Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 468

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 465

Archive 466

Archive 467

→

Need help making draft page go live/publish

I have been working on this draft page but can't figure out how to get it published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dare2Draw When I looked up the directions it directs me to is a 'move' button but I don't have that option on my draft page. How do I publish without having this button? Hiei1999 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't have a Move button because you aren't autoconfirmed with 4 days and 10 edits. However, my advice would be to Submit it to Articles for Creation Review instead. I can do that, or can someone help them? It is relatively good, but some work would help. For instance, some of the references are not independent. My advice would be to Submit it for review rather than trying to Move it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Need for Ultra-Friendly but Ultra-Effective Advice for User:Hihiimpal

We have a new editor at User:Hihiimpal who very much wants an article accepted, and has submitted it to article space more than once, each time getting it speedy-deleted. They say that they are NEW and that they need help rather than having their article deleted. Evidently with some help, they did also create the article in draft space, and had submitted it, and had it declined with the statement that it needs references. They then promptly resubmitted the article without adding references, and it was declined again. If this were not such a new editor, I would ask for administrative attention. I am asking for ultra-friendly but ultra-effective advice, since ordinary friendly and effective advice doesn’t seem to help. It seems that the editor is going through the motions of saying that they want help, but not following the help (maybe because it isn’t encouraging). Can another editor please advise them at their talk page, User talk: Hihiimpal?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If they ask for help, and when given it, ignore it, I suspect that giving more help will achieve nothing. Maproom (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If the draft in question is Draft:ChriZzy Goodtung, then the subject does not appear to be notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the subject is not notable, but I wasn't asking that question here. In Wikipedia in general, and especially at this Teahouse, we are expected to be welcoming to new editors. Occasionally we have special cases (edge cases, in an engineering sense) that test that obligation. What I have seen before is combative editors who, when warned for incivility or personal attacks, will use do not bite the newbies as a cudgel to hit back at those who caution or warn them. This is, usually, a bad-faith use of the policy, is really intended (in my opinion) for one experienced editor to use to ask another experienced editor to be gentle to a new editor, not for a new editor to use to scold an experienced editor. My own opinion is that an editor who knows policies and guidelines well enough to quote WP:BITE is no longer a newbie. That, as I said, is a case of bad faith. On the other hand, this appears to be a case of a truly good-faith editor who, however, appears to lack the patience to learn how to use Wikipedia, and it does require patience. Crying "But I am NEW!" is fine if you listen, but if you are so impatient that you won't listen, maybe this is an editor who will not be a positive to Wikipedia. Are we in agreement that all that can be done is to speedy-delete the article if it returns to article space, and decline the draft again if it is submitted in draft space, and that we have done enough to try to help this editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering whether this new editor thinks that new editors can dump an unreferenced article into article space and expect experienced editors to add the references. (That isn't reasonable if the topic is notable, but it isn't possible if the topic is not notable.) New editors can dump an unreferenced draft into draft space and ask experienced editors to add the references. It might be done, and it likely won't, and it certainly won't if the topic isn't notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am no longer sure that the editor was editing in clueless good faith. Their last edit was the removal of an infobox, without explanation, from an article. If further similar behavior recurs, I will request admin attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I was too willing to extend good faith to an editor who wouldn't listen to advice but protested that they were NEW and wanted help. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist entry

What does this entry on my watchlist mean?

(Protection log); 14:24 . . (name redacted) protected (name redacted) [Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) ‎(Vandalism and sock puppetry. You can ask for this to be removed if you want, but right now you're a target.)

I suppose somewhere in my archives I may have posted to the protected user's Talk pg in the misty past, but not recently, & have no recollection of doing so in the past. So I'm not sure why I'd need to ask for removal of something or why it makes me a target. Can anyone explain? TYVM ScarletRibbons (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The message in the edit summary that "You can ask for this to be removed if you want, but right now you're a target" is presumably directed at the user who is engaged in vandalism rather than you, ScarletRibbons. Is there any reason not to tell us what page this refers to? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. TYVM for the quick response. I just thought it might be bad form to include user names when inquiring here at the Teahouse. ScarletRibbons (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would be in this case, ScarletRibbons - it's not like you're canvassing. If you give the name of the user/page, then I can confirm my response above applies. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll re-copy it as is: (Protection log); 14:24 . . BethNaught (talk | contribs) protected User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi [Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) ‎(Vandalism and sock puppetry. You can ask for this to be removed if you want, but right now you're a target.) ScarletRibbons (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You only needed to ask, Scarlet! My page was getting caned by an IP vandal who I had had the temerity to revert. Check the page history. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I presume that the message was intended for the IP user who made this edit to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's userpage, ScarletRibbons. BethNaught should be able to confirm that. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict with User:Cordless Larry- yep, precisely. Also attacking contributions; very energetic. Thought to be a sock of User:Nsmutte. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I asked at the wrong spot! TYVM to you both :-D ScarletRibbons (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Teahouse is here to help you understand how Wikipedia works, ScarletRibbons, so I think you asked in the right place. I'm glad we could help. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Natalia Toreeva

