Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 602

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 595

←

Archive 600

Having Trouble Posting a New Article

Hi! Sorry, it seems like there are a lot of questions on here about posting new articles, but I can't quite seem to figure out what's going on. I wrote a new biographical article about a mathematician here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kathryn_Hess But now I cannot seem to find any way (either by editing the title, or hitting some kind of "Submit for Review" button) to actually turn it into a real article.

It's certainly not perfect, but is it not suitable to be posted? I seem to be receiving an "alert" about needing more citations, though there are a number of citations on that page already. Is the article not suitable? I plan to add to it in the future.

Thanks for any help with this! Jonathanbeardsley (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jonathanbeardsley. I fixed it up a bit and will move it into article space. It's not the total number of references that matter, it is those that are about her, not by her. So her papers don't really count. However as a fellow of a society there is no question that she is a notable mathematician. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jonathanbeardsley. Regarding academic papers, please read our notability guideline for academics. The number of papers an academic has published is not really significant on Wikipedia. What matters far more is how many times their academic papers are cited by other researchers in peer reviewed scientific journals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi cullen328, this mathematician has been cited a lot but how does one incorporate that into the article? I don't want to list all the papers that have cited her. It'd be quite a long list.Jonathanbeardsley (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Jonathanbeardsley, it is not necessary to include the frequency of citations in the article itself, although it can certainly be mentioned on the article's talk page. Rather, the citation rate would be a strong defense if anyone nominated the article for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Identifying Sockpuppets without the corresponding account

I try my best to identify Sockpuppets from among users. Looking at the contributions of some users, the way they exhibit proficiency over many Wiki policies and tools right from their initial contributions indicate that they could be sockpuppets. However I am unable to find out which account they used to use based on their contributions, and therefore cannot take the case to SPI. Is there some way I can find out their former accounts. Or can I start the SPI with just the new account as I have seen Checkuser find sockpuppets from accounts besides the ones I suggested in earlier case. Jupitus Smart 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can answer that question directly, but I can give you a couple of tips on finding sockpuppets. Just the fact that a newbie knows policy and tools right away doesn't necessarily indicate a sock. Some users edit off an IP address for years or months before making an account. However, one way you can tell a sock is to look at the history of an article and check users with very similar contributions. Socks tend to edit the same kind of article and they tend to also be POV pushers or copyright violators or something else against policy. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jupitus Smart. You need to be very careful about accusing people of being sockpuppets unless you have convincing evidence. Perhaps the editor has abandoned an old account for a good reason, and is making a Clean start, which is entirely legitimate. Perhaps they have a lot of experience with other wikis. Some people do a lot of preparation before starting to edit. In my case, I spent a couple of months studying Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and procedures before I began editing eight years ago. I wanted to be sure that I was doing things right, but I made my fair share of mistakes, of course. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. After they are caught once or twice, Sockpuppets understand policies and stop editing the pages they were associated with earlier, making history matching tougher. I have a perfect record with my SPI sleuth work till now (3 cases) and, even though I managed to lock in on 1-2 people who I believe are newer versions of blocked accounts, I don't have exact evidence to point towards the same. And since some of them have been made within days of their original account being blocked, clean start is also ruled out. Anyway thanks for trying to answer my doubt. Jupitus Smart 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jupitus Smart. While sock puppetry is surely disruptive, using multiple accounts in an of itself is not automatically disruptive and is actually allowed under some circumstances as Cullen328 points out. Also, statements like I have a perfect record with my SPI sleuth work till now (3 cases) and, even though I managed to lock in on 1-2 people who I believe are newer versions of blocked accounts, I don't have exact evidence to point towards the same may actually make others question your motivation and mistake your comments for bragging. Personally, I view WP:SPI as simply one of the ways the community uses to prevent serious disruption of the encyclopedia; I do not see it as something to be won or lost. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My intention in mentioning my record was not for bragging but to show that I am not a trigger happy accuser, but frame my cases only after careful consideration. As for 'winning', the problem with SPI is that editors don't like to be accused of illegality and it leads to a lot of bad blood if I end up 'loosing'. I therefore personally believe that if I have any chance of 'loosing', its probably worth waiting for an even longer period so as to be absolutely sure that I have got the correct connections. Anyway I will probably wait for a little more while, before I am absolutely sure about going for the SPI. Thanks for replying Marchjuly.Jupitus Smart 05:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Rating our own articles

Is it correct for an editor to rate her own article creations in the talk page and assign it as an A/B/Start Class Article with an arbitrary importance.Jupitus Smart 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jupitus Smart. I believe the information you're looking for can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. Personally, I think it's better for someone other than the article creator to do the assessing although there's no real harm involved because such assessments are unofficial and articles can be re-assessed by any editor who feels differently. If you have created an article and want it to be assessed, check out the WikiProject pages whose scope the article falls under since they often have instructions on what to do in such cases. WP:FA and WP:GA, on the other hand, are much more formal evaluations which need to be done according to proper procedures. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jupitus Smart 05:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a biography

Hi There

I am keen to understand how a biography can be created - please could you give me some information?

