meaning URLs appearing anywhere, and not in the jargon we use, where we make a clear distinction between URLs used in footnoted citations, versus URLs used in an external links section, which is what we normally mean when we say "external links" (see Wikipedia:External links. The distinction is important because we properly are much more concerned and in general are willing to expend much more resources to fix links included those found to be dead in citations (rather than just removing them), than those appearing in external links sections.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @SuperHamster:. I can email you the page I am referring to and you let me know what you think. I will also email you what I think is happening there. @Fuhghettaboutit: I appreciate the explanation, but I am well aware of the difference between the two and I really meant an external link (as in a link that is placed in the external links section) :-). Hopefully SuperHamster will be able to help and let me know how to deal with this sort of issues moving forward. Thank you both for your reply!! Kingoptimizer (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Article[edit]

Hi Teahouse, I want to edit another users article to improve grammar and spelling, would like to know how I go about doing this.Dominoooo's (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's, welcome aboard. First things first - no-one owns articles on Wikipedia, so try not to think of it as "another user's article". You have as much right to make changes to it as anyone else. (The only arguable exception to this is if it's still in their userspace, in which case it would be polite to ask before editing). To edit an article, click on the "edit" tab at the top - this opens the page in editing mode so that you can make changes. Have a look at the tutorial for the basic process. Best of luck! Yunshui  08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
But please note that what may seem like spelling and grammar mistakes to you, may actually be correct in another variety of English:- US, UK, Australian, Canadian, Jamaican, Indian etc. Please see WP:ENGVAR for how the variety of English in each article is determined, and the (extremely) limited circumstances in which this should be changed. - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How can I retrieve the deleted article?[edit]

I am trying to create the first article on an organization - Financial Software & Systems (FSS). However after multiple rejections, the page was deleted under "speedy deletions" rule since it was termed as an ambiguous advertising. However, now I would like to fundamentally rewrite the entire article based on wiki's guidelines. I need your help and guidance in retrieving the deleted article.

Article name: Financial Software & Systems (FSS)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsstech91 (talkcontribs) 07:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fsstech91. You can request the article to be undeleted at WP:UNDEL. However, if it was deleted as advertising, I doubt that there's very much there that is worth retrieving: it will probably require a complete rewrite from scratch. I note that your username suggests that you are part of the organisation: if so, please read Conflict of interest to discover why you are strongly discouraged from writing about it at all. If you decide to go ahead, you must declare your conflict of interest, and then I strongly advise you to use the articles for creation process, to get your draft reviewed before it is accepted. You would also be well-advised to assemble some reliable sources where people who have no connection with the organisation have written about it, forget absolutely everything you know about it, and write your draft entirely from what those unconnected people have written. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I proceed after an article has been deleted?[edit]

How do I proceed after an article has been deleted because of copyright issues? I had created an entry about a American political activist named Paul Stanford, and the article was deleted because of copyright violations. Some of the text I used for the Wiki entry was copied off the subject's own LinkedIn profile, with the subject's full permission to use anything I needed. After the article I wrote was deleted I proceeded to get the subject to send a creative commons permission into Wiki, which he immediately did. He also requested that the article gets undeleted. As far as I know he hasn't heard anything back and I think that was about a month ago.

I have decided to try this process again, although I am frustrated I do understand that Wiki needs to be very careful about copyright issues. I re-created the article and rewrote all the text so as not to violate any copyright issues, even though Wiki should now have permission (and I have it as well) to use text from the subject's LinkedIn profile.

Is this the right way to proceed? I don't think I'm violating any copyright issues at this point. Is there someone else I need to contact about this, or should I just wait in line to see if the article gets approved?

Also, I noticed there is no submission box at the bottom like there was before that tells you approximately how long it will take to get the submission reviewed. Am I missing a line of text or code that should be at the beginning or end of the article that would submit it for approval? Maybe this is because the first article I wrote with the same name was deleted. Not sure if the re-write I just did has been formally submitted for approval.

Here is a link to the newly rewritten article;

Any help and advice is appreciated.

Thank you!