I declined this article as not showing notability. The user has asked me about it at my talkpage, but seems insistent that they are notable. Wanted to get the views of other experienced editors about the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph2302, in its current form, I would agree that the draft does not demonstrate the notability of the subject, and additionally, reads somewhat like a resume. It can sometimes be difficult to get this point across to new editors, especially those with a COI, but I would encourage you to persist. I took a look at the references, and I think that something might be salvageable here. The draft contains a couple of links to libraries or catalog entries for books, books which supposedly cover the artist groups that the subject of the draft belonged to. If the creator of the draft can use these books as references (this one, for instance) and show that Toreeva has substantive coverage in it, then the notability issue would look very different. In its current form, it would not survive AfD, in my estimate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If the content about the "School of Sidlin" in Soviet Nonconformist Art is correct, then this artist was a prominent member for decades in a dissident art movement that has been the subject of books and major museum exhibits since the fall of the Soviet Union, and therefore meets the notability guideline WP:ARTIST. That content is poorly referenced although books and museum catalogs are listed. This may just be a matter of improving the referencing and the editor should be advised to follow the procedures in Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up Dr. Richard Pestell's wikipedia Page

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to clean-up Dr. Richard Pestell's page. He originally had two flags, indicating that some of the content read like an advertisement. I've managed to clean the site up enough that one flag was removed. However, there's still another flag on the page.

I've attempted to change as much of the tone of the content but I think at this time I would like to invite others with more experience than me to see if there's anything else that can be removed, rewritten or improved.

Any help is appreciated.

David MillerDavidDonovanMiller (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is Richard Pestell. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DavidDonovanMiller, it seems that your most recent edits were reverted as unexplained by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (although I note that the first one was in fact explained). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Noting non-published sources in a citation.

1 - How do I cite genealogical records in an article/profile? For instance, if the fact about family history comes from a family tree record, how should that citation be written?

2 - Also, if the record of military service comes from discharge or enlistment papers, how should that citation be written? 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMWalden (talk • contribs)

If you could do it that'd be super helpful. This is my first page creation Hiei1999 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hiei1999, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but only published sources may be cited in Wikipedia articles, and for most purposes they must be reliable sources. I suggest reading Your First Article and Wikipedia's Golden Rule. DES ^(talk) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree that an unpublished family tree can't be considered a reliable source, but does anyone know whether military papers (which might be available to view at a records office?) can be acceptable? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would think that they could be, but would come under the same "Public records, use with care" rule as court records. I would want to verify that the particular record in question could in fact be checked via available military records, my (not well informed) understanding is that these are not available for all US veterans. (For other countries I have no idea what the situation might be). If they cna be checked, I suppose the citation would be as for a document with a title like "Discharge Certificate for John Doe" with an author of "US Department of the Army" or whatever is actually shown on the records. DES ^(talk) 21:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Ball / Speculation ?

I have been in a debate with User:Imzadi1979 (public) User talk:Imzadi1979 (public) over the use of the added {{speculation}} & {{Crystal}} Tags to Apple electric car project. Could a third party please verify if one or both of these Tags belongs on the article ? I feel these Tags belong as the article is clearly about a rumored product, there is no data available from Apple Inc. that such a Product is being OR will be created, searching on the internet only gives third-party rumors. Loomdime (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting question, Loomdime. My understanding is that those tags belong on articles that contain unsourced (or unreliably sourced) speculation. Reliable sources can be third-party ones (and, in fact, should be third-party in many cases), so I don't think it's a problem that no Apple sources are cited, as long as any speculation or opinion is properly attributed. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Cordless Larry (talk. I feel that if neither of these Tags apply to this article, as it IS sourced. I feel that this article does not belong on Wikipedia because of the reasons above.

I will be unable to continue this debate due to real life issues. 21:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomdime (talk • contribs)

Licensing

Hi. I would like to parse some wikitext to HTML via api.php?action=parse. Providing that I am the author of the wikitext and will not upload the wikitext anywhere else on Wikipedia, do I have to license the wikitext under CC BY-SA like other Wikipedia contents? And does this apply to all other MediaWiki sites (although they use different licenses)? Frank (User Page) (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Imfrankliu. All text based content you add anywhere on Wikipedia must be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 and I am unaware of any exceptions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Imfrankliu. Do I understand correctly that you want to send an http request like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=parse&text=This+is+wikitext&contentmodel=wikitext to the MediaWiki web service API without ever saving anything to Wikipedia? If so, that doesn't require licensing of the wikitext. It's what you save that needs to be licensed. —teb728 t c 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

adding a photo to my article

How do I add a photo of a person to my article - Bdgrover (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bdgrover. Your question is far too open ended to give a specific answer. Here are the sorts of information we need to give you an answer: Who is the person? Are they alive or dead? Do you have a specific photo in mind? If so, what is the source of the photo? Did you take the photo yourself? Adding a photo can be very easy or very difficult, depending on the specific circumstances. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I need Infobox for my article

