Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

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

• Learn more

Theodore!, Teahouse host

Experienced editor?
Become a host...

Question archive »

Ask a question

Play The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit in about an hour.

Template for posting insects

I am looking for the complete template to expand post on Odonata refer List of SA Odonata It is rather frustrating to da a page. Line people up to post photos to the galery and find that the page has been modified to another style. JP labuschagneJP Labuschagne (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A new page that I wanted to create got deleted

I just started editing a new page and it got deleted right away by someone named Liz. Why is that?XLNC11 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@XLNC11: As was noted in the message on your user talk page, there was no assertion that the subject of the article was significant or important. Any such article is subject to immediate or speedy deletion. Articles can be speedy deleted for a number of reasons; one reason is when the article is about a person and there is no indication that he or she is a significant or important person. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

See the explanation on your talk page. User:Everymorning nominated it for speedy deletion as not making any plausible claim of notability, A7. Administrator User:Liz concurred with the nomination, and deleted it. I suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process to get review before moving the article into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Review action

Hi, I'm unsure as to how the review action is carried out on new articles. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question? If so, we will try to answer it. Otherwise, read Articles for Creation. If you have a specific question, we will try to answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sk Wasim Ali

This page I have created, but official its removed. In Google Search, the page is giving still the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sk_Wasim_Ali , I want to remove it from search else Allow me to redirect the page to my user account. Skwasimalitoni (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Skwasimalitoni and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no control over Google's search results but now that it has been deleted, Sk Wasim Ali will disappear from Google in the next day or two. That sort of information (if it is about you) does not belong on you user page either. As another editor explained to you on your talk page [1]. Wikipedia is not a place like Facebook or LinkedIn for people to write about themselves or host their resumes. Wikipedia:User pages has more information about what is appropriate and inappropriate content for user pages. I see that as I was writing this you have re-created Sk Wasim Ali as a blank page. Please do not do this. This too will be deleted and will simply prolong the time it takes for the page to disappear from the search engine results. If you are interested in working on the encyclopedia itself, you might find The Wikipedia Adventure a good way to start. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

How to have "the read this article in other languages" w/o problems?

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse. As of Jan14, 2016 my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AibE_(software) was rejected by Robert McClenon due to lack of reliable independent 3rd party references. So I send my doubts to the Teahouse after Robert's suggestion to ask here. I read the Wikipedia statements about relevance and anti-advertising policies and I thought my translation was neutral enough in the article because I just tried to make an English language version of this entry https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/AibE (in Spanish). The subject of this article is about a more than 25 year old software application that runs in several languages, but yes mainly in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries. Both the Spanish article and the English draft show the same 3rd party references although they are solely in Spanish. Are English-written references mandatory in English Wikipedia? Other than those I've mentioned, I cannot provide other independent references, as I don´t find any source referring this matter in English. Are also external links to LinkedIn or this vendor's website a transgression to the advertising policies in Wikipedia? English is not my mother tongue, either, maybe there are some issues with my translation that didn´t match the neutral criteria about self-promotion or advertising? Mind that I don't want to be fussy or picky at this, just have this considerations clear and try to make things better. Thank you in advance. Raycaster (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Raycaster, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a problem to use foreign-language sources (although if you can find some English-language sources, then all the better). The problem here is that you only have three sources listed at the end of the article, which probably isn't enough to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. A secondary problem is that you have not used inline citations, so it is unclear how much and what parts of the article are supported by each of the sources used. I suggest having a read of Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, all of these concerns appear to apply to the version of the article on the Spanish Wikipedia too, although I am unsure of the notability and referencing requirements over there. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry and also Robert McClenon, I'll try to mend these questions and have my draft ready to meet the Wikipedia quality standards. Un saludo!

Raycaster (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Are Interviews SELFPUB?

For example, if the subject of an article mentions in an interview that his brother is a chef in New York, would it be OK to write "His brother is a chef in New York". In other words, should interviews, press conferences, etc, always be preceded by "He said/declared/etc"? How do we treat interviews? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Demonstration of notability through references

Robert McClenon recently reviewed my proposed page on ELGA LabWater and rejected it on the grounds that it does not demonstrate enough notability through the references. ELGA LabWater, my former employers, manufacture water purification equipment to produce pure water for use in laboratories around the world. They are listed in numerous scientific publications as the source of the water used in the published research. Last time I looked there are over 1400 such references in a Google Scholar search and a similar number in the American chemical society database. These can all be verified. I just included a few in this submission. ELGA is one of the top 3 global suppliers of such equipment, which is present in most laboratories. How should I convey this high level of notability better? I would greatly appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you. Paul Whitehead Paul W1901 Paul W1901 (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe ELGA LabWater is notable. If it is, it's up to you to demonstrate it, by including suitable references in the article, in a way that readers and reviewers can find. Note what the reviewer said: "Because of the formatting of the references, it is not possible to assess whether this business meets corporate notability guidelines." Maproom (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I now see that Wikipedia already has an article Veolia Water, which is about the same business (a division of Veolia) as Draft:ELGA LabWater. I have created redirects from Veolia LabWater and ELGA LabWater to Veolia Water. Maproom (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction: I see that the "LabWater" division is different from the "Water" division. I have deleted the redirects. Maproom (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Inserting a logo into the Infobox

Hi,

I am currently struggling with learning how to: 1) Inserting a logo into the Infobox 2) Adding coordinates in the Infobox for a location

The page I am working on is 'Sula Vineyards' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Vineyards

I am new to wikipedia, and this is the first page I have edited. Could someone possibly help me out? Also can this be done without coding?

Thank you!

Finivino1000 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Is a newspaper (LeMonde.fr) considered a valid source?

About editing or any of the process of contributing something to a Wikipedia article.

Is an excerpt from an article from Le Monde considered as a valid source? Or should sources solely be in English?

--JamesPoulson (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources in other languages are acceptable, though sources in the language of the Wikipedia (English, here) are preferable if available. I believe that Le Monde is a well-respected French newspaper. Maproom (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JamesPoulson. Le Monde is a highly respected newspaper in France, comparable to the New York Times in the U.S., or the London Times in the U.K. Accordingly, it should be clear that Le Monde is a reliable source most of the time. But no source is 100% reliable. For example, we expect that medical claims be cited to survey articles in respected peer-reviewed medical journals, not daily newspapers. And if Le Monde says something, but if four other reliable publications disagree and criticize the Le Monde reporting, then we need to be extremely cautious about citing that source in that specific case. Le Monde is a great source. But it is not a perfect source. No source is perfect. Editorial judgment is what is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Pet peeve: it's just The Times. --ukexpat (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ukexpat means that the London newspaper is simply The Times, which, to disambiguate, may be qualified parenthetically as The Times (of London). In New York, if someone says "The Times", they probably mean The New York Times, but the unqualified name actually means the London newspaper, and Le Monde and both of them are respected reliable sources, but, as noted, no source is perfect. Also, if a peer-reviewed medical journal refutes a medical claim made in a newspaper, both should be cited, but Wikipedia should state that the claim in the newspaper was refuted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, The Times (of London). I think everyone knew what I was talking about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you everyone :) . I did my first edit. Just added a phrase and figured out how to add a reference. Not that complicated after all.

In terms of fact checking, it would be nice to have a list of newspapers and such overall with a "weight" in terms of credibility (measure of accuracy) and what they stand for.

Wikipedia itself was put to the test with some scientific articles and it compared favourably with a conventional encyclopedia.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JamesPoulson. As with a lot of questions in Wikipedia a list like that would not necessarily be a good thing, because, as others have said above, so much depends on the particular case (and also, if such a list exists, somebody will probably use it for wikilawyering, saying "this list says XXX is a reliable source so you have to accept my edit".) The reliable sources noticeboard is a place you can ask about individual cases, and you can also search the archives of that page. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My article has been declined a second time because "still not enough in-depth third-party sources overall."

Draft article title: < Draft:Beverly Kaye > Hello everyone and thank you for your offer to help. This is my first article creation; it is for a living person. I have reviewed the guidelines for notability and believe that I have provided significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...but apparently I have fallen short somewhere. I've included national sources such as the Harvard Business Review, U.S.News, and Fortune's Growth Summit; recognition by industry-leading business bodies such as the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) and HR.com; national speaking appearances at events including President Clinton and Steve Wozniak; bibliography covering over 30 years of work by recognized business publishers including Prentice Hall, Jossey-Bass and Berrett-Koehler. I did NOT include that the subject has also been featured as a subject-matter expert in a number of other articles including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Forbes and Fast Company; and two of her books have been noted as Wall Street Journal Best Sellers ... should I include those, would it help establish additional reliable sources. After the first decline because of inadequate inline citations I corrected and expanded those, but now the editors are asking for more sources. The subject has been prominent in her field consistently since the 1980's and been so recognized as a pioneer and thought leader (I have specific quotes and references for that) and I thought I had cited everything appropriately to support her reputation and career success. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or guidance you can offer. I understand the integrity requested and required for inclusion in Wikipedia and I take this very seriously. I strive to meet your standards (at least minimal standard) and once this article is available there are other colleagues who can provide additional details and support to enhance this entry even more. Again, thank you for your time, I understand it is valuable. Mjolevin (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You won't convince anyone here that Beverly Kaye is notable just by writing a long paragraph saying so. The only way is to add references to the draft, to reliable independent sources that discuss her. I have looked at the references you have provided, that I have access to, and

• 1 and 10 are not independent
• 2 and 7 do not mention her
• 6 is to a press release, and so not independent.

Incidentally – the way you have provided the references is non-standard, and will need to be improved. But this is a routine matter, it could certainly be done. I am less optimistic about the existence of acceptable evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia is particularly strict about WP:Biographies of living persons, and I agree with the reviewer that Draft:Beverly Kaye is still weak on WP:Reliable sources. The subject's own publicity is not considered to be a reliable source. Can you add page numbers for the printed sources? If your colleagues have better sources, then they are invited to add them to your draft to support your submission. Dbfirs 23:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Own photos

Good evening, I wanted to ask:

1. What kind of pictures do I do if I would like to put the rural landscape?
2. And what need galleries of photographs? Namely the need to do a lot of rural pictures (if it is about the village) with regard to landscape or landscape and to load and put the key in the content?
3. What kind of license?

Thank you. P.s I answer and read it tomorrow, after the concert (own) --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 19:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse Lukaslt13.

1. Take the pictures yourself, or upload existing ones from The Commons.
2. Articles do not need many photos and there is not usually much room for them unless you thumbnail them in to compact galleries.
3. If you want to publish your own work (not images harvested from the web), use The Commons Upload Wizard
4. The Wizard will coach you on licensing. It will suggest the default licensing, but there is an adjacent link to choose more licensing options.