Sacredcocreation (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sacredcocreation! I'm sorry to see that your draft has been deleted once. Unfortunately, I don't see where the Creative Commons license is (it appears to be copied off [4] as far as I can tell, which has a copyright symbol on it). Even though he's given explicit permission for it to be used on Wikipedia, this isn't enough; since all our content is freely usable (i.e. CC-BY-SA 3.0), we can't have material around here that isn't, and since the site's content appears to be copyrighted, we can't accept it. I suggest you have your subject look at WP:DONATETEXT, and have him follow one of the two methods there: either put a CC-BY-SA license on it (or freer, but not stricter; we can't take the NC or ND clauses), or privately contact Wikipedia at the given e-mail address and follow the instructions. Gparyani (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Sacredcocreation. Here is my personal opinion: It is a big mistake to try to use the text of a LinkedIn profile in a Wikipedia article, even if copyright issues have been resolved. A LinkedIn profile is not independent, not reliable, and is inherently promotional. It has no professional editorial supervision. A Wikipedia biography should summarize, in neutral language, what reliable, independent sources say about the person. A LinkedIn profile is of very limited use when writing such a biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am only using key pieces of information gleaned from the subject's LinkedIn profile (like he was in the military) and his website. I have listed a ton of newspaper articles written about the subject and cited them as sources for most of the information on the article itself. In regards to facts like the subject being in the military, is it required that this type of information be taken from independent news sources as opposed to another source like a LinkedIn profile? Should I just remove this type of fact since I can't find a newspaper story that mentions the subject being in the military? I'm not trying to copy text from his LinkedIn profile or website, as much as I'm trying to use the relevant factual information from those sources that will help create a Wiki page. If you read the Wiki page I'm trying to create I don't think it is promotional as much as it is factual. I know that sometimes this isn't a clear, bright line, but in this case I think the Wiki page I am trying to create serves the purpose to be factual and not promotional.

The issue seems to be that I am violating copyright issues even though I have full permission from the copyright holder (he has submitted a permission to Wiki that I am allowed to use text from his LinkedIn profile and website) to use this content. I don't think there is an issue about the article I'm creating being promotional. If there is an issue with this then this is the first time I've heard about it.

I'm trying to resolve copyright issues. I seem to be going around in circles with this. Since I have formal permission to use information from the copyright holder himself I don't understand why this continues to be a problem.

Thank you for any help you can give.

Sacredcocreation (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sacredcocreation. I know that it is hard to write your first Wikipedia biography, and I hope that frank comments by an experienced editor will be useful. When you call the subject a "Canna-businessman" in the first sentence, you have begun the article promotionally. That is a strange promotional neologism which is not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. The draft article has a promotional tone, in my sincere opinion, and includes many unreferenced assertions and evaluations. Every one must be cited to a reliable source or removed. A biography such as this should include nothing of substance that isn't backed up by a reliable, independent source. The military service details do not belong in the lead, in my opinion. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article. He is not notable for military service, as far as I know. The copyright problem was a result of extensive quoting of his LinkedIn profile, which is inappropriate in any case and in any biography. So don't copy text from the LinkedIn profile (or anywhere else) and all copyright problems disappear. Getting permission for inappropriate copyrighted content is not necessary, as it will not be included in the encyclopedia anyway. I suggest a major rewrite and trimming, removing every trace of promotional or unreferenced content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You appear to be misunderstanding the copyright position - copyright is complex, but to put it very simply:-
It is not you that needs the permission - the permission has to be for anybody to use the information for any purpose whatsoever, including making a profit and altering the information for their own purposes. I think people need to understand what releasing information on a CC-BY-SA license means and consider it carefully before issuing it.
As stated above, the text of someone's Linked-in page is highly unlikely to be the neutral point of view that we require, and furthermore, this is not a reliable, independent source. The easiest thing would be to ignore the Linked-In page and just use the information from reliable third party sources. - Arjayay (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I'm trying to understand the path towards success, and it's subtle which makes it difficult. Plus I don't really have experience with these types of copyright issues.

Should I just remove everything from the article that's not backed up by a news source? Is this the path forward? Can I just keep trying to create the article on the same page until I get it right? I don't want to keep wasting my time or anyone else's. I should be able to trim the article down to only include things which have originally been reported from news sources. I'll give that a try.

Sacredcocreation (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and done some major revisions to the article and removed everything that wasn't verified by an external news source. I think the article reads alot better now.

Can someone please take a look at this current revision and let me know if there are anymore copyright issues or anything else that needs to be addressed? I'd really appreciate it. Thank you all for your time.

Sacredcocreation (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How to remove "see tfm" link[edit]

In almost every educational institute (college, university) I have came across here, there is this little "see tfm" link beside the "colors" option in the infobox. Why it is there and how to remove it?

Rami.shareef (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Rami.shareef: Welcome to the Teahouse! You're seeing that link because the template (Template:Color box) is undergoing a deletion discussion. You can view the discussion here. When a template is under discussion, the "see tfm" link is added so that anyone who comes across the template will know that a deletion discussion is going on, and so that they can contribute if they wish. These discussions typically last 7 days, after which consensus is determined; once that happens, the template will either be deleted or kept. Either way, you'll see the "see tfm" link removed then. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @SuperHamster: Rami.shareef (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice on draft[edit]

I'm currently working on this draft: This has been rejected a few times, even after I added some external references.

Please pardon my ignorance, but may someone please list some suggestions on how I may improve on it. I would also greatly appreciate anyone willing to invest some time to help improve it directly~ :) Would adding a section: giving a short blurb (a sentence or 2) on the founders with external references add to the credibility?