Hello I'm currently creating new article about one organization. Problem is none of the Infoboxes fitting for it. I'm using military unit Infobox currently however I'm not sure it will suit when I publish the article

Plese Advice Armada Interkosmosa (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Armada Interkosmosa, if the article you're referring to is the one in your sandbox space, the infobox you're currently using looks fine to me. However, there may be somebody at WP:WikiProject Military History who knows of a more suitable one. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I'm referring the sandbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Armada_Interkosmosa/sandbox

Hopefully someone specifically knows about this infobox can approve

Armada Interkosmosa (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can probably get more specific help about military infoboxes by asking your question at the Wikiproject Military History Noticeboard. From everything I've heard, they are one of the most active and friendly Wikiprojects. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Accepted/published

I have upgraded the "mistletoebird" site. It was brief and I have added more substance. Do I now need to do anything else seeing that it was an existing site before I started. John sheens (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi John sheens, welcome to the Teahouse. Mistletoebird was indeed an existing article when you first started editing it, so all of your edits became live on Wikipedia immediately after you submitted them. You do not need to submit them to be accepted or published by other editors. (However, as Wikipedia is a collaborative project, other contributors can see what you've written and edit it too.) Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Image credits

I was hoping to upload some images to pages of Chinese politicians that lack them. However, I've noticed that I either have to upload it as CC or as my own work. Is it not acceptable to upload another's work along with a citation? If so, how would I go about this? If not, should I go ahead and take the photos down? Ethan Magnuson EthanMagnuson (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Ethan, welcome! Generally speaking, no, it's not acceptable to upload something that hasn't been released under the CC license by its author (whether that's yourself or someone else). There are very limited exceptions that may apply under the principle of fair use (which you can read about here), but those don't apply to people who are still alive, and they don't apply to images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, either; fair use images can only be uploaded locally to the English Wikipedia. So, yes, you should go ahead and take the photos down; you won't be able to do this yourself, but I'd imagine Commons has a way for you to request deletion of your own uploads. I'm not an expert on Commons myself, but I'd imagine that putting something like {{speedydelete|<reason>}}, replacing <reason> with something that explains that you were mistaken about the copyright status of the images, at the top of each applicable upload should suffice. And regardless, thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia! Copyright is a fickle beast at the best of times, so it's not surprising for people to mess it up every now and then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks!

EthanMagnuson (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi EthanMagnuson. You can request that these file be deleted from Commons per c:COM:CSD#G7 since 7 days have not passed since you uploaded them. Just add c:Template:SD to each file's page and use the code "G7". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

links

If a link word is repeated a number of times throughout the text, does one only link the first time it is used or all of them? john sheensJohn sheens (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, John sheens. As a general rule, the wikilink should be used just once, the first time the term is used in the article. One exception is in a very long article. If the term is wikilinked near the beginning and then not mentioned again until much later in the article, it may be appropriate to wikilink it once more when mentioned again, as a convenience to the reader. This is a matter of editorial judgement. Also, a term wikilinked in an infobox should also be wikilinked in the body of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

ThanksJohn sheens (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is also worth reading WP:OVERLINKING, John sheens - it's not always the case that a term should be linked even on the first mention. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Am I doing something wrong?

Hi everyone, I'm not sure how to edit the article titled "List of Thermal Conductivities." I notice various remarks about broken bracket problem and syntax in the recent history of the article and various fixes from BG19bot, Yobot and BgWhite... The most that I know is that my way of editing that article has been clumsy. Is it worse than that? Can someone tell me whether I have been making bracket problems and syntax problems? What did I do wrong? How could I fix it? Patriot1423 (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you have been putting in to this article. It looks very worthwhile to me. I did see a correction to a very minor syntax error you had made but otherwise these fixes are generally utterly inconsequential busywork. Things like changing hyphens to dashes are a fiddle to do manually and are maybe best left to an automated process anyway. I suggest, rather that wasting your time in trying to pre-empt these sort of changes, you just go ahead with improving the article's content and referencing. Thincat (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Newly linked article has gone missing.