Here is a link to a tutorial on things such as galleries: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, if you like to go out and take pictures, a great place to start is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by location. Navigate through until you get to your area and see what is requested. It will even make a map for you. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Very thank you all!! I use this help for my photos. Really very very thank you!--L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 17:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Talk

What does the "talk" hyperlink mean? When I click on it, it brings me to a page. Is there a way to chat with an experienced editor? Helkins (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Helkins: Welcome to the Teahouse! You may find Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to be a useful read. All articles on Wikipedia have an associated talk page to discuss changes to the article. For example, if you were viewing the Earth article and wanted to discuss making a change to it, you could start a discussion at Talk:Earth to get thoughts from other editors. You'll also notice that talk pages usually have notices and relevant information for editors regarding the topic. More popular topics are more likely to have active editors watching and willing to discuss the topic; talk pages for more obscure topics are less likely to be watched by editors. As a result, there's no guarantee that a message on a talk page will get replies. If you're looking to get general editing help from an experienced editor, well, you're in the right place! The help desk is another resource to get help.

Other pages on Wikipedia also have talk pages. The Teahouse, for example, has its own talk page to discuss the Teahouse at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Each editor also has their own talk page. If you wanted to contact me, you could post a message at User talk:SuperHamster. If I wanted to contact you, I could post a message to User talk:Helkins. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Helkins. Where are you finding this hyperlink?

If you post on an article or template talk page and do not get a reply in a reasonable time or if your request is urgent try putting this template (with the four curly brackets) on the talk page near your question: {{help me}}

There are also other avenues of help, starting here at the Teahouse, and continuing with: WP:Help. In order I would suggest: the Teahouse, the Help Desk, the Village Pump (technical), Phabricator. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Helkins, In addition to the fine answers given above, I would mention there is a Wikipedia Tip of the day for January 17 – What is a Talk page? which may be helpful as well. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  00:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to zero in on my edits

I thought I'd come up with independent verifiable sources for my article about the Maine Blues Festival (draft in my sandbox) but I keep getting "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability."

This is the only festival of it's kind, certainly in Maine, if not the Northeast, New England or the country but I figure it's notable due to the size, success and local musicians involved. Maybe I'm tagging the articles incorrectly? Or maybe it's just not as notable as I believe it is.RonaldPerryGill (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This must be about Draft:Maine Blues Festival (which is not in a sandbox). Here in Wikipedia, notability is established by discussions of the subject in reliable independent published sources. If you can find references to these, then the subject is notable. Size and uniqueness are irrelevant, unless discussed in such sources. Maproom (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse RonaldPerryGill. The article Draft:Maine Blues Festival needs a lot of work. At least you have some references now. The article is long enough to support a lead section which should be a nickel tour of the entire article. The article is long enough to support some sections. I will go add a couple now. Once you have four or more sections the backend of Wikipedia will automatically create a nice table-of-contents (TOC) for your article. Keep plugging away until your article is ready for the Wikipedia main namespace. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Newbie, how do I move my edit-a-thon page out of Sandbox & publish it

I'm building a page for my nonprofit educational organization's March 12 Edit-a-thon. I've been working on it for a couple of weeks in my Sandbox, but I've never published anything on Wikipedia before, so I don't know how to move something out of the Sandbox and and make it well and truly public. There's a little blue button on my user sandbox that says "submit your draft for review" but when I click that it gives me a new page that contains everything in my sandbox, including a junk I was experimenting with but that has nothing whatsoever to do with our edit-a-thon. How can I make a brand-new-page that has nothing on it but our Edit-a-thon? If I copy and paste, will I lose all the links and HTML styles that I so carefully inserted in the Sandbox? 173.76.34.2 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't told us which account you were using when you created your user sandbox. Try logging in to your account and letting us know, so that we can look at the sandbox concerned. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I actually find stuff to edit?

Again, I'm a new guy here. I am learning Wikipedia markup and all so no problem with that. I've found one thing I can edit. But I'm unable to find anything else. I've tried just going through like 75 random articles but all of them usually already have content beyond my capability of contribution. Is there any place I can find articles that need resuscitation? Thanks Ramthecowy (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

My experience is different. When I am teaching someone, face-to-face, how to make edits, I get them to click on "Random article", read the one that comes up, spot a mistake in it, and correct it. Sometimes they need to click two or three times. Anyway, if you really want a challenge, have a look at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name, read its talk page to learn what's wrong with it, and correct it. (That's not altogether a serious suggestion – it's a large very boring task that needs doing and requires no particular skills.) Maproom (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit clash)Hello Ramthecowy - welcome to the Teahouse, and congratulations on completing the Wikipedia adventure and for your enthusiasm to contribute. There are several approaches, depending on what appeals to you. Here are some that occur to me:

• If you have skills or an interest in a particular topic, there may be a "Wikiproject" on that area. You can see the list of Wikiprojects under "Finding a project" at Wikipedia:WikiProject. Then for example, if you look through that list, and its sub-lists, and decide you're keen on insects then you could go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects. Most Wikiprojects have a list of articles that need attention.
• If you want to hone your editing skills by working on articles with a particular problem, then you can take a look at the lists at Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask or Wikipedia:Cleanup.
• You can check out new users' contributions at Special:Contributions/newbies - some of them are good, some are ... not.

I'm sure other editors will have some suggestions, but these might help to get you started. Good luck!--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make minor improvements to articles, and you read and write English at the native level, Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit consists of articles that have been tagged as needing copy-edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

'This article has multiple issues'

Hello there,

I'm very new to Wikipedia, but i've made my first entry and i have received a message saying that 'This article has multiple issues'

sorry to be noob, but i'm not sure what i'm doing wrong, i was wondering if someone could help me out?

Thanks a million Cheers Mike 81.135.215.169 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It really would help if you told us the article you are asking a question about. You can add a wikilink to it by putting [[ article/draft name]] brackets around the name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mike, and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. The first thing I would say is that I would always recommend new editors to start by editing existing articles before they plunge into the difficult feat of creating a new article: we have five million articles, and most of them could be improved.

Secondly, as Onel5969 says, we could help you better if you told us which article: often we can look at your contributions history, but either you have logged out since working on the article, or else you created it without logging in (which is fine) but now have a different IP address (either you're on a different machine, or your computer gets allocated its IP address dynamically) so we can't find your contributions from your current IP address.

Thirdly, that message (we call it a maintenance tag) was added by a human editor. It should be followed by two or more separate issues, each of which should have some text in blue in it, which is a link to the page explaining what the issue is. Alternatively, if you pick 'View History' at the top of the article, you should see who the editor was who added those message, and you can ask them - pick the link that says "Talk" by their name, and you can start a new section on their User Talk page, asking them for clarification.

You might find it helpful to read your first article; and if you created the article directly in main space (so that the title of the page was simple the title of the article, and doesn't have 'Draft:' or 'User:<something>/' in front of it) I strongly advise using the Article wizard to create your draft in one of those spaces, where you can work on it in relative safety. --ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the information provided neutral?

Hi,

I am currently working on the 'SULA VINEYARDS' wiki page in order to compile some information on the company for a school project. I wanted to verify whether the text I provided is alirght, and sounds neutral.

How can I go about this?

Is it possible to send in a section at a time for editing?

Thanks, Nikki

Finivino1000 (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Sula Vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maproom (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nikki. I see that both Maproom and David Biddulph have tidied the article after you. I'm not sure what you mean by "send in a section at a time for editing"; but you can certainly edit a section at a time: you should have an 'Edit' link by the side of each section of the article (except the first, unless you have turned on the preference that gives you that link). --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Article declined because there's already one with the same name in the making

Good day, everyone! First I wanted to thank you for your great work. I've been using Wikipedia for a very long time now and spent hours and hours just reading its interesting content.

Yesterday I've created my first article and submitted it for review. It was declined because there's already an article with the same title in the making, namely an article about a Mark Atkin. I read the other article and it's not about the same Mark Atkin. The other Mark Atkin works in a similar field, but it's definitely not the same person. Would renaming my article to Mark Atkin (actor) help?

OMichiO OMichiO (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: re: User:OMichiO/sandbox/Mark Atkin. GoingBatty (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The existence of an article, or in this case another draft, about a different Mark Atkin, would not be a reason for declining your proposed article. If your article were accepted, it would be moved into article space with a name such as the one you propose: "Mark Atkin (actor)". But your work was not "declined": the decision was to consider the other submission first, probably because the reviewer assumed both were about the same Mark Atkin. So renaming your sandbox would not help.

I should warn you that I have seen proposed articles on stunt doubles declined for lack of notability. It's the actors who get the headlines and the articles, while the guys who do the dangerous stuff get overlooked. But this is a field that I know nothing about, I have no view on whether Thorin Oakenshield's stunt double qualifies as notable. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom Thank you for your reply! I understand. Is it better to wait until the issue with the same name is clearified in order to re-submit the article later?

What you said about notability is true. Mr. Atkin is well known by fans of The Hobbit movies because he's the stunt/scale double for the lead actor. The Hobbit fandom is very interested in the people behind the scenes, but I know that this isn't always the case, as you've pointed out. Meanwhile I will work further on the article. Thank you so much, you really helped me a lot!

OMichiO (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, OMichiO. In answer to your first question: no, don't wait: the naming will be sorted out when the articles are accepted and moved to main space. I suggest you put {{about|the actor and stuntman|the director|Draft:Mark Atkin}} (exactly like that, with the double curly brackets) at the top - this will give notice to any reviewer that they are not the same person, and will in any case be needed once the article is accepted (though the target will need to be changed).

In response to your last paragraph: I'm not sure whether it shows that you do or don't understand about what notability means in Wikipedia. To make it clear: it doesn't matter how well known somebody is among a particular fandom, or even in the world at large: unless unconnected people have written about them at length, and published in reliable places, Wikipedia does not consider them notable. --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, ColinFine. Thank you for answering my questions! It helped me a lot. Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, I meant I understand that though he is known in a fandom it doesn't mean he is known outside this particular fandom and that notability depends on reliable sources. I'll review my sources again regarding reliability! Thank you all for helping me!

OMichiO (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Neoliberalism and how to create a new neutral page on the post-war period? (follow-up to last post)

First things first, I don't actually give a monkey's about how neoliberalism itself is presented :D .

It's not my fight and as a humanist if Rothbard is part of the crowd I find his views on children horrid.

However, if neutral encyclopaedic material is to be presented then the post-war period itself should be presented independently and then details of what took place in objective terms with interpretations underneath. Perhaps this already exists?

If not should I create a user page with this intent? This page would contain some of the following. Initially it could cover events in the USA, UK and EU.

• Economic effects of the Vietnam war?
• Oil shock?
• Drop of the gold standard and flotation of currencies.
• Explosion of interest rates propagated throughout the world in 1979 (14% in some EU countries) contributing to current public debt levels.
• Relaxation of financial repression used to mop up debt due to the Great Depression and war.
• Financiarisation of the economy.
• Sustained monetary inflation due to money creation.
• Shift in taxes to accommodate fortunes and multinationals to encourage investment.
• Maastricht treaty in 1992 prevents EU member states to borrow at 0% from their national central bank.
• Bail-outs of 2008.
• Current $200 trillion world debt reported by McKinsey. $223 trillion according to ING.
• Recent EU bail-in directive.
• Current suggestions to move to a cashless society in Nordic countries.
• Current suggestions to apply negative interests.