Thanks in advance

Chrid  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian McBride (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Christian McBride, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest having a read of Wikipedia:Your first article and, to gauge whether the person you want to write about is notable according to Wikipedia's criteria, Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you tell us who the person is, we will be able to provide advice on the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello from rmeriales

Hello and Greetings, just signee up to the wilkipedia for me to start submitting bio information for Rolando Meriales de Leon. Unfortunately I am stocked for confirming the posted page. Reciving notice for the like of deletion of the page, this make me worry of failing the process. regards, rmeriales
--Preceding note added Rmeriales (talk | contribs), 12:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC+9)(and the sig added CiaPan (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC))

The problem with the article was that it was not written with a neutral point of view, and as such it read more like an advert (please click on the links to read the policies on those topics and on help on how to adhere to them).

One other thing I need to check - are you Rolando Meriales? If so, then you should never write about yourself for reason of Conflict of Interest, and besides, having an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. If you are not Rolando, then your username is unfortunately going against the username policy and will need to be changed (see How to change your username). Stephen! ^Coming... 06:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

pendro

hello i am just trying to make article about my village but you already threatening to delete my article! why?(Pendro 07:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoshhat (talk • contribs) Article is Pendro --ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Khoshhat, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed the Proposed deletion, as you have now added some text and some references. Please read Referencing for beginners to see how to present references better. I think that Robert McClenon was rather precipitate in proposing deletion eight minutes after you created the article; but in future, if you use the article wizard you can create drafts in Draft space, where they will not usually be subject to such rapid reactions: please have a look at WP:your first article. And please sign your contributions to to talk pages and to project pages such as this one, with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Speedily Deleted

Hello all, My page " Softcom Limited" was speedily deleted on the Wikipedia website. I will like to get it up. I read all the policies and I don't know clearly why it was deleted. I will like to know why the page was deleted and I will like to fix the issuesKayleby (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kayleby. This was deleted because it was found not to indicate the importance or significance of the subject by its content. Whether I agree with that or not, it very much was written like a blatant commercial, which is the other reason for deletion. The respective speedy deletion bases it was deleted under are CSD A7 and CSD G11. However, there was a bigger problem than either of those reasons which was not caught, which was that it was a blatant copyright violation of softcom.ng/about. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted content here again. Since an article attempt like this is just about always the efforts of an insider, please comply with our mandatory disclosure requirements for paid editing before editing further. I will leave a template on your talk page about this. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So what can I do next to make it better--to salvage the situaton? Should I write a fresh wiki article? Edit this one--it has been deleted already. Or, should I do paid writing? And how do I get about that?Kayleby (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Kayleby. If your article has already been deleted I suggest that you create a draft before fully publishing into the article namespace. This will allow you to freely work on your article without having to worry about it getting deleted. You can also check out articles for creation where you can receive assistance from more experienced editors. I wish you the best of luck! eurodyne (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it. I am not in any way been compensated for this article, though. I didn't immerse myself much in the guidelines like using the right words in conveying the subject matter e.g neutrality of point of view. Also, I was looking for a "save to continue" button but couldn't find so I had to publish, not forgetting that I didn't take time time to proper;y piece the words together.I will be grateful if I got another chance at fixing this. What do i do next? Should I rewrite the article, submit it under the "articles for creation" section? I will love to get it off the ground soon. Thanks Kayleby (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Cannot log in

Hi I did an edit on the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannesburg&action=history

I am recorded as Sologalaxy. I have also created a user page.

When I try to log in now it says "There is no user by the name Sologalaxy"

What do I do?