Hi, I recently received two emails informing me that an article of mine (Lattice delay network)had been linked to other articles. Unfortunately, the article itself has now gone missing from Wikipedia! Please help. D1ofBerks (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome! An editor redirected the page earlier, as they are apparently discussing the same subject. The article isn't gone, just overwritten. This is the last non-overwritten revision. Let me know if you have anymore questions. :) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply, but I am still confused. It is true that the articles refer to the same topic, but the article that overwrites mine is an introductory article whereas mine discusses the topic in more detail. Surely, the articles should be linked not overwritten. How does the reader find the design details that are present in my article now that it has been overwritten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1ofBerks (talk • contribs) 12:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

When an article already exists on a topic, D1ofBerks, you should add more detail to that article rather than starting another one, otherwise we end up with multiple articles on the same topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but I do not agree with it. Firstly, I do not wish to modify the existing introductory article (Lattice phase equalizer), which is fine for a reader wishing to get a quick overview of the subject. Secondly, this article does not mention lattice delay circuits at all, whereas my article is purely about delay circuits. Thirdly, I do not wish to unduly complicate the existing article as this may put off the non-technical reader who may only want a brief overview (my article is for the reader needing more detail and contains much more detail). In any case, adding a major chunk of text to an existing article carries with it some underlying criticism of it, which is not want I wish to do. It seems to me that two separate articles, suitably linked, is the best solution D1ofBerks (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

D1ofBerks, we do allow separate articles when one provides a broad overview of a topic and another provides a more detailed account of a particular aspect of it. See Wikipedia:Summary style on this. However, if I understand correctly, then you are proposing that we have two articles about the same topic - one for non-technical readers and one for a more specialist audience. Is that correct? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My article gave (when it was present!), gave an overview of the methods by which lumped element delays were designed (work took place in the early to mid 1900s). One of the basic building blocks of these networks was the lattice. The lattice can also be used in phase correcting circuits so, although they look similar to delay circuits, these have their component values determined differently. I may have misled readers earlier by suggesting the two articles were on the same topic, they are not(although they can both use lattice networks).
The article Lattice phase equaliser is an introductory one, which serves that purpose well. However, it does not consider the design of delay circuits at all, which my article considers in some detail, so I cannot understand why it has been considered suitable for overwriting my article - the two articles are quite different in content. Nor is it sensible to add my article - on delays - to an article on phase correctors as they serve different purposes. It seems to me that editors with little understanding of the technical content have been stirring the pot unnecessarily. How do I go about getting editors with appropriate technical knowledge involved in this discussion, so that, hopefully, my article will be resurrected? D1ofBerks (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I happily admit to not being an expert on this topic, D1ofBerks, so am not well placed to judge whether the topics are distinct enough to merit separate articles. Don't worry about the material being lost - it's all there in the page history. To get broader input into this issue, I'm pinging Spinningspark, who replaced the content of the article with a redirect. It might also be worth identifying a relevant WikiProject via Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory, and asking for input there. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

To show good faith, I have undone my edit. However, I still think the need for two articles is questionable. SpinningSpark 14:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a large folder of notes and articles on phase correcting techniques (none of it features network delays) which I thought I might write up in the future. If this were to be added to the existing article on phase equalization then that article would become rather large in its own right anyway. However, as I have already mentioned, I would prefer to have this work (once its written)as a separate article, since I am not keen on interfering with other author's work, especially as there's nothing wrong with it. D1ofBerks (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture change

Hi,

I'm trying to change an image.

I changed it but it then went back to the original image.

How can I change this so it is permanant?

Thanks, Mollie (89.167.128.98 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mollie. Nothing is permanent on Wikipedia, and your edit might have been reverted by another editor. It is difficult to tell what happened without knowing what article you are referring to, though. There is nothing in your contributions history related to images, so I wonder if you were logged in to an account or editing from another IP address when you made the change? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

where to find other editors?

Hello -- is there a specific page / group where editors can look for other editors to contribute towards an article? For example, I'm working on Aoki Yayoi's page right now, and I think it could really benefit from some editing by a Japanese speaker, especially for details like her native name. Thanks -- Palimpsestic (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Palimpsestic, the best place to try would probably be WP:WikiProject Japan. I bet there are several Japanese speakers who could help if you posted on the project talk page. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot search my page

Sir! Good Day! I have created a page on wikipidia but we can not search this page by my name Deo Prakash Choudhary my page link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deo_prakash_choudhary

Please help.