With the 2008 crisis some parallels could be drawn with the 1930s.

How would neoliberalism then fit in? The page could stand by itself to describe the ideology and it's secondary meaning as a buzzword for historical transformations.

On a new page the policies actually applied could be detailed according to their origin. For neoliberalism these would be mostly economic (deregulation, privatization...) as laws have actually become stricter for the average business. It would be added that in terms of politics most Western countries have a degree of social security, inspired from socialism and second-generation human rights so this "liberalism" is very selective.

Where am I coming from? I am absolutely certain that with hindsight people will see our time differently, and even today if people are inclined to document themselves on what has been happening. The content is probably already there on the wiki.

You will probably agree that neoliberalism and capitalism are the equivalent of the devil nowadays and even academics could have trouble being neutral on the subject. This is very convenient because anything that has a "godly" aspect can be blamed for anything and is untouchable while it is the actions of men that animate this world. This is where I'm coming from.

Some further information and different views could be added. I found this Marxist wiki which I could relate to objective and sourced content here on Wikipedia. It describes an economic slowdown to which it says keynesianism could no longer bring a solution in the 1980s due to the Marxian concept of overaccumulation while neoliberal policies offered a solution.

This could be contrasted with economic data and graphs.

There is also an economist who used to work for the World Bank with heteredox views who describes the 1970s onwards period in terms of "creditism". This could be made into another extra page. A book has been written on the subject and he has been on various shows including one on RT.

-- JamesPoulson (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse JamesPoulson. If I understand you correctly, you are proposing a page promoting an original synthesis of thought on those subjects. If that is what you are proposing, I am sorry but Wikipedia does not publish original research or promotion—even on user pages—or in fora like the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what has already been published in reliable sources. Wikis including Wikipedia are not regarded as reliable sources. —teb728 t c 23:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

teb728 my post was obviously unclear and I admit I could work on being more concise. What I'm suggesting is a presentation of absolutely verifiable facts and figures from 1945 to the present day (post-war). One cannot be more unbiased then that.

If people then want to add a political or ideological slant then they could add a section but it should be clearly indicated as such. That includes some of what I've posted above (all the isms as well as interpretations from different viewpoints).

As a reader of conventional encyclopaedia I would expect to find something like this, not what I see at present. There is seeming conflation or amalgamation and having sources would not prevent a narrative. Some concerns are stated on the Talk page. There is seeming emotional content here even if it's subtle.

For example, it is very strange to mention the Austrian school on the page without mentioning that it's present-day supporters are actually antagonistic towards the current banking and monetary system. One has to follow the media to actually understand this and it's stated nowhere. So does the page insinuate that current day Austrians are railing against the current system just for heck of it O_o ? This is illogical.

Yes, Alan Greenspan has expressed views in favour of the Austrian School but it stops there and there is no way of knowing if he was sincere. Only facts can determine if his policies reflected that. If he was sincere for example he would have been against any interventionism. In fact, if he was pro-Austrian all the way he would be in disfavour of central banking.

Neoliberalism itself exists as a philosophy (timeless concept) and is not a buffet from which one can pick and choose, just as is the case with other philosophies.

It also exists as the buzzword for historical transformations as the worker's unions here in Belgium use the word.

These should be distinct and clearly delimited as such.

Now I'm not familiar with protocol here which is the reason for the post in Teahouse.

If the position of Wikipedia is to actually describe subjects according to the narrative of academics and such then say so. If so it would be odd as I could imagine that present-day people would have a very different view on, say, communism then simply stating what communism was about in terms of theoretical principles (=unbiased) and then describe the historical happenings that led to it's decline (=interpretation because it happened in the past and we only had the view of the West until more recently).

However, if an article simply needs to be sourced in terms of quotes and facts then I'd be prepared to put some effort in. It just remains to be seen if "post-war period" would be a valid page or if there are other verifiable terms to describe this.

Lastly, if the subject is touchy I will just leave it at that. No source on this earth can actually be neutral as we all have a subjective perception. As Wikipedia is apparently based in the States I can imagine that some subjects are up to controversy (which is why some pages are protected?) and not only since I read an article today about people on an IP from the Minister of the French Interior messing around with their page and getting blocked.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Too long, difficult to read. However, it is the position of Wikipedia to describe subjects according to the narrative of academics and other scholars, and we do say so. Your point about communism doesn't make sense. We describe communism both in terms of theoretical principles and in terms of the historical happenings that led to its decline, both in terms of how scholars have presented them. It isn't clear what you want to do. If you want to improve an article by adding material about neoliberalism as it has been discussed by scholars, I would suggest discussion at Talk: Neoliberalism. I would also caution that editing about neoliberalism in the United States is subject to discretionary sanctions. In any case, this should be discussed on the talk page rather than here. If you have questions about who are considered reliable sources, this is a good place to ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Too long, difficult to read"

Apologies. Concise reply this time.

"If you want to improve an article"

Yes, if only to bring clarity. That is the main point, clarity. It could vastly improve the quality without really changing content.

"However, it is the position of Wikipedia to describe subjects according to the narrative of academics and other scholars, and we do say so."

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.

"Your point about communism doesn't make sense"

Say the Berlin wall is still there as well as the USSR. How can you know what you're writing is unbiased as a Westerner? Does that make sense?

In the same vein, is it actually possible to be unbiased about "neoliberalism" as we're smack bang in it? It's thrown a lot of hurt around and no-one likes it. It is in many ways the present-day devil.

Now compare communism and neoliberalism. They aren't exactly comparable but do you not sense the difference in terms of clarity and structure, even without reading the text? The first article is in fact very readable.

"It isn't clear what you want to do"

As stated above in bold, present unbiased facts about economic and political changes from 1945-2016.

Why? Because at the moment, it's all packed into a ball called "neoliberalism" on this page when we are in fact in a mixed system. The buzzword is thus meaningless.

Plus this is subjective but living in a social democracy I can really see both sides of the debate. Neither socialists or liberals are happy. So what is this creature? It's just me but I'd say that "neoliberalism" is just a label or vehicle for something more sinister. I'll leave it at that.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, JamesPoulson. The purpose of the Teahouse is to help new editors learn our policies and guidelines and procedures for building an encyclopedia, to share techniques for working with wikicode, to learn about reliable sources and how to summarize and cite them, and so on. Encyclopedia building 101, in friendly discussion. This is not a forum for debating political philosophies, or even to discuss in detail the content of various articles. Please respect our purposes here. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, apologies if I seem unfriendly, aggressive or disrespectful. That was not the intention.

"This is not a forum for debating political philosophies"

Ok, sorry about that. I should have asked straight away how to improve the article and I did say I wanted to avoid disruptive editing the last time.

I don't know what this mention of "discretionary sanctions" entails and a sense of how things work here is like being scared of walking out into a mine field.

I will try to explain about discretionary sanctions. Your comment about walking into a mine field is more or less on the mark. There are certain topic areas which have been found to be battlegrounds. Some of them are battlegrounds because they are historically really battlegrounds, such as Israel and Palestine, or India and Pakistan, or the Balkans. The Arbitration Committee (the quasi-judicial authority that deals with disruptive editing when other methods of dispute resolution fail) has set up procedures known as discretionary sanctions for sanctioning editors who edit disruptively. American politics since 1932, while not a real battleground, is such an area, where editing too often gets heated. If you try to edit collaboratively in these areas, you will not get in trouble yourself, but you should be aware that editing in these areas is sort of like walking across a mine field. That was what I was saying about discretionary sanctions. If a topic has discreitionary sanctions, it is because it has been determined that too many editors behave badly. Just be aware that editing in certain topic areas is likely to be heated. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"to learn about reliable sources and how to summarize and cite them"

So Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. This is something I'm not really clear about as I didn't go to uni.

"to share techniques for working with wikicode"

This I should be able to pick up with my programming background. That's at least something.

I am willing to put effort in. If something can help you in return with daily tasks somehow then just say :) .

--JamesPoulson (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried the relevant talk page for your topic? Ramthecowy (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I am trying to write an article for Andreas Borgeas a former City Councilman and a current Fresno County Supervisor. He is also a published law professor. My article keeps getting rejected for notability standards. If an editor could please read the article and give me specific suggestions for improvement, that would be wonderful. Currently, all the feedback has been very vague. I am happy to add proof of his legislative achievements, but do not want to waste my time if that kind of addition will not help with his notability. Helkins (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Helkins, if the draft is being declined for notability issues, there is nothing you can do. That means the person just hasn't been covered enough in third party sources to qualify for an article. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Helkins: @White Arabian Filly: Hello, I believe White Arabian Filly is mistaken. Your draft wasn't declined because the subject isn't necessarily "notable", but because you haven't shown their notability well enough. This is an important distinction because notability has a funny meaning on Wikipedia. What it generally means is that reliable sources have given non-trivial coverage of a subject. This is what reviewers are mainly looking for in a draft.

There are also other considerations though, and you seem to have managed to pick a very difficult case in determining notability. After about 30 minutes of research, the best answer I can give you whether or not Borgeas is notable or not is "maybe/probably". He has a massive amount of semi-trivial local coverage as a politician but not a lot of national level coverage. And as a academic, it seems unlikely that they will pass WP:NACADEMICS. Other relevant pages are WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.

Sorry, I'm not sure this is very helpful, but in conclusion, just try to add high quality sourcing about them and see how it goes. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is a very strong presumption that Andreas Borgeas is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. The city of Fresno has over half a million people and is the fifth most populous in the state of California. Fresno County has nearly a million people, more than the City and County of San Francisco. We have about 70 biographies of current and former members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Certainly, we can have a biography of a similarly prominent Fresno politician. And politicians of other comparable highly populated cities and counties worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Helkins. To partly reiterate what others have said, what we want to see are citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources that substantively address the topic. Keeping that in mind, as I see it there are three main issues with the draft meeting this standard: i) you do have a few such sources, but not enough; ii) they are buried among lots of unreliable and/or primary sources making it difficult to assess, and on the same front iii) you haven't been formatting them with the detail and attribution to make their assessment easy. Recently a user used an automated tool to make the bare links you were using read better, and they do now, but that tool is still limited. To give an example of complete, tailored attribution for a decent source you already cite (though one that does not contain substantive treatment), and how you might present it (using one of our citation templates, in this case {{cite news}}:

<ref>{{cite news |newspaper=The Fresno Bee |last=Alexander |first=Kurtis |date=December 11, 2012 |title=Farewells for retiring Fresno County Supervisor Susan Anderson |url=http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/community/clovis-news/article19515630.html}}</ref>

This will format in the reference section as:

Alexander, Kurtis (December 11, 2012). "Farewells for retiring Fresno County Supervisor Susan Anderson". The Fresno Bee. 