Sologalaxy (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sologalaxy: You appear to be logged in fine! Did you have the capitalisation correct? Sologalaxy would not be the same user as SoloGalaxy, for example. Sam Walton (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sologalaxy shows you were logged in here when you posted the question. Did you get the message here at https://en.wikipedia.org or somewhere else? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Chemical Composition and data sheets on 17P4 metal

In need of suppliers / manufacturers of metal 17P4. I think it is part of the stainless steel group of metals (165.145.234.48 (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.. --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

reliable source

I am sdittman and appreciated the challenge from Contributor 321 to the veracity of an edit. Would a newspaper article related to the recent edit on Washington and Lee (regarding Light Horse Harry Lee) be considered a reliable source, despite its ambiguous language? http://articles.dailypress.com/1996-03-03/news/9603010128_1_revolutionary-war-washington-and-lee-university-hampden-sydney-college

sdittman (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi sdittman. It looks to me like a reliable source, but not one that verifies the reverted edit—which you essentially acknowledge by characterizing it as containing "ambiguous language" in relation to the edit. I agree. It does not verify that Washington sent the gift at Light-Horse Harry's urging. Sources need to directly verify the information they are placed to corroborate (the burden of providing a reliable source [using an inline citation] is on the person wishing to add content that has been challenged by anyone). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

New to Wiki

Hi all,

I am new to working on Wiki and while I have done my research, I am interested to know from experienced contributors what is the best way to start building my reputation as an editor on here?

Many thanks StephSayItWrite (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks so much for your help :)StephSayItWrite (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey StephSayItWrite. I would say it's a real mix of do and don'ts. Please familiarize yourself with our core inclusion and editing policies and guidelines, which I would summarize as verifiability; neutral point of view; no original research; what Wikipedia is not; and notability. Seeing that use of sources is the lifeblood of Wikipedia and at the heart of all of the pages I just mentioned (but for one), familiarize yourself with how to cite sources and what constitute reliable sources. From now on and forever, add nothing to any article ever unless you are citing a reliable source that verifies your edit. Never edit war. If you are reverted, or disagree with someone, discuss it while doing your best to remain civil (be aware of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Help out with the administration back end of matters. There are many places to get involved, from helping with finding and reverting vandalism, warning vandals, reported them for blocks; to performing new pages patrol; helping out with requested moves, finding and reverting copyright violations, and many others. You might start with some of the tasks listed at the Wikipedia:Community portal. Also, I would suggest that one way to build your reputation here is to never call Wikipedia wiki;-) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with Location map

Dear community, I would like to make the maps look like the Quebec City map, just for the Tanta and Alexandria region, for the 2017 Palm Sunday church bombings article. But now I have some trouble.

A) There are two regions that should be covered B) It's like there are no maps for those regions

Anyone who can help me here? I think I might use some OpenStreetMap, where I don't know how to change the name to English street names. And I don't know how to create the templates for the maps and how to include it into the article?--Rævhuld (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rævhuld. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. You will find the tools and the resources you need there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography of a deceased person

I was trying to create an article for a personality who served his people and area for decades.His services might not be visible on internet, but few references for his struggle and news about his services are available too.I have tried thrice to submit my initial article with few paragraphs, but unfortunately it was rejected. Thanks to advise me accordingly,

B/R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaqhk (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ashfaqhk. If several sources exist, then you should cite them in Draft:Shehbaz Khan - consulting Help:Referencing for beginners if necessary. This will help demonstrate that the subject of the article meets our golden rule of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You also created Justice Shehbaz Khan, which I have nominated for deletion. I suggest concentrating your efforts on improving and sourcing the draft version. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ashfaqhk, I might also point out that the phrase, "Autobiography of a deceased person" is an oxymoron. John from Idegon (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing an existing article

How can I shorten/edit a biography that is already in Wikipedia?2601:183:4202:E792:2577:E7B4:D835:2135 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You can edit a Wikipedia article by clicking the "edit" button and making useful improvements to the article in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Why do you want to "shorten" a biography? In general, improvements to articles result in longer articles, not shorter ones. Of course, there are many valid reasons to remove content from a biography, including removing false content, content for which no reference can be found, and excessive trivial detail.

Some articles are protected from edits by unregistered editors such as you, and brand new accounts. Some are protected so that only administrators can edit. This is based on a pattern of vandalism or other forms of disruption. In such cases, you can leave a message on the article's talk page requesting an edit. You may want to consider registering an account, which offers many benefits and no negatives that I am aware of. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Can only edit source

Why can I only "edit source" but not normally?