Thanks DEO PRAKASH CHOUDHARY Deo prakash choudhary (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the page you created is still in the userspace and has not been published to the article space; I suggest you submit the article to Articles for Creation where reviewers can evaluate and possibly publish it. However, the article you wrote appears to be about yourself, and it may result in a conflict of interest. Doing so is generally disallowed, so I recommend you have someone else write about you, and you must be a notable person if you want to be a subject in the encyclopedia. Thanks. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How to upload a picture

How to upload a pic while doing EDIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavach shah (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How to upload a pic while doing EDIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavach shah (talk • contribs) 17:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How to upload a pic while doing EDIT

By------Kavach Shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavach shah (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Pictures have to be uploaded first and then added to the article. There is no way to do it in one step. Could you give more details about the picture? Did you take it? That way we can better explain how to upload and use it. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding geo location to article

Hi! I just wrote an article about a museum but I forgot how to add geo location? Is there a template I can use in VE? Thanks in advance Jooojay (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jooojay. I see you figured out to use {{Coord}} in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

hahaha YES thank you PrimeHunter! I still am curious though, can this be used with VE? Jooojay (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jooojay: There are tens or hundreds of thousands of templates. VE does not have a menu with them but if you know the template name then you can click "Insert", "Template" and enter the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Claim to significance

I had nominated Pension Volkmann for deletion as the article has no sources and is just a run of the mill band from what I see. The deletion request was declined with the statement "Claim to significance opposition to East German govt". My question, is having opposition to a government a claim to significance? If so, would this mean that any band that opposes a government can have an article? A4032 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, A4032. The speedy deletion process is just one way to nominate an article for deletion, used for the most obvious candidates, and note that WP:A7 states that the requirement for a claim to significance is a lower bar than Wikipedia's notability guidelines. So, even though the speedy deletion was declined, that doesn't mean that the subject meets the requirements for an article to exist on it. If you think the subject is not notable (I haven't investigated myself), then it is best to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that there are different ways to nominate articles for deletion. I am trying to understand A7, is a claim that the band opposed the East German government a claim to significance or more generally as I asked originally is it a claim to significance for a band to have opposition to a government? A4032 (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@A4032: The editor who declined the A7 considered it a claim to significance in this case. Note that East Germany was heavily censored (see Censorship in East Germany). If the claim is true (A7 is merely about making a claim and not about supporting it) that such a band was allowed to exist then it does sound unusual. In another country or with another editor the result might be different. We are not writing guidelines to this level of detail and there will always be judgment calls. If you still want the article to be deleted then you are free to nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the same editor happens to participate in the discussion then there is no knowing what they would say. The speedy deletion criteria like A7 give limited circumstances where articles can be deleted quickly without discussion or detailed examination. The editor has not said the article belongs in Wikipedia but merely made a judgement call that the specific criteria A7 was not satisfied. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. A4032 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete Pending Article

Hello, I was wondering if it is possible for me to delete an article I created that is currently pending for review? 2601:40A:8101:1C00:4C0D:A56A:8AB0:B6FC (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. If you are the only substantive contributor to the page, then you can add the markup {{Db-author}} to it, and it should be speedy deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't have an article that is pending review, at least not from this IP address. If you created it from another IP address and your IP address has shifted, you probably will just have to let the review happen. This is a disadvantage to IP editing. Please consider creating an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What is a "challenge for (an) article"?

Hello. Over the last two or three years I've worked on an article about musician Scott Page. I cannot find any sources to cite a DOB so I deleted my best guess for lack of substantive citation support. I recently noticed this on the page's history:

"https://tools.wmflabs.org/kasparbot/persondata/challenge.php?q=article%3AScott+Page"

Since then, I have also noticed someone added 1954 as his DOB but I have expended many hours trying to find a verifiable DOB for him and have never found it.

Can someone please help me understand what this "challenge" is and whether this has to do with a presumed year of birth that has been added? I honestly feel that there just isn't enough information out there to draw this conclusion.1987atomheartbrother (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 1987atomheartbrother, and welcome to the Teahouse. That edit was performed by a script (bot) that was copying data (particularly birth years) out of the {{Persondata }} template and into Wikidata, and then deleting the template. It didn't insert any information, it only copied a birth year that was in the article (with no cited source, and not visible to the reader) at that time. The list of "Challenges" (displayed at https://tools.wmflabs.org/kasparbot/persondata/challenge.php?q=article%3AScott+Page) are, I think, items that the script suggests need attention. The birth date was inserted on 26 March (three days ago) in this edit by an IP editor with no cited source or explanation. DES ^(talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

While the year of birth was added to the article text a few days ago, it was hidden away in the person data previous to that, which is why it was migrated to Wikidata. Confusingly, the Wikidata entry has a different date recorded: 11 July 1955. I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to understand why this is. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. The material is not migrated completely automatically, but has to be approved by an editor first, before it is added to Wikidata. The reason the DoB is showing up as a "challenge" is precisely because the information from the article (1954) disagrees with a value already recorded in the Wikidata (11 July 1955). Now, I guess the question is where 11 July 1955 came from and if there are reliable sources to support it. Any ideas, 1987atomheartbrother? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I'm not sure where they got that date - and I've done so much research on this subject! Would it be out of line to remove the DOB until someone can supply something that is cited? And thanks for the feedback, everyone.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it, 1987atomheartbrother. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've also rejected the migration of 1954 so that that doesn't end up replacing it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cordless Larry! I appreciate the help - I'll keep researching to see if I can find something verifiable.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed that in Polish, he was born in 1951! Good luck with your search, 1987atomheartbrother. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's quite interesting... wonder where they got that from! Thanks, Cordless Larry!--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Article submitted on wrong user name

Hello,

I submitted an article yesterday, Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, that is currently pending review. However, I realized that I submitted the article under an incorrect user name. I was wondering if I may be able to shift ownership of that article to a different user name, or if I have to re-submit the article all over again?