And not, as you had it, as:

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/community/clovis-news/article19515630.html

I think you can see why the former is much superior to the latter for verification purposes, and would allow a reviewer a much easier time at assessment. I would thus spend time, as best you are able, on replacing sources with more reliable, non-primary ones where possible, and adding more material from such better sources. As for sources to use, have you tried looking at Google News? There's seems to be quite a few results that might be useable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cullen 328 thank you for your contribution. Do you think if I mention the significance of Fresno in the article, that would help?

Helkins (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuhghettaboutit

Thank you so much for your help. One of the first things I will do is repair my cite links. Helkins (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328 thank you for your contribution. Do you think if I mention the significance of Fresno in the article, that would help?

Helkins (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unable to add Infobox Image

Hello experienced editors,

I am attempting to upload and add an image to musician Randy Barlow's entry page. I have uploaded the image to English Wikipedia, with a non-free:promotional (publicity photo) rationale. I may or may not have done this correctly, but the image file did upload.

The image file is named Randy Barlow country music singer 1979.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Randy-Barlow-country-music-singer-1979.jpg#Summary

I have researched how to add an image for {{infobox musical artist}} but my result is that file name text appears instead of the image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barlow

Below is the portion of the info box code pertaining to the image: {{Infobox musical artist <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians --> | name = Randy Barlow | image = Randy Barlow country music singer 1979.jpg | caption = Randy Barlow, 1979 | image_size = What am I doing wrong? Thank you in advance!

A2Ypsi (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi A2Ypsi I fixed the image from your uploads, but then you broke it again, so I re-fixed. To find out the names of files you have uploaded, click on 'Contributions' (top right) then click on uploads (top left) i.e. Special:ListFiles/A2Ypsi. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the image has been speedily deleted because of an invalid non-free use rationale.--ukexpat (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Creating a new page

I want to create a page about Vitale boarding primary school, I have created a draft kindly guide me on how to proceedMutisoCNdolo (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of useful links on your user talk page. In particular you need to read WP:Your first article and WP:NOTPROMOTION. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links

Hi there! Are the links to websites in the Writing career section of Zach Hyman allowed to be used. Or they should be put in the external links section instead. Ikhtiar H (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ikhtiar H. I would say they are spam in either place. —teb728 t c 09:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge Journals

Hello. Does anyone know what happened to Cambridge Journals? I can't rent any of their articles, and buying them is 5x as expensive (they have ridiculous prices). Any ideas? I e-mailed them yesterday, but haven't received an answer yet. Peter238 (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peter238: Cambridge Journals appears to be paywalled (I know of few people actually willing to shell out for rentals...). You might consider asking for the articles you need at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Many editors with university net access have subscriptions to that portal, and you will probably find that someone (e.g., myself) can provide you with a given article within the day.-- Elmidae 08:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Maybe they finally figured out that a 3-year-old child could bypass their "no saving" policy for rented articles. Peter238 (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elmidae: A friend of mine just told me that they're just fixing some kind of bug that affects Firefox, Chrome etc., but wasn't able to tell me when it will be fixed. So apparently it hasn't been paywalled. Peter238 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peter238: Hmm. Can't tell from here, since I do have free (University) access, but if there is a rental option at all, that does meet the definition of paywalled, I'd say - as opposed to free access. Unless you do want to pay for rental, I suggest popping over to Resource request, and you should get the lot for free :) (or let me know directly and I can probably do it right now).-- Elmidae 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Ok. Thanks for the offer, but my question was just a general one. I don't think I need anything from CJ yet. Peter238 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone fix the problem below?

When I am looking for information about the Atomic Bomb blast at Bikini Atoll, Wikipedia has no information on it. But if I search for Operation Crossroads all the information is right there. Wikipedia needs a reference or re-direct from Atomic Bomb or Bikini Atoll to Operation Crossroads.138.207.201.158 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the question. The page Bikini atomic tests redirects to Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll, which includes information about the nuclear testing at the Atoll. It appears the testing there was significant enough to have its own article. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Bikini Atoll describes the atoll in general, and contains a link to Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll. Rojomoke (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no link from the History section of Nuclear weapon to Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll, so I have added this.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There are almost no published sources on some parts of a person's life. What if I email a person and they give me info, can i use it in article?

I had a couple photos of a hollywood boulevard street theater guy, General Hershy Bar from the 1979-83 period. In researching about him, I found some info on wikipedia. Noted there was no pic and so donated my pics to the commons so that he'd have a pic on line. Then I started adding things I found out about him from doing research to his article. I have more to add still.

I was stymied on some areas of his life, so I found a guy that writes about him here and there around the net and contacted him. It turns out he as a good friend and neighbor of this guy General Hershy Bar. He has now provided me with lots of information. Much has been confirmed by my other sources on line. So I trust him.

Here is my question. How can I capture and use this info in the wikipedia article? I have been trying to be diligent about citing sources. I now know that he was married several times, I have some names and dates. Can I use that info? That is one of many examples.

Second question is that this person is now sending me lots of pics of the General that he scanned from the General's scrapbooks which the General gave him years ago. How can I use these images? The man has said I can use them and that he'd be happy to send the commons an email.

Thanks for helping. Diatom.phage (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diatom.phage, we require secondary published sources about an individual, so no, emails from this writer friend of the individual wouldn't be acceptable. If you'd like to add to the article, a better place to find info is on Google news.

About the pictures, if he owns copyright of them then he can release them to Commons. If he doesn't own the copyright, they'd probably get deleted. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If the General owns the copyright, then he can license them if he chooses, by following the procedure in donating copyright materials, and then you can upload them. But it must be the copyright holder that does this. --ColinFine (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer. So, if I have a scrapbook of my life with snapshots of me, give it to someone, and then die(the general is dead)...the contents of the scrapbook with my snapshots are kinda lost in some black hole of rights management/determination issues. Because they are so lost, they can't be posted on the web and so likely disappear from the collective memory. That seems like a dang shame as some people's histories might be lost that shouldn't be.

I'll use the info from his friends to guide me to 'legit' published sources then. Thanks once again.Diatom.phage (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Diatom.phage. Yes, you are somewhat correct about a scrapbook. If it is about a person's life, then the photos it contains are probably taken by a variety of unknown photographers. We cannot use those photos without infringing on the valid copyrights of those unknown people or their heirs. Other websites or publishers may not have Wikipedia's high standards, and future legislation may be more lenient with "orphaned works", so maybe they will not be lost. Museums and libraries are other options for preservation. But if you legally inherit a portfolio of original photos or negatives taken by a known person such as an ancestor, then you are the copyright holder, and can freely license them at Wikimedia Commons, if you so choose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rough draft of list article: any problems?

Hello, I have a ROUGH, INCOMPLETE draft of an article I'm writing "List of datasets for machine learning research" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Datakeeper/sandbox/List_of_datasets_for_machine_learning_research

The goal of the article is to start collecting the most noteworthy machine learning datasets used in research. Most datasets do not have their own page, and what is far more useful for readers is external links to the datasets themselves. I am familiar with the Wikipedia "NOT A DIRECTORY" and "NOT A RESPOSITORY" policies, and so I have tried to make this page so that is not either of these things. The completed page will contain the most noteworthy datasets used for research in each of the prospective fields. Given the surge in popularity of machine learning and data science, I believe a collection like this is noteworthy and would be highly useful to the community.

I was hoping to appeal to the expert editors on here. Given your extensive experience and knowledge about Wikipedia and its policies, do you see any glaring errors or problems with a having a page like this? Thank you Datakeeper (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Datakeeper, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't describe myself as an expert editor and don't have huge amounts of experience with lists, but I can give my perspective from what experience I do have. One of the problems with some lists of important or notable things is a lack of clear inclusion criteria, and hence the lists can be considered original research (because what gets included are the things that the editor who created the list think is important, rather than what reliable sources think is important). Take a look at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria on this. Ideally, you could rely on a source that clearly states which datasets are most noteworthy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Cordless Larry. I appreciate the time you took to review my case. How does "data sets must have appeared in peer reviewed academic literature" sound to you? Thanks again to anyone who can comment. Datakeeper (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

article rejection

My page continues to get rejected even when I have made the noted corrections. I am not sure how else to change the content becuase I am stating FACTS and then sighting them.

I would love some help so I can sucessfully have my post live on wikipedia.

Nisdaner (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft Draft:Jarrod Moses is just several faulty copies of the article in your user space. Please copy the full article just once with references. You have already been told which sentence to remove, but you also seem to have copied what Jarrod has written about himself when you should have been finding articles written about him in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Linkdin and alumni profiles are not the best references. Try to use your own words rather than copy sentences, stick to facts, and avoid saying how great he claims to be. You need to write an encyclopaedia article, not promotional material. Have you read WP:Biographies of living persons? Dbfirs 22:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It now appears that the draft was just deleted as G11, that is, unambiguous promotion. If you want to improve the article and resubmit it, you may ask to have it put in your user space by going to requests for undeletion, but learn from your mistakes, and don't submit drafts containing multiple copies of the same text, and remove promotional language. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

See User:Nisdaner/sandbox/Jarrod Moses.--ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia: asking a question, receiving an answer

I have worked up a proposed change to Wikipedia, wherein a person would be able to easily ask a question about a subject (article) and receive answers from people who volunteer to assist. I have posted it on my talk page as I am not sure where to post it. Zedshort (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Zedshort. Great to have new ideas and innovation here! In this case the Wikipedia:Reference_desks may well already fulfil much of your proposal! :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, but I think what you pointed me toward completely fails. The whole reference desk thing strikes me a very clunkey; far better to have the question-answer dialogue conducted in as close association with the article from whence the questions arose. The vast majority of readers don't even know that the reference desk exists, much less how to find it. So, the question remains, "Where should such a proposal be posted?" Zedshort (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Try WP:VPR maybe?--ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Zedshort (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So, this one may be slightly humorous

Hello Teahouse. Would it be possible for an editor here to help me tidy up my user page? My knowledge of markup is pretty much negligible, but the page does look great on the mobile version! I'd really appreciate the help. Kindest regards, Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added a few clear templates with this edit. This makes sure that each new section appears under the last, instead of colliding and overlapping. Hope this helps, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Chesnaught555 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability impasse - What happens next?

Apologies if I have sent this twice by mistake!

I have been working on an article (Draft:Gill Fielding) for some time and some editors are challenging the subject on notability grounds. Where do we go from here as I believe there is a strong case for notability and I think other reviewers would see my point?

Here is my position on the subject's notability based on the basic criteria: This says that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." Fielding has had non-trivial articles written about her in two (and arguably three) national UK non-tabloid newspapers. The Sunday Times and Telegraph are considered upper market newspapers - hence reliable - while the Daily Express (which has run two articles on Fielding) is described as a middle market newspaper (defined as 'the halfway point of a three-level continuum of journalistic seriousness; uppermarket newspapers generally cover hard news and down-market newspapers favor sensationalist stories.'). She has also featured as the central subject in a Channel 4 TV programme. Channel 4 is a publicly owned UK-wide TV channel. She also has a chapter written about her in an independent published book by Stephanie J. Hale.