SixMillionStrong (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SixMillionStrong. There are two fundamental ways to edit. The original way is through editing the wikicode, which is my preferred way to edit, even though I am not a computer programmer. Somehow, I had no trouble learning this method, which I find quite intuitive. The newer way is an attempt at "what you see is what you get" editing. For more information about using that technique, please see Wikipedia:VisualEditor. Although I hope that this effort is successful, it is my understanding that most highly active editors still use the old system. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I need to find out about a company at spring field Oregon

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I request you to let me know about a company called great constructions at Spring field, OR37466.122.174.28.5 (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a forum for answering questions about how to edit Wikipedia. General knowledge questions can be asked at WP:Reference desk. I'm wondering tho....Oregon's zipcodes all begin with 9. 97466 is in Oregon, but nowhere near Springfield. John from Idegon (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

draft reads like advertisement, help with correction please

Hi teahouse,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Save_Cambodia%E2%80%98s_Wildlife

Can you tell me, if any, which sections are ok and which ones i have to rewrite/delete in order to get the article approved? THANKS for your help! AndreaAnRoCa (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

AnRoCa: a Wikipedia article should provide facts, rather than mention hopes and aspirations. The draft Save Cambodia's Wildlife contains the phrases "aims at", "focuses on", "mission". If I were given the task of making it into an acceptable article, I would start by deleting every sentence containing any such phrase. Readers will want to know what it has actually achieved, as described by independent sources. Maproom (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maproom, thank you! Great help !!!! :-)AnRoCa (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you also, Colin Fine!! AnRoCa (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

ADDING AN IMAGE TO MY PAGE

Hi, can anyone tell me how can I add an image on my personal Wikipedia page?221.120.215.236 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, do not write in all caps. That is widely perceived as shouting on the internet and is hence considered rather rude. Second, no one has a personal page on Wikipedia. Registered editors (and you are posting anonymously, so either you are not registered, or not logged in) have user pages, where you can tell us something about your interests on Wikipedia. Notable people may have an article on Wikipedia, but in no sense is it the personal page of the subject of the article. So what is it you are asking? John from Idegon (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page bharat ke veer

I want to know why the wikipedia page bharat ke veer is deleted and want suggestion how to write a article aabout bharatkeveer web portal by indian government for the soldiersKaushikone (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kaushikone. The deletion of the article Bharat Ke Veer, and of your user page, is explained on your user talk page User talk:Kaushikone. Wikipedia may not be used for advertising or promotion (it makes no difference whether the subject is commercial or not). If you want to create an article about Bharat Ke Veer, please start by studying your first article, and understand that a Wikipedia article should be mostly based on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it: what the organisation says or wishes to say about itself is of almost not relevance. I don't know whether you are connected with Bharat Ke Veer, but if you are, you also need to understand our policy on conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Beginner...How do i get my article published?

I've written an article, how do I go about getting it approved? I'm a total novice. Many thanks Kirstin Stansfield (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've added a template to give you a "Submit" button for you to use when you wish to submit the draft for review. I've also added to your user talk page a number of useful links, including to WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

[Ticket#2017041110007979] Requesting to solve the errors

Hi,

I have created a company page for Heycare. And then I did a request e-mail to make it live. But I got an email having an issue that my page is moved in draft.

Draft url : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Heycare.

So, i need to know about how can i move out Heycare from draft to live url.

e.g. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heycare

Looking forward to hear from you!

Best Regards!

Deepak (Team Heycare) S gupta (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

S gupta: if Draft:Heycare were made "live" in its current state, it would probably soon be deleted, as it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for an article. Most seriously, it cites no independent references, and so fails to establish that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Deepak. Your draft has been moved to Draft space in order to save it from deletion, and give somebody a chance to turn it into a Wikipedia article. It may help you if you understand that Wikipedia does not contain "company pages" or "pages for anybody or anything". It contains articles about many notable subjects, including companies. An article about a company does not belong to that company, does not say what that company wants said about it, may not be used in any way for advertising or promotion, and should not be directly worked on by anybody connected with that company. An article should be based almost entirely on material published in reliable places by people who have no connection with the subject: the very first activity in the difficult task of creating an article should be to identify such reliable independent sources, because if they cannot be found, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article: the Wikipedia jargon for such a case is that the subject is not notable. Please read and study your first article. and since you identify yourself as part of "Team Heycare", you should also read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest, and the mandatory requirement to make a declaration if you are in any way paid to edit. --ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Will my reviewer see the improved article?