2601:40A:8101:1C00:544B:5806:921B:43E (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. To clarify, Wikipedia articles don't have owners (see WP:OWN on this). I'm confused, though. You say that you submitted the draft under an incorrect user name, but you must have access to the Ottaway account must be yours if you submitted Draft:Stevens Worldwide Van Lines from that account. Do you have more than one account? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The Ottaway account was created because I did not realize that I already had an account made. I guess, is there a way that I can delete my submission and re-submit it from that user name instead? 2601:40A:8101:1C00:544B:5806:921B:43E (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. You can edit the draft using your other account in future, although it is a good idea to disclose that you have two accounts on your user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Having a problem getting 'Additional text' using user talk Template:Uw-refimprove

I'd like to use the Template:Uw-refimprove 'Additional text' option. Doesn't seem to work for me. Gab4gab (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gab4gab: contrary to what the template documentation says I don't think the template has ever supported the additional text option. If you want it I'd suggest it on the talk page. Nthep (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep, I'll begin pondering the talk page. Gab4gab (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Gab4gab, Nthep, I posted on the relevant talk page, and getting some support, implemented the additional text parameter. Try it now. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DES for the quick fix. Gab4gab (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking to create a page for a up and coming, notable band.

Hello there,

I have been using Wikipedia as a resource for years now, but have just recently created my own account. I am trying to create a page for a band and do not know the steps to take to get it up and running for others to contribute towards. Any help is very much appreciated! Thank you.

HometownBrewing (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HometownBrewing. You should be aware that many Wikipedia editors are very skeptical of "up and coming" bands, and so it will be your obligation to furnish the evidence of coverage in reliable sources that proves the band is notable. Please study our notability guideline for music topics. If, after reading that, you still believe that this band is notable (as Wikipedia defines that term), then please read Your first article which provides a lot of excellent advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As Cullen points out, there is a general suspicion of up and coming bands. Even if the topic is notable, you may want to use the wp:Articles for Creation process to avoid the article being deleted before it is mature. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as Cullen and Happysquirrel have already said, I'd go the AfC route. Cullen's link to your first article is an excellent starting point. Here are some others: Introduction and Getting started, Contributing to Wikipedia, Simplified Manual of Style, How to structure and layout your article, and On how to properly format your citations. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding/updating my company information contained in government documents

As our company's designated Wikipedia editor, I have been updating our company page (Travelport) to include information we filed in our most current U.S. Securities and Exchange 10-Q for Fiscal Year 2015. I cited all additions to the SEC filing. I have now received an "Edit Conflict" that threatens to remove all the edits/updates I have made. Suggestions to resolve this conflict? Thank you. Ravenking999 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

As to the WP:Edit conflict, try again. As to being your company's "designated Wikipedia editor", read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make the required disclosure. Also, consider editing the article talk page rather than the article page, because you have conflict of interest. Also, do not post copyrighted material, even if it is the copyrighted material of your own company. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether you mean an edit conflict (which happens who two editors try to edit an article at the same time), Ravenking999, or if you are instead referring to the fact that your edits were reverted? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ravenking999. In addition to the advice given to Robert McClenon, Your company may have designated you as their Wikipedia editor, but that's not really how things work when it comes to Wikipedia. So, I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Moreover, the way you refer to the article as "our company page" sort of indicates that you are slightly misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia article's are not owned by the subjects they are written about or the editors who edit/create them. The article may be written about your company, but your company does not have any sort of final editorial control over what is added or what is removed. The article is only intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about your company and only those things which can be properly verified. The article is not intended to promote your company or serve as sort of an "pseudo-official company page". Anything promotional added to the article is likely to be quickly removed regardless or whether it is a copyright violation. The sources you wish to use sound to me like primary sources. Such sources may be used, but they need to be used carefully. I suggest you propose the changes you wish to make on Talk:Travelport so that they can be reviewed by other editors. If the changes you propose are in compliance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, another editor will make them for you. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

brief history of bheemili or Bheemunipatnam: Amir of Bheemunipatnam

Dear samwalton9,

Kindly upload my article " Brief history of Bheemili or Bheemunipatnam: Amir of Bheemunipatnam" to Wikipedia. Thanks. Altaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altaf Shaik 1971 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Altaf Shaik 1971. By your "article" are you referring to what you wrote on your user talk page User talk:Altaf Shaik 1971? —teb728 t c 05:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Popular Pages needed for WikiProject Jainism

I requested for Popular Pages for WikiProject Jainism on 11 December 2015. I requested for the same on talk page on 25 January 2016. I haven't got any response yet. Is there any way in which I can find out high traffic Jainism articles? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I keep the same username in two different Wikipedias?