In my mind, this only leaves the definition of 'significant' up for debate. I consider the above coverage to be significant yet some of those who have commented seem to disagree with me. How can we get this resolved? Thank you for your attention Neilho (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Sunday Times article says that she avoided her taxes (this is not mentioned in the draft) and appeared on a TV show. The Telegraph article confirms that she's worth £15,000,000. The Express article presents an interview with here, and is therefore not independent. I believe that all this does not constitute evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom for getting back to me. OK, I can mention that she flipped her properties to save on Capital Gains Tax - that would clearly improve the balance of the article. But as the Times is a secondary source which is reliable and independent of the subject, I hope you would agree that this article would still be evidence of the subject's notability. As for the Express articles (there are two), one is an interview while the other is a mixture of interview and editorial which contains researched facts to support the article. Are interviews not allowed? Citation No.6 on the Notability of people page defines independence as 'whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.' This adequately sums up the Express's position. The newspaper itself qualifies as an independent source as it has editorial independence and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain). I still stand by my original assertion that the subject is notable as a property developer and TV personality. How about the Hale book? Independent books from a respected publishing house are mentioned as a valid source for notability and this one has a full chapter on the subject. What is the next step to move this process forwards do you think?

109.150.25.155 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The "next step" should be one of three things: (1) you add another, better, reference or two, and resubmit; (2) you somehow persuade a reviewer that the references already in the draft are in fact adequate; (3) you accept that adequate evidence of notability cannot be found, and abandon the draft (which will then be deleted in six months, I think). Maproom (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom. As you can probably guess I will try (2) for now (I do have more references, for example a newspaper article from last week, but again it's mainly an interview and it's a regional newspaper). If this is the accepted way of doing things then could I please ask for a reviewer who does accept that I have provided sufficient evidence for notability to respond next. I would work with him or her to iron out any remaining issues with neutrality. Even if the subject only merits a stub at this stage I still do believe notability has been established due to the mainstream sources mentioned above (national newspapers, national TV coverage and chapter in a published book from a reputable publisher) combined with the multiple non-trivial articles in local newspapers and magazines I have also put in.

Neilho (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your boldface request seems like a defendant asking to be tried by a judge who already believes he is innocent. But I can't blame you for asking. Maproom (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Article Rejected Twice

Hello Teahouse! I have submitted this article twice with no luck of securing a Wikipedia page. I would greatly appreciate anyone who has the time to read and add suggestions on how to make it better. The comments given thus far are vary vague. I am looking for more detail.

The page is for a real estate developer, David Johnson. I was also wondering if submitting a page for his development company first would give him more credibility and thus his own page. I would appreciate feedback on this as well.

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_V._Johnson

Thank you for your help! Kperezz (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically, not every person can have an article on Wikipedia. You may want to see WP:42 for a simple guideline, or WP:GNG for the actual policy of inclusion. sst✈ 14:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove photos

How do I remove incorect uploaded photos (watermarked) Help files useless and user unfriendly.JP Labuschagne (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @JP Labuschagne: Welcome to the Teahouse! Since you've uploaded photos to the Wikimedia Commons, I assume you are talking about one of your images that you uploaded there. If you'd like to upload a new version of the file without your watermark, you can simply overwrite the file by going to the 'File history' section of the file and clicking the "Upload a new version of this file" link. Alternatively, you can request the speedy deletion of files you upload as long as you do so within 7 days - see the Commons' criteria for speedy deletion for more details. To request speedy deletion, you would use the following template: {{speedydelete|<INSERT REASON FOR DELETION HERE>}}. I would not request the deletion of the file unless you replace it with a version without the watermark. Even if you do not have the file without a watermark, another editor may edit it out at some point. A file with a watermark is better than no file at all. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How does one start a sock-puppet investigation?

I have noticed some things about a few users and IPs and would like to know how one submits suspected sock-puppets for investigation? Also is there such a thing as a meatpuppet investigation? :) YuHuw (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @YuHuw: Welcome to the Teahouse! Sockpuppet investigations can be opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Instructions are available there for how to do it. Make sure evidence is available, and the evidence is made clear and clearly linked. If it's your first time dealing with sockpuppetry, I recommend giving Wikipedia:Sock puppetry a read to have a better understanding of sockpuppetry and how Wikipedia deals with sockpuppets. As for meatpuppets, there isn't a designated page for meatpuppet investigations, but we do have ways to deal with meatpuppetry. Check out WP:MTPPT for more information. If meatpuppetry is suspected in a discussion, meatpuppet comments are often disregarded when establishing consensus. If action should be taken, meatpuppetry can also be discussed in various forums, such as the administrator's noticeboard of incidents. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Article rejected twice

Hello! I've edited my page two times now, and though it very much feels and sounds like the other pages on Wikipedia, it keeps getting rejected, saying it lacks notability and verifiable sources. I have included many third-party sources. Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eagle_Hill_Consulting_LLC Can someone please help give me some guidance? I have it sourced and referenced and it's accurate. Why is it still not being accepted? Thank you so much in advance! Bsmith1052 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bsmith1052. Please accept my apologies that no one has replied to your question yet. Have you had a read of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Without having looked at the sources you cite in the draft in detail, I suspect that the problem is that not enough of them discuss Eagle Hill Consulting in sufficient depth to constitute significant coverage (which requires more than just a passing mention). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean when another user "reviews" your user page?

I got a notice that reads: "The page User:Nothingimportanthappenedtoday was reviewed by White Arabian Filly". What does this mean and why does it happen?—nothingimportanthappenedtoday t c 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The patrol feature on Wikipedia is used when a page is created: unpatrolled pages are put on a list for people to review. A human editor (other than the creator) needs to come along and click a button at the bottom of the page ("[Mark this page as patrolled]") that marks it as "patrolled", just to check that it's not vandalism or spam or inappropriate material (for "articles"—which doesn't include your userpage—there are more strict criteria pages have to pass). It's nothing to worry about. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --—nothingimportanthappenedtoday t c 19:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Guidance regarding conflict of interest

I work for Eastman Kodak Company and am new to Wikipedia. I tried recently to add constructive, factual information to pages about movies and was blocked. I apologize for over-stepping but I was unaware of the protocols for conflict of interest, which I now have researched further on your site and understand. I’d like to work with the community of Wikipedia editors to find an appropriate way to add factual information to articles using credible, well-sourced third-party citations. I believe that the information provided will be valuable to Wikipedia users. Thank you for reading. I look forward to your reply.165.170.128.65 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow the usual procedures on requesting unblock, rather than editing from an IP address when blocked, which is a form of sock-puppetry. Is an administrator watching this page? If so, can they block this sockpuppet? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert - to put it into context, the only edit from this IP address in the past three months has been to ask this question. 165.170.128.65 - the process for appealing your block can be found at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking. Good luck, and I hope you enjoy your time here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Good afternoon. I desperately need some help as my editor has abandoned me with the words 'you're on your own'. He became frustrated because I deleted his ref changes when I thought I was doing the right thing. Anyway - long story - I need someone to tell me that I'm doing OK. The first batch (down to Heisenberg were the changes I had made yesterday before he left me that message. The Heisenberg is as he had it (No 7 or 8). From there on today I've been trying to follow instructions from a different citation page which appear to work but they look very unruly with today's date showing. Is that date necessary or is there a way of hiding it? But first and foremost I would appreciate someone telling me that I'm doing them OK as there are still many to do.

Help would be much appreciated. Thank you. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Balquhidder2013, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to hear about the troubles with the other editor; without wanting to sound trite, working together in a team of volunteers can be a surprisingly difficult task for all involved. I ran your page through the "reFill" tool (with a little tweaking) and it has filled in just about all of them. Only two bare URLs remain, and those will have to be filled in manually. Of course, if those changes were not what you wanted then you can revert them from the "View History" tab. If you have any further questions, please feel free to come back and ask.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer a part of your question. Yes, it is good to include the "accessdate" information; it can give readers in years to come an indication of how current (or otherwise) volatile information is. I didn't because I don't know when you accessed the information to build the article, but if you want to add it then it should be simple to add "|accessdate=8 January 2016" (or whenever) into each citation, just like in the one for the Heisenberg Ensemble. As a general rule, I try to include as much information as I can in the reference, because you never know who might use it later on.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013, you seem to have a misconception about Wikipedia. Someone apparently volunteered to help you, but unlike in the "real world", there is no "editor" as such. The term as used here applies to all the volunteers, including you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for an article

An editor left the following question on my User Talk page:

Hi i have requested for an article Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies#F. Its not been picked by any editor yet. What can i do next? MelitaFernandes (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any personal experience with the article request process, so I am copying it here in the hope that somebody here can be more help to MelitaFernandes.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The WP:Requested Articles process is very backlogged. Is there a WikiProject where you could ask for help? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi I dont find any related wikiproject. Can someone help me out here? I have already worked on the draft. However, since i play a role as a content writer with the same oragnization, it is creating a conflict to write for my own company. Can someone please help me edit it. The article has been supported to by number of Third party resources

Thanks MelitaFernandes (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the draft of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Four_Fountains_De-Stress_Spa

MelitaFernandes (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz Thanks

MelitaFernandes (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No experience in wiki-coding a formula

I have a draft in my sandbox which includes the use of a formula. I've never formatted anything mathematical before and need some assistance. Thank you ahead of time for all your help. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Barbara (WVS). I can't help with the formula; hopefully somebody else can do that. But I am concerned that your article duplicates part of an article that already exists, Polyamory. Did you consider merging any new material into that article, rather than creating a new article with so much overlap?--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and the time it took you to review my sandbox, Gronk Oz. I've read the article on polyamory and it is quite different than the non-subjective, quantitative measures of multiple sex partners. There is not a way to measure polyamory and it is a term not used by clinicians, statisticians and most importantly HIV epidemiologists. Multiple sex partners is a term (phrase, really) that represents a measure and a reproducible case study method of measuring disease incidence. Polyamory is not a measure of sexual activity. Defining a person's number of multiple sexual partners is a number that is critically linked to defining the risk of sexual behavior-subjective and without some moral judgement attached. Polyamory can not provide such information since it largely defined by the persons who do and often does not even involve sexual activity. But your comments are quite helpful. The article is still in the sandbox with lots more content to add and reference. Best Regards,

ceBarbara (WVS) (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I went and LaTeXed the formula. I hope that helps. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Charles Perrault - error in calculating his age at retirement

If Perrault died in 1703 and was 75, he was born in 1628. The "Life and Work" section states that he was forced to retire in 1682 at 56. He would have been 54, not 56 unless the retirement date was wrong. 199.128.189.216 (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Address this discrepancy at this talk page, Talk: Charles Perrault. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.

Hi everyone, I've worked for a good while trying to get this article up and running. Practically every sentence in it is a fact that's supported by an external reference. Having had the original dismissed while I was still trying to find my feet, it's been a really disheartening experience. Can someone please help me fix this as I'd love to know where I've gone wrong and what's the best way to go about it as I would love to say involved with Wikipedia.