My reviewer rejected my article. I buffed it up with a lot more sources and resubmitted. Should I let the original reviewer know, or is it back in the queue as though it is a brand new article? Should I just wait or should I be checking up on it? CharOster (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CharOster, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's back in the queue and it might not be the same reviewer who'll review it. In the meantime, you can improve the article. Did you know, for example, that external links should not be used the way you do? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't add a photo

I guys,

sorry to bother with stupid question, but how do i gather the rights to upload a photo? Thanks!

HemThoreau (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear HemThoreau

You can find information here

Best regards

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi HemThoreau. I wrote a fairly elaborate response to another user, lower on this page, which you might find helpful on this. So, in the interests of not reinventing the wheel, please see How to put a photo onto a Wikepedia page without running into copyright issues. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I permalinked the answer, in case the thread gets archived. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I update my husband's Wikipedia entry?

Hello,

My husband has a Wikipedia entry. Whoever wrote it, wrote he was married to somebody else, which he was, a long time ago.

I'm not particularly jealous, but I thought I should get the record straight, so to rectify the inaccuracy, I added my name and deleted the ex's.

A few minutes later, a message from a bot said I "shouldn't be writing my autobiography".

Question: is updating on Wikipedia my husband's clever decision to marry me a sin in wiki terms? Am I writing my autobiography? Really? 2A00:23C5:9C03:1E00:3DC5:4FC8:870A:86DC (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Your question here is the only edit you have made with your current IP (unless you usually edit using an account, in which case your IP is hidden and your edits would have been recorded against that account) and you haven't specified the article, so it's hard for us to give specific advice. However, in general I would suggest following the advice at Wikipedia:Edit requests to post a requested change on the talk page of the article, giving a source for any material that you want to be added. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

For a bit of background on Cordless Larry's suggestion, please see WP:AUTOPROB. --08:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry's answer in a shorter and blunter format: that is the kind of edit you are allowed to do yourself even if you have a conflict of interest, but tell us which article it was and which correction should be made, since we cannot guess it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Helllo

I am still new and some how I am confuse with Wikipedia edition. If may I edit in articles and pages what will be the juridical issue or legal foundation of information we get from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bond Shift (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Bond Shift. If you mean what are the legal responsibilities of Wikipedia concerning content in Wikipedia articles, see the General disclaimer and other disclaimers.

If you mean what kind of legal considerations editors should think about when contributing, we take copyright infringement and defamation particularly seriously. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Bond Shift. I'm not really sure what you are asking but it seems it might be about what you need to do to comply with copyright when re-using Wikipedia content. One thing that's important to understand is that some of the content we host here is not ours, and is used here under a claim of fair use. This applies to some of the images you see here, and almost all content in articles that are quotations, between quote marks ("..."). When that is the case, we do not own the content at all, so you must comply with the copyright of the original.

Outside of such fair use material, most of our content is dually-released under two free copyright licenses: The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License. The text is a bit hard to parse, but the oversimplification is that when you use such content elsewhere, you must provide attribution/credit to the owners of the copyright, who are the editors here who wrote it. This is done by providing a hyperlink to the page history where all the contributions can be viewed, or to the page itself where the page history is accessible, or by providing a list of all of the authors (which would rarely be efficient). You must also state the license of the content and provide a hyperlink to it, or provide the text of the license itself (so doing the former is usually much easier). Also, if you make changes, you must indicate that. There is an (also oversimplified write-up) at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Typo on a Help page

Long time browser, freshman editor here. From what I've gathered, I lack the permissions to edit pages (including talk pages) in the Help namespace, which has made it difficult to fix a typo I found on Help:Using talk pages. I did my homework and found out about the requirements for autoconfirmed status, but I worry I'll have forgotten this minor correction in four days time. The error is located under the 'Basic' section, in an example showing how to indent one's replies:

"The reply to the first posting is intended one level."

While the Teahouse perhaps isn't the ideal place for this, I'm not sure where it belongs. I figure it's better to pass it on to folks with the proper permissions instead of waiting until I can do it myself and likely forgetting. Apologies for any markup errors and/or general buffoonery. Thanks.

Ibeforehe (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for pointing out the error, which I have now corrected. The place where you could have raised it was Help talk:Using talk pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually tried that, but it appears the talk page is protected as well, leaving me stumped on how to even suggest the correction. Thank you for your help!

Ibeforehe (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that David Biddulph overlooked the fact that that talk page is semi-protected, Ibeforehe. The good news is that you'll be able to edit semi-protected pages yourself once your account is autoconfirmed, which will happen when your account is more than four days old and you have used it to make at least 10 edits. Thanks again for bringing this error to our attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I copy my own text from one Wikipedia article