Hello: I’m new to Wikipedia and apparently I can login with the same username (garai0316) in both Wikipedia in English and Spanish, but when I login to each one of these two different Wikipedias, I find two different user pages that aren’t related and the edits I make in one Wikipedia are not logged in the other one. Why would this happen if it’s the same username? Is there a way to see the same user page in both Wikipedias? Thanks a lot Garai0316 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, User:Garai0316. Many of us old timers have this problem. We just look in all of them. Eventually we will probably get Wikipedia:Global, cross-wiki, integrated watchlists but it doesn't exist yet. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Garai0316. Not unless you make them look the same by separately manually editing each to resemble each other. Each language version of Wikipedia is a different website, so whereas your account itself may be unified (this allowing you to stay logged in when visiting different Wikimedia sites), your user page and talk page will always be discrete to each Wikipedia, and your edits at one will not be logged at the other. This may be possible in the future though. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Garai0316 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Garai0316: Last year it actually became possible to make a global user page. See Wikipedia:Global user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just in case you decide to do that, Garai0316: that page doesn't exactly make it clear that you will need to ask for your existing user pages on en and es.wp to be deleted – the global user page won't show up until you do. It won't fix the watchlist problem in any case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

function of sandbox

I am a new editor. I want to work in the sandbox. I am going to try to expand some stubs. how do i get the stub into the sandbox. thank youLotta Little (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lotta Little, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have already created User:Lotta Little/sandbox. You can copy the wikitext from the edit window of an existing article. If you have trouble with this then what is your browser? If you want to work on more than one page or test at a time then you can create multiple sandboxes like User:Lotta Little/sandbox2, User:Lotta Little/sandbox3, User:Lotta Little/sandbox4. If you use Help:Show preview and check your edits before saving then you may also be able to edit the stubs directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Why don't I get published?

Hello,

I uploaded a page titled Parking+ almost two months ago. So far it hasn't been published, nor did I get any notification. How can I contact you?Yaelish (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yaelish, and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have created Draft:Parking+ on 10 March rather than two months ago, but the reason it hasn't been published is that you haven't yet submitted the draft for review. When you want the draft to be reviewed, you need to add the markup {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Before you do so, however, you need to ensure that the article is properly referenced to reliable sources. See Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added a box with some information and a submit button. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The draft is written in blatantly promotional language. Some of it is even in the first person. It will need extensive changes before it can be accepted. Maproom (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It also refers to the subject using two names: "Parking+" and "Pango+". Which one is correct, I wonder? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

changes being undone without discussion

Hi, I wonder if you guys can advise me on a problem I’m having. Another editor keeps undoing changes I’m trying to make to an article (American Council for Capital Formation), and I can’t get her to discuss her rationale on the talk page or in edit summaries.

The big point of contention is that newspapers generally describe the group as “free-market” or “pro-business”, but she wants it to be called “conservative”, for which she gives no source. To support her case, she’s even deleting reliable sources like the Washington Post from the article that say “free-market”. (“Free-market” is a subset of both conservative and libertarian thought, but they’re not really interchangeable terms.) I’ve tried several times to reach out to this editor with friendly posts on the article talk page, but she won’t discuss there or even leave an edit summary explaining her actions.

A second concern is that she wants to keep some negative, unsourced information about a living person, without responding to requests for a source… does this fall under the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy?