I checked it over with some other wiki editors in the live chat before submitting and they all came back with some helpful tips and even said it was fine to submit. If anyone can help me I'd be extremely grateful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jennings_Motor_Group_(2) Scr81 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Scr81 Welcome to the Teahouse. You would find many of us quite helpful. I see no issue with references or the article in general, although the content maybe briefed and written more formally.JugniSQ (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have written it as factually as I thought I could. Can you perhaps give me an example of where it might appear to be overly favourable? As I've been looking at it so long I think I may have gone a bit blind to it! Scr81 (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I edit my own username to start with a lowercase letter rather than a capitalized letter?

My username is nothingimportanthappenedtoday. Can I somehow make it so the first letter ("n") is in lower case?Nothingimportanthappenedtoday (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you can nothingimportanthappenedtoday: I got my lowercase signature by going to Special:Preferences and entering —[[User:teb728|]] [[User talk:teb728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/teb728|c]] in the Signature textbox and checking “Treat the above as wiki markup.” —teb728 t c 09:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And I got the titles of my user page and user talk page to display lowercase by adding {{lowercase}} to the wikicode of each. —teb728 t c 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What that doesn't change is that the url bar and the edit history still say Teb728 with an uppercase T. —teb728 t c 10:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you can change the way your username displays, as teb728 outlines, but that you can't officially change the username itself to start with a lower-case letter. See Wikipedia:Changing username, which states "Although your username cannot begin with a lowercase letter, try placing {{lowercase}} on your userpage in order to display it that way". Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your answers, let's see if I can navigate through the suggestions here.Nothingimportanthappenedtoday (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What to edit?

I like the idea of Wikipedia, in that anyone can edit, but how do people find things to edit? Pages already seem to exist on my favorite topics (and ones I know most about), I haven't been able to find anything to create... Whispered (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Whispered. Yes, we already have five million articles but a very significant percentage of those can be expanded, better referenced and better written. That being said, there are many opportunities to write new articles. State and provincial legislators through history deserve biographies, and you could spend years writing them. Olympic athletes through history. Billboard hit songs of the 1930s and 1940s. There are broad areas that need enormous work. We also have a group of lengthy lists at Wikipedia:Requested articles that are full of ideas. I even have a short list on my user page. Please read Your first article for detailed guidance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Whispered, for your enthusiasm. But please don't assume that "edit" means "create". Only a small fraction of the edits made to Wikipedia are part of the creation process. Most are corrections, expansions, and improvements to existing articles. Article creation may be the most obvious form of editing, but it's also one of the most difficult. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What Maproom said, Whispered. I sometimes get frustrated because new people come and instantly try to create new articles. I always advise people to get some practice improving existing articles first, partly because creating an article that stays is difficult, and partly because we have so many articles which are in need of improvement. I have been an editor for more than ten years, and made 11 thousand edits: looking at my contribution record, I see that I have created 11 articles in that time, and some of them were actually just moving existing articles to a new name. If more people spent time improving existing articles, we would have a higher quality encyclopaedia than if they created new ones. --ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Whispered. I agree with the comments above. Creating articles is good, but much editing can be done on existing articles, also. I can't comment on science articles, which your user page indicates is your main area of interest. My main interest is in old-time radio, and I have found many articles that need additional material, additional citations or both. My method is to bookmark such an article in my browser when I see it. When I have time, I search for valid material on that topic and add the information and/or citations where appropriate. Each person has his or her own approach, but that one works for me. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Late understanding

Hi there! I am new here! Previously, I started an article named "Japan Prize Awards", but was deleted instantly. It was because an article about the same topic already existed. I recently dug into the policies of this community. I realized that Wikipedia is the same both outside and inside (I thought logged in users used this as a social source). But it all ended up being a learning source. In addition to my duplicate article, I also did some other unaware edits. But I am pleased that I was given a leeway for turnaround in the interim instead of being blocked. I sincerely apologize for my wrong understanding. I truly did not expect this logical display from me and therefore, I am shocked. I had taken my very first visit in this honorable place as an apology instead of questioning. Cheers! Gabi360 (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to learn, Gabi360. Wikipedia is a huge beast, with a lot of different activities - there's probably nobody who knows about all of it (not even Jimmy Wales!) I spend a lot of time here on the Teahouse and Help Desk, and the Reference Desk; recently I went to a meetup and met several people who are active in governance and training for editors here in the UK, and assumed that they would all be familiar with the Help Desks - but no, they had hardly been here. That was a surprise to me.

So, well done for plunging in, and being willing to be corrected and to learn more. I hope you have a long and fruitful involvement with Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And you don't need to apologize for making mistakes, Gabi360, as long as you learn from them. We are here to help and don’t get mad unless someone is intentionally disruptive or willfully refuses to learn. —teb728 t c 10:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to get connected with a foreign language editor?

Hi there! I'm discovering that a lot of the work done in the subject I'm editing was done by Germans. Unfortunately, all I know of German is what Google Translate can do for me. I do know enough about other languages to know that machine translation is fraught with problems. There are a number of articles that exist on the German Wikipedia that do not exist in the English. How could I go about finding someone from the German site who's fluent in English and might be able to assist me in translating pages missing from the English site? Hi-storian (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hi-storian. You may be able to find the information you need at Wikipedia:Translation, Wikipedia:Translators available or Wikipedia:Translation/German/Translation advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much! That's perfect. Hi-storian (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Unable to edit due to conflict of interest

I have a lot of information that needs to be submitted. However, unable to edit due to conflict of interest.

How can I submit updated information for a celebrity that I represent? Joey Dee — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyDee123 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. It is hard to give advice without knowing which celebrity. If there is already an article about them, post the information and sources on the talk page to be assessed by other editors. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is already an article, then, as mentioned, you can provide the information, preferably well-sourced, on the talk page. Requested Articles is an option, but is very very very backlogged. If you have well-sourced information and are certain of the notability of the celebrity, you could write an article draft at Articles for Creation, but declare your connection by putting a {{coi}} template on the article, and probably you should state your connection on the talk page of the draft, and that you will not be further editing the draft. That is, let other editors edit the draft relentlessly until it is neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I commend you for being aware of the conflict of interest policy and for asking how to address it. I wouldn't normally even advise creating a draft, but you seem to be a reasonable good-faith editor, as too many editors with conflict of interest are not. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Joey Dee and the Starliters where JoeyDee123 had been adding promotional content. Please use the article's talk page instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you Joey Dee? If so, you don't represent the celebrity because you are the celebrity. If not, then signing yourself as Joey Dee is misleading. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Robert McClenon and Cullen328. Somewhere I read that JoeyDee123 is Joey Dee's manager. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Need Help Uploading Images

I am new to wiki. I am not sure how to upload images or create the footnotes. Is there someone that can assist me with these matters? Thanks 679699sof (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The question must be about footnotes about images, because the footnotes on Adriana Sanford are satisfactory. Can someone provide the guidelines on uploading images? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi 679699sof. Please refer to Wikipedia:Image use policy and Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 for some general information on uploading images to Wikipedia and using them in articles. Also, please try and understand that using images can be tricky due to copyright issues. Even though you may find that you can download images from other websites or social media pages for "free" (in other words, without any monetary cost to you), it is very likely that these images are still protected by copyright and therefore would be unsuitable for upload to Wikipedia, except as possibly non-free content, without receiving explicit permission from the copyright holder. Since you've said you are new to Wikipedia, I suggest that you ask specific questions about specific images at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (WP:MCQ) before uploading anything to just to play it safe. It's easy to mistake copyrighted images for freely licensed images if you're not too familiar with what to look for and there are experienced editors at WP:MCQ who are more than happy to help you figure out which is which. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would a be a great idea for you to try the Wikipedia Adventure. Happy wiki-ing! Ramthecowy (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup Advice

Hello, I am a new editor and I would like some advice on the Wiki Cup, I've edited a few articles and created a list but I've never really wrote an article from scratch, and some of the people competing have multiple Featured Articles, it's rather intimidating! Some friendly advice would be welcomed. Zamorakphat (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zamorakphat: First off, welcome to Wikipedia! Wikicup is just a fun way for Wikipedians to compete against each other and hopefully improve Wikipedia along the way! The way it works is that editors create and improve articles and images then they get points by getting that content through some of the peer review processes on Wikipedia.

You don't need to create the articles from scratch though, you just need to significantly contribute to them and get them through whatever process you choose. I recommend Did you know? as a good starting point. All you need to do is create a new article (or fulfill one of the other requirements) nominate it, and voila it can appear on the main page! The other category I would recommend starting out on are Good Articles. But most importantly, just do what you want to do. If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page or here at the Teahouse. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Zamorakphat (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Henri Hauser

I reviewed Draft:Henri Hauser. I declined it because there is already an article Henri Hauser in mainspace, although the draft is much better. I tried to advise the author, User:Atalante88 to get the crappy stub deleted so that the draft can be moved into mainspace. However, he apparently didn’t understand. His post to my talk page, acknowledging his limited English, seems to imply that he thinks I declined it on notability grounds.

“Dear Robert, I confess I am lost with your comments. First of all, I am a French-speaker and not an English Native speaker. This is certainly where I need some help and certainly in others fields I admit this with no problem. But, the situation is as follow : Henri Hauser was French as well and was a main Economist with a huge influence in France but widely above in UK, England, US, Germany etc.. just before WWI and between WW1 and WW2. I thought that it would bring some values to some English Wiki readers to have some pieces of knowledge about Henri Hauser even if he was a French Economist. He even brought a huge influence to famous English Economists as well such as Willam Beveridge, Edwin F. Gay wich was the Dean of HBS or R.H. Tawney from LSE. He had a long run friendship with those people. Then two researchers such as SA Marin and GH Soutou collects many testimonies from many personalities well known such as Natalie Zemon Davis who can speak and write in French , Paul Gerbod, Paul Claval, Laurent Vissière, Jean-Paul Poussou, Philip Benedict (it is in English in the book), Henri Heller, Herman Van der Wee, Jean-François Bergier, Jean-Marie Mayeur, Christian Morrisson, Eric Bussière, Isabelle Lescent-Giles, Claude Fohlen, John L. Harvey, François Chaubert, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, Myriam Yardeni. A preface from Professor René Rémond from Académie française and put it in a book called Henri Hauser edited from Sorbon. In my article, I linked nearly all those names to external links to referencial French websites such Sorbon or CNRS in order to get to know those Professors or reseachers ... The Sources as you require for, are mainly written in French but by researchers. The Sources and the link are the BNF (National French Library), (Sorbon edition), Gallica (for old newspapers or documents for France), Leonore database for Legion d'honneur etc...those institutions are Official and known everywhere in the World. So, what can I do if documents are mainly in French or in German and no many in English ? I tried the best I can to link to English link. So, I don't know what to do more as this presentation took much time and if you are not interested by knowing better French Economists just let me know. I can't find all sources written in English if it does not exist. I stay at your disposal in case you would be still interested to provide an overview on Henri Hauser's work as a unique Economist to your English readers. Best regards, Frederique Bailly”