Thank youSerubbabel (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What it needs most is references to reliable independent sources, to establish that it is notable. I don't think it has any at present. Some of the current references are to its own material, and therefore not independent; and some are independent, but only establish that it exists, not that it is worthy of mention. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Making many edits to an article in a short period[edit]

Is it considered bad etiquette to make many small edits to an article and saving them, instead of doing all the edits at once? I may have made a mistake here (look at the history): Daxophone MDaxo (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@MDaxo: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that some editors care, but they are a small minority. Lots of long time editors and admins use that style of editing so I wouldn't worry about it. Feel free to edit in whatever style you would like. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is just my opinion, but while it can be a tiny bit annoying for other users, there's nothing wrong with doing things in small chunks if you prefer to do things that way. I can still see the entirety of your changes here. Maybe it's better to save your progress as you go so you don't lose anything; maybe you suddenly notice another problem after clicking submit; maybe you make a small mistake in your original edit. There's no rule against editing a page multiple times in a row but if you can try to stick to as few edits as possible, that's probably best. That way, you don't clog up the edit history too much or constantly notify people with the page on their watchlist. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I always save work in progress. I am interested in the overall end result, not really what others consider to be good or bad etiquette. Whatever works for each editor is fine. We have more rules and guidelines than would sink a battleship. Lets; not add to them. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I generally edit in small chunks dealign with one small isue at a time, then saving and moving on. OI think it makes the purpose of each edit clearer in some case, and lets changes be separately undone if someone objects, but mostly it is easier for me, and the end result should be the same. If anything I prefer that style by others as well, but each editor must work in whatever way he or she chooses, within very broad limits. Now making many edits within a very short time to many different articles with an automated or semi-automated tool can be dubious, depending on the nature of the edits. DES (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I, too, often make a lot of small edits, explaining each in an edit summary as I go along. If anything, I believe that is a more transparent, open style of editing than making more sweeping changes in one or two edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Good thing about editing in small chunks is that it will increase your edit count and other people will think that you are an experienced user by seeing your edit count. But I prefer to edit at once if possible, at least you can edit one section at once. If you do sectionwise multiple edits then its fine. But if you are keep on editing same section multiple times then still its not bad etiquette. When I was new I used to do multiple edits, but now I preview my edits and try to execute things in minimum edits. --Human3015Send WikiLove  02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I speak only for myself, Human3015, but my my edit count is the furthest thing from my mind when I am working on expanding and improving an article. Improving the encyclopedia comes first in my mind, and making the intention and purpose of my edits clear to other editors is always important as well. Edit count? Who cares? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Frankly speaking my comment was not for you, I have not even read all above comments carefully, I just commented here on lighter note when I saw this thread. My comment was for Mdaxo. Why I would criticize any of above editor? Me too don't care edit count but for new user it maybe useful for getting some "special permissions(rollback, pcr)" as it requires some 200/500 odd edits in mainspace. etc. I or anyone other can have different POV regarding small edits, it should be welcomed. It is not good to take on each other in front of new users on teahouse. Cheers. --Human3015Send WikiLove  07:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Article speedy delete[edit]

Hello :) I am a Video Director and editor. I watch wikipedia page of gippy grewal (Punjab singer) but there is no any page of director who create them and their status in public. I am a video Director and i create enough videos. But when i create an article on myself it delete again and again. I want to know how to edit an article on myself. Sourav08saini (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not create articles on yourself or anything you're involved in. See WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
okay, thanks... can i create an article on other senior directors in Punjabi music industry.All i know about them. even they have public identit and status.Sourav08saini (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia only summarizes professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources which are independent of the subject but still specifically about the subject. It does not rely on user knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Writing an article on open source software[edit]

Just like to ask for some aid the revision for the draft Gazebo_simulator.

My goal is to keep the article short and factual similar in style to existing example open source articles:

If you have detailed specifics on this matter, or know of an editor knowledgeable in the subject, please do not hesitate to inform.

Thanks Ruffsl (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ruffsl -- I'd recommend posting your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics -- you're most likely to find someone knowledgeable there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Edits[edit]

Hi, I found in the Edit Count that one of the edit I did has been deleted. I don't know where to find the same. I want to know what happened or where did I go wrong ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peppy Paneer:, it was a minor edit you made to an article called Ashraf Abu Issa. The article was subsequently deleted which includes your edit so that's why you have a deleted edit in your count. Deleted edits are nothing to worry about. Nthep (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nthep:, Oh yes! I remember...few days back removed one of the references from the article Ashraf Abu Issa because it was not supporting the statement and put [citation needed] tag with that statement. Its worry...I was looking to see if I made a wrong edit. Face-smile.svg Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Peppy Paneer. If an edit you make is undone by somebody, or the text is later changed, it will still show in your contributions and the history of the page you edited. Deleted edits are either edits you made to pages which have subsequently been deleted, or (I think) edits that have been oversighted for some reason. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ColinFine Ok Face-smile.svg Thank you for further clarification. And if any user has 27(lets say) deleted edits, then can user view all the deleted edits at one place ? Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Peppy Paneer, only administrators can see a users deleted contributions. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nthep: Ok Face-smile.svg Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)