How do you proceed in a case like this? If she never discusses or provides sources, do we just keep changing it back and forth each day until one of us is exhausted? If I’m doing this wrong, please just let me know. I’d be very glad for someone else to take a look and let me know if I’m just being crazy about this. In the meantime, I’ll try to find something else to edit for a bit. Thanks, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, EllenMcGill, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am looking into the article. Discussing on the talk page as you have done is good. So is reaching out to other editors. If needed, there is dispute resolution. Be careful [NOT] to to engage in edit-warring even if another editor does so. If it goes that far, there is the edit war notice board. DES ^(talk) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I presume that DESiegel means "Be careful not to engage in edit-warring" above, EllenMcGill. That's good advice. You are taking the correct approach by attempting to discuss matters on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, that is what I meant. Sorry for the typo, EllenMcGill. I have added it in brackets to show that it is an addition, above. Thaks for the correction and the ping, Cordless Larry. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry and DESiegel both. The editor did overturn my edits on the page one more time but then seems to have changed her mind and overturned herself. So hopefully things are resolved there. I really appreciate your taking the time to look in and leave advice. Best, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I submitted my article, Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, for speedy deletion yesterday. It meets all of the criteria for speedy deletion but it still hasn't been deleted. How long does it usually take for an article to get deleted? Ottaway (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wecome to the Teahouse. The current article Stevens Worldwide Van Lines was created only half an hour or so ago, and is not, and never has been, tagged for speedy deletion. An earlier version was speedily deleted on 25 June 2008. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Ottaway is referring to Draft:Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, which has now been deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, however. Below, an IP editor stated that they had created the draft using the Ottaway account by mistake, but now Stevens Worldwide Van Lines has been created with the same account. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, that was a misunderstanding on my part. Ottaway was, in fact, the correct username, but I didn't realize this until after I requested the speedy deletion. Therefore, I just went ahead and re-submitted the article. Ottaway (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It had been a couple of years since I submitted an article so that was just a mistake on my part. It should hopefully be all taken care of now. Ottaway (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than submitting the new version as a draft for review, Ottaway, you have directly created an article. My concern is that it doesn't presently meet the requirements for an article, and might be subject to deletion if it isn't fixed. The article needs to be more neutrally worded and to make use of more third-party sources. In future, I suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am working now to make it more neutrally worded. I included a fair number of external sources however, and cited all of the information that I included in the article, so I am a little confused as to why I would need more. Ottaway (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of those sources, such as this one, appear to be entries in business listings, which aren't truly independent of the subject. What you need to demonstrate is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Newspaper coverage is a good place to start. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Essays

I have seen in talk page discussions after content dispute and in other discussions; one editor will link an essay. Another will reply back "It's an essay, essays are not policies". Both editors seem right at the same time. It's not clear which side to support. Greek Legend (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Greek Legend. An essay does not have the mandatory force of a policy, nor even the strong suggestion o a guideline. But its arguments may be persuasive. Or not. Some essays, such as WP:BRD, are accorded so much respect that they might as well be guidelines. Others, not so much. Citing an essay is a way to make the same arguments that the essay makes, without retyping them. DES ^(talk) 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Grand Canyon article biased?

Asked and answered - further "debate" amounts to trolling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are two views on how the grand canyon was created: Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism. Uniformitarianism scientists believe that the grand canyon was formed over billions of years by the river that flows through the canyon today. Catastrophism scientists believe that the worldwide flood (which is chronicled in the Bible) formed the flood as a result of erosion and changing flood waters. I am wondering why only the Uniformitarianism view is stated in the grand canyon article when both sides have the same amount of evidence.Faith * Lilac (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah but they don't. The preponderance of the scientific evidence supports the former. Please see WP:RS for what we consider to be reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ukexpat,

I noticed that you responded to my question by saying that the Bible was not a reliable source. Will you please clarify why? I have examined studies that put the bible to the bibliographic test, the external test, and the internal test to determine whether if was a valid history source. The Bible passed all three with flying colors, and was shown to be the most accurate historical book of its time. Faith * Lilac (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Faith Lilac, a reliable source here on Wikipedia is always considered in terms of what kind of facts it is being relied on to support. The christian Bible might be considered reliable for some historical statements. It is not, however, reliable on questions of scientific fact, which none of its authors was in a position to observe or record.

There have been and to some extent still are legitimate disputes in geology about Catastrophism vs Uniformitarianism. But those favoring Catastrophism are not, in general, favoring Biblical Literalism, but rather stressing the effects of comparatively sudden causes such as earthquakes. To the best of my knowledge, no respectable geologist currently advocates for a Noachian flood as a major cause of any current geological features. If you want an article to say otherwise, you would need to prove multiple high-quality sources for this position. DES ^(talk) 15:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering my question about the Bible's historical legitimacy! One more question: Why is only the Uniformitarian view expressed in the grand canyon page? I did not see any mention of how the grand canyon might have formed according to the Catastrophist view. Thank you for being so patient with my inquisitive self!Faith * Lilac (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that question has been answered, Faith Lilac. In short, it's because there aren't reliable sources supporting it. If you disagree, please do provide details of potential sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here are some scientists that believe in the Bible: Dr. Jay L. Wile, author of several science books, Brooke Ryan, also an author, and Max Planck,best know for the quantum theory. If you need more, please tell me. Faith * Lilac (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that there aren't Christian scientists. What you need to demonstrate is that there are reliable sources providing a catastrophistic (if that's the right term) account of the formation of the Grand Canyon. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

NO BADGE

Hello I am in teahouse from four days and I have introduced myself as well but I am not getting any badge till now why?Nepali keto62 (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nepali keto62 What "badge" do you want and why? This is Wikipedia, not cub-scouts or a badge collecting club. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)