In looking the draft over, it still needs a lot of work, because its English is not good, but I would still like to get into article space because it is better than the stub. What procedure should be used for the purpose? That is, should I tag the stub for speedy deletion as WP:G6, or should I propose the stub for deletion citing that the draft is better? Also, since the author doesn’t understand my comments but is requesting advice in good faith, can someone please explain to him or her or their talk page, in French, what I was saying? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert, there's no need to delete the current stub Henri Hauser. All the editor has to do is paste their version into the article as an expansion. As that editor is the only author, it won't require a history merge. Alternatively, you can do that for him and add Template:Copied to Talk:Henri Hauser. Then redirect Draft: Henri Hauser to Henri Hauser and add Template:R from merge to the redirect page. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It has gotten more complicated. It seems that the author of the draft did try to copy it into the existing stub, and it was reverted as unsourced. What he did copy was unsourced, but was still an improvement, so it seems that an editor does want to maintain the integrity of the stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the draft, Robert, I can see that there are big problems with the referencing. There's a massive biography on him published by the Sorbonne, large parts of which are available on Google Books here. Perhaps he could be encouraged to use that to source the material that he wants to add. The stub has no inline citations either, and the only two sources listed are both broken links, a rather poor show. Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the stub for AFD. Can someone explain to Atalante88 in French on their talk page what we have been saying, since they are working in good faith but don't seem to know enough English? Also, can someone suggest to them in French that they might do better to edit the French Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've just posted a long, friendly and detailed analysis of the situation in French on their talk page. Give that they have 74 edits to fr, I would say they know where it is. I would tend to trust them to become more active on the French side if their English does not improve. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been said about the French references. Someone should have told User:Atalante88 the French sources are all right to use on English Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I did, in French. I can post a full translation of my message if you want to know exactly what I said. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear all, I perfectly got what you all explained about the stub and my draft on Henry Hauser and so, despite my assumed lack of English (!). Actually, I previously expanded this stub but someone rejected it and replaced it by this current stub. So, I rewrote the article in my sandbox. Anyway, I tried to improve Henri Hauser draft by addition of links, references and corrections always despite my supposed "limited English". Thank you Happy Quirrel for your kind message in French :-). I know that the best I have to do is to respect Wiki En Rules. Please would you mind to give your feedback on it ? I could find others reference and I thought to send an email to Severine-Antigone Marin author of the book "Henri Hauser" in order to check it and perhaps give us photos. with regards. Ãtalante88Atalante88 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry Regarding Possible Conflicting Editing Commentary

Greetings! I've been working on an article. I have used an accepted article for Chef Jose Garces as a guide for my contribution for Chef Naomi Pomeroy. I have received a couple of rejections for my Pomeroy draft. The first rejection noted that I had established Pomeroy's notability but had used a promotional tone (link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naomi_Pomeroy). I really valued hearing this feedback and removed promotional language (I have also removed the name of Pomeroy's restaurants to avoid promotional tone there). I resubmitted the article with a more neutral tone; I have been rejected again due to my inability to establish Pomeroy's notability with sources. My references are more in number and similar in style/genre/medium to those used for the Jose Garces article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Garces

I feel as if I'm receiving conflicting information from the editing process. Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know what questions you may have. I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this dynamic community. I wish you the best for a wonderful 2016.MagdalenaKillion (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as the commentary says, the subject appears to be notable, but the tone of the draft is promotional and non-neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, yes. However, the second editor indicated that the subject's notability had not been established and the first editor indicated that notability had been established. On the second submission, I made the tone more neutral, and the second editor didn't indicate that tone was an issue. The second editor specifically noted the lack of notability. I appreciate your feedback, and I am grateful for this opportunity to communicate with experienced editors.MagdalenaKillion (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, the problem seems to be that notability criteria have some subjective wiggle room and your subject is right on the more notable end of the grey zone. You have done an incredibly good job on the tone so I believe that issue is dealt with. On the notability front, SwisterTwister is judging using the criteria for creative professionals while Onel5969 used the general criteria. I would tend to agree with Onel5969 but it is borderline. If we go with the general criteria we are just looking at reliable, in depth, third party coverage. You have several sources, but some like the one from her college are not fully independent (they gain advantage from making her look good). There are also some broken links. Again, this is a very borderline case. I think one more quality source would definitely tip the balance for me. I might even lean to accept as is. Hope that at least makes sense. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, HappySquirrel. I really appreciate the clarifications and guidance. Thank you especially for the note about the broken link. I can definitely find some additional, suitable source. I truly appreciate your time and consideration.MagdalenaKillion (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of Obscene Lanuage by Admins

Are Wikipedia Administrators permitted to use obscene, profane, and abusive language when dealing with other editors? I was very surprised to come across this, since this kind of thing would never be permitted in my workplace environment. SimpsonDG (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi SimpsonDG simple answer no its not. Wikipedia:Civility applies to all. However sometimes what one person calls "obscene, profane, and abusive" may not be seen as such by others, and without context (diffs), we can not say if the language used was out of order. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As KylieTastic said, we can't tell what you're talking about without diffs, SimpsonDG. If you think the admin was truly acting out of line, you can report it to WP:ANI. Wikipedia has a strict no personal attacks policy and such behavior is definitely not condoned. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically, this Admin told an editor (on the Admin's Talk Page) to "F**k off" and in his edit comments, "Go f**k yourself". [2] I can tell you that kind of language would not be tolerated in my workplace at all. SimpsonDG (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly, in referring someone to ANI, you maybe should refer them also to WP:BOOMERANG, because frequently there will be bad blood between the questioner and other person which will come out at ANI. —teb728 t c 01:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@SimpsonDG: You might want to check out this discussion to see how others have weighed in on this topic before. Some editors argue that Wikipedia should not be like a workplace, or that such terms are not OK to direct at folks personally, but that it shouldn't be a profanity-free zone. I'm an admin, so if you'd like me to talk to the other admin in question, feel free to get in touch with me. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I did report this to WP:ANI, and the response was to have a couple of other admins pig-pile on me for reporting the abuse -- as if I was the problem. One administrator advised me to just drop it, since this particular Admin has had this issue for years, and nobody will do anything about it. I get the sense that admins are circling the wagons to defend their own, and nobody is going to do anything. I dropped my complaint. There's clearly just too much corruption going on there to expect that anything will be done. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On the one hand, I do think that Wikipedia should be a profanity-free zone, and I strongly disagree with those editors who think that it need not be. They may feel repressed because they are not allowed to use profanity at their own workplaces. On the other hand, it appears that this ANI report was more than a year ago. Waiting a very long time and then trying to re-open a matter is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the AN/I report is current, Robert McClenon. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The previous diff was to a 2014 discussion. User:Cordless Larry is right that there is a current discussion. However, now that the original poster has currently filed at WP:ANI, bringing this also to the Teahouse is forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That seems to be a similar discussion about a different user. Anyway, Robert is right that this only needs to be discussed in one place! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk about being taken for a ride. This discussion is taking place in at least three simultaneous areas now, all because no-one got their pound of flesh at AN/I; which, it has been correctly stated, is the proper place for such reports. Some would define trolling as asking questions to which one already knows the answer... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is the Teahouse where we welcome and encourage newer editors. SimpsonDG may not be aware of forum shopping and that having a discussion in three different areas is against the 'guidelines'. Implying that this new editor didn't get their 'pound of flesh' is insulting, because this newer editor 'may not already know the answer'. This newer editor may not be aware of how to search the archives for previous discussions. if you go to the user page of SimpsonDG you will read his/her announcement that they are no longer editing. This is unfortunate because this person described themselves as a physicist. He/she created three articles and hundreds of other edits. I usually don't share my opinion about anything on WP (mostly because this is not the place for such things) but this a very bad case of biting, insulting and creating a semi-hostile editing environment for this now past-editor.

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bfpage:, The editor has been around since 2007, so about as long as you. Do you consider yourself a "new editor"? Also, they have had that retirement message on their user page since 2011, so it has nothing to do with this thread at all. It would suit you to do at least a minimal amount of research before you accuse other editors of "newbie biting".--Atlan (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting the Teahouse, Atlan and I hope we can help answer your concerns. The date the now non-contributing editor began is not relevant but the increased involvement and article creation, their scientific expertise was relevant. At the point in time, whenever that was, that I had the same number of edits as the now-non-contributing editor, I had no clue to what a 'guideline', 'discussion area', ANI or any of the other terms we expect someone with under a thousand edits to fully comprehend. And yes, ironically, I DO (oops...shouting!) consider myself a new editor. If you take a look at my editing history, I really did not become fully involved until just a few years ago. Wow! I remember the bites, the un-decipherable acronyms, the assumption that a question is answered by a blue WP link. Until I began editing in more contentious areas, medical articles of all things, I did not even know what an administrator was! I now know better. Oh yeah, I have bite marks all over me. I'm an older editor and in real life I am used to courtesy, politeness, manners, consideration and even before becoming an editor I 'believed' in good faith. If someone would ask me where have I been the most insulted, misrepresented, humiliated during my 57 years, yep, this is the place. I hate to lose another smart, good editor because they got sliced and diced right here in the friendliest place on Wikipedia - the Teahouse. Oh btw, I find your response vaguely insulting: *if I had done my research...hmmm. Everyone should do their research and you probably shouldn't be in the Teahouse unless you are able to hand out compliments as freely as insults. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked on commons?

how can I be blocked on commons wiki for having an inappropriate username, when I have the same name on wiki Encyclopedia? doesn't make sense to me.Hot Pork Pie (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, one reason is if a name that is innocent in their own language is offensive in another language. (I've no reason to suppose that is the case here, though it occurs to me that some people might imagine there was a sexual connotation to your name). The more general answer is that they are administered by different people who might make different judgments. I see that you have appealed the block at commons:User Talk:Hot Pork Pie: we'll see what happens. --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: yeah I guess we will. thanks for getting back to me. Hot Pork Pie (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

oh.Mao06840 (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of "space" for duration of time

In the article Jacobite rising of 1745 (as well as others) "space in time" has been used to describe the duration of time. Some of the edits that I have made have been reverted based on the premise that the previous "sounds better". Space measures volume vs. time measures duration. A calendar takes up space but the time on it takes up duration. Now I understand that "space in time" has been used liberally but it seems that when the wrong use of word has been made that regardless of how it sounds the wrong use of a word persists. What is the policy of WP?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the relevant policy would be here, but "in/within a short space of time" is a well-established phrase. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Col. Saunders, I agree with Cordless Larry. Describing time in spatial terms is a major underlying metaphor in English and many other languages. Consider:

• You have been called before this court... / I have to be there before ten.
• Jill came tumbling after / Repeat after me.
• I'll go on ahead / the days ahead
• We're approaching the end of the year.
• Christmas is coming.
• a short time, a long time
• This week has just whizzed by in a blur. / My days crawl by when you're away.

See Conceptual metaphor for further discussion.

--Thnidu (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your reference to my name offensive and I am certain that you would be the first to understand that you have absolutely no right to do so. It disrespects me, can on some levels be found to be derogatory and makes my name a mockery.

Space is measured by volume and time is measured by duration. The phrase to non-English speakers can be very confusing because it is not logical. I had always thought that its use was a sign that a person was either confused or just plain ignorant. If there is some special exception then for those that persist to use are justified to do so. What newspaper of record is willing to use it in their publication, and if they do is it only as a direct quote? What legal action has it within its text or does the profession regard its use merely for literary use. I would not regard WP as a literary pursuit. It is an act of encyclopedia that to a certain extent is a measurement of an absolute/definition of something. It is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Srednuas Lenoroc. You can find an example of "space of time" used in newspapers here and here, and there are plenty more if you search. "Space in time" is perhaps less common and it's harder to find examples, because searching for that throws up many results along the lines of "Tim Peake blasted off into space in time for Christmas". What is the context in which you have encountered "space in time"? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked Jacobite rising of 1745, and I see you've made two edits to it recently. The first one changed "red silk with a white space in the centre" to "red silk with a white period in the centre" and appears to have been made in error - "space" is clearly correct there, not "period", as the sentence is describing the design of a banner. The second changed "in so short a space of time" to "in so short a period of time". Both of those are correct, in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with both examples cited of "news" reporting is that one is a reader asking the question which the newspaper then poses to its readers. It is not a "news" story to be found on a front page. The second example is an op-ed piece contributed to the newspaper and not written by the newspaper staff. So again, where are there examples of a contemporary newspaper that has its reporters write original verse with a phases such as would use volume to describe duration--and it is not a direct quote? If it cannot be found in an example of legal actions such as an opinion/ruling or legislation then the inherent confusion to be found by the incompatible comparisons found within the phase. It may be fine and dandy for novels but not works that are used to establish credibility such as encyclopedias.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the writer of the letter wrote the headline of that article, Srednuas Lenoroc, but if you want more examples, there are thousands here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

An advice column is not of the same writing importance as a front page above the fold current events report. Novels make great reading but they are fiction. Wikipedia is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about a novel, but I have provided a link to a list of lots of newspaper articles that use the term, as you requested. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

All varieties of English use idiom and synonym which may be illogical and appear to be imprecise. "Short/long space of time", note the qualifiers should be included, is a widely used British English synonym and if even English use guides like Fowler's Modern English Usage use it (example - read the entry on Google) then it's use on Wikipedia isn't an issue to me. Perhaps it's a term that should be added to Wiktionary but and absence of definition there is not reason to eradicate it's usage across Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding here. I am not for an across-the-board eradication of the term at hand in WP; only its use as an original composed contribution to WP articles outside of a direct quote. Grammar exists to provide a logic that is not framed well with the phase at hand regardless as to how any "authorities" sustain it.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The first definition of space in the Oxford English Dictionary is "denoting time or duration". Its use for denoting area or volume while not a secondary definition is not the first listed. Yes, grammar does exist to provide a logic and in British English space as a measure of time is perfectly acceptable. While it might grate to the ears to some or seem illogical to others, it's an acceptable and logical form in any Wikipedia article where British English is the form of English used. Wikipedia isn't here to create an international form of English and the variations are accepted, even welcomed - see WP:ENGVAR. Nthep (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding, I am not advocating for universal British/American English, just a logical one.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

how can my article will be approved?

Please check if I have made the right choice of content to be posted. I have been asked by the person to create a wiki page for him. I have now put up all the available references as per my knowledge. Please help me out.11:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShahnshahGupta (talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It is always useful if you tell us which page is worrying you; in this case I guess it might be Draft:Praveen Nischol? What you need to do is to read the feedback which you have received in a number of messages on your user talk page, and also in the feedback box on your draft. The words in blue are wikilinks to pages with more detail to help you. In this case particularly you need to read Help:Footnotes and Help:Referencing for beginners. On a formatting matter, you also need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ShahnshahGupta. If you have been asked by Nischol to create the page (which should be an article about him, not a page for him) then you should carefully read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest; and if you are in any way being paid to do this you must declare this fact. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine Thanks For reply, First I am not getting paid for it. I went through some of the articles about how to create a page. I have been trying to collect enough resources to make this article work for him. I do not find much news and refrence material about him on the net. can you suggest me how else I can put up the refrence and verify his article? ShahnshahGupta (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What to do to use a special character

I have need to use a combining acute accent and a combining dieresis (two superscript dots, in Spanish used over theu), in the article tilde. In this help page I cannot find how to do it or even where to go to to find out how to do it. The page on "Inserting Special Characters" does not help. There are lots of interesting characters in the Insert menus at the bottom of my edit screens on WP, but not those. I am using the Safari browser on IOS 9.1. I imagine I have to type in something like { {Unicode|some hex number}}, but I don't know what. deisenbe deisenbe (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Hey Diesnbe, thanks for your question. Are you referring to ü? If you are using "edit source," It should be under the "special characters menu" under the Latin subheader; there is a scroll bar on the right side to show more characters in the list than the top set (starting with Á, á, À, à, etc.) As you said, there is also Template:Unicode which has relevant documentation page there. At worst, there you can always open up word processor and copy-and-paste, but the character is definitely available in special characters. Take care, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Ah, I'm sorry, I misread the combination aspect of your question, my apologies. Give the template a try if you're aware of a hex code for the character first, I'd say. Alternatively, a copy-paste may be the way to go if you're aware of another source where this character appears. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Deisenbe! It looks as if you want to use one of these   ́ and one of these   ̈ . You might find one of these ´ and one of these ¨ easier to handle, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Deisenbe and I JethroBT, another somewhat backdoor solution would be to click on Wikipedia Main page, then on left sidebar-Languages section click on Español link which will display the entire page in Spanish. From there you can choose the special characters you are looking for. Regards,  JoeHebda  talk  21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Deisenbe, I may be missing something, but I JethroBT's first answer appears to me to be correct. The ǘ character is indeed available if you select "Latin" in the drop-down menu below the edit screen. Just place the cursor where you want the character to go and click the character. Deor (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The characters I need are at Combining diacritical marks. But I can't figure out how to insert them in a WP article. deisenbe (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Do you mean a stand-alone combining character and not combined with a letter? Most browsers can copy-paste characters but I don't know Safari on IOS. If you know the Unicode number like U+0308 then you can write the html entity ̈ to produce ̈. Help:Special characters#External links links to http://shapecatcher.com/ where you can draw characters to get their Unicode number. There may be a lot of suggested matches. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Yes, I do want the two dots and accent without the characters underneath. This for an article on typewriter keyboards. See if you're interested Tilde#Role of mechanical typewriters.

In the table at Combining Diacritical Marks, the first line, undef the 8. That's the two dots (dieresis). Exactly what do I type to use this character in a WP article? How browsers display it is irrelevant. Then I'm going to put it on the Help Special Characters page because it sure ain't there.

I looked at the code for that page and all I found was a template and I have no idea what to do.

In fact, I also need the 1/2 and 1/4 symbols. Much too obsolete to be on the Symbols or Mathematical menus. Anybody know how to do them? Funny to think of characters becoming obsolete, but I think they are, just like Bell and Blink bytes. deisenbe (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Actually, 1/2 and 1/4 do appear under symbols: ½ ¼. Is the toolbar not displaying correctly or something? This is what it looks like for me. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 12:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

They're definitely not on the Symbols menu as I see it using Chrome on IOS (iPhone) 9.1. I'll double check Safari but I'm pretty sure the toolbar is the same. I can't see yours. I get a pop-up menu with options about what to do with a .png file, but "view it" is not among them. I don't understand this as the iPhone uses .png for screenshots. Seeing the code of what I'm writing and what you wrote above it, the characters 1/2 1/4 appear, not the code to produce these characters. Unfortunately blocking and pasting on the iPhone is a pain in the ass. deisenbe (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Deisenbe, apparently the Unicode number for a combining dieresis and a combining acute together is U+0344, which produces ̈́. It doesn't (with the font I'm using) look exactly like the combination of diacritics in the ǘ character, but I can't find anything closer. Deor (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I got it . It's &#x followed by a 4 digit hex number followed by ; gives me the character I want, which is 308: ̈ . Since I'm pretty sure Unicode has more than FFFF characters, this can't be the whole story, but it's good enough for now. I see now how to use the Template:Unicode. Thanks to all who helped, I'm amazed at how hard this was. deisenbe (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has been fixed. All I need now is the code for non-breaking space, if there is one; hopefully the browser will honor that before the character, since it won't honor spaces. deisenbe (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Dependable WP has an article on the non-breaking space. It's Unicode 00A0. I was too old for Morse code (used for telegraph and primitive radios), but I sure did know the MT/ST. Which means you know of characters like that. deisenbe (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: The simplest way to input a non-breaking space is

 

No arbitrary numbers to memorize. See List of XML and HTML character entity references.

--01:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, KylieTastic, I see it is working now. You Rock, and I promise not to break it again.

Additionally, the image is now flagged for speedy deletion, and I am about to post a defense of the image to the file's Talk section. in uploading it, I researched all non-free fair use rationales that pertained to a publicity photo, and attempted to place the rationale correctly in the Upload Wizard. But apparently I did not do it correctly. Any advice? A2Ypsi (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A request regarding fixing of errors from some files

Hi! I am SWASTIK 25. I'm an editor in Wikipedia. I'm facing problems regarding these files and seeking help to solve them. I am requesting someone to kindly fix the errors/problems from these four files given below:

File:Mohun Bagan other logo.png, File:Dadagiri Unlimited.png, File:CESC Logo.png, File:Mohun Bagan A.C. Logo.png

Please fix the errors from these, before they are deleted. Thank you. — SWASTIK 25 (User talk) 08:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@SWASTIK 25: Along with the license, for non-free (i.e. copyrighted) images, we've required an explanation of where the image is used and why it's permissible to use someone's copyrighted image in that way. What you should look at is Template:Non-free use rationale logo which has the details you need. I'd suggest looking at image pages for other logos as well since the exact language is pretty standard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the images above by wikilinks, because it is never permitted to use a non-free image in a non-article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Kindly fix the errors from File:Mohun Bagan Logo.jpeg too. @ColinFine: Are the above files now permitted in the articles connected with it? — SWASTIK 25 (User talk) 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

SWASTIK 25. I have no idea. I have merely fixed something on this page which I know to be forbidden. I haven't looked at anything else. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@SWASTIK 25: I have provided non-free use rationales for Dadagiri Unlimited.png, CESC Logo.png, and Mohun Bagan A.C. Logo.png. But in my opinion no help is possible for Mohun Bagan other logo.png or Mohun Bagan Logo.jpeg. The solution I used for the other logos does not work for these because they are used in a gallery, and the use of non-free files is almost never acceptable in galleries. —teb728 t c 09:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

physics

how aging can be slow down at very high speed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.24 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi 119.160.118.24. It sounds like you are trying to get us to do homework for you. We won't do your homework, but I can tell you that you may find a clue at time dilation. —teb728 t c 09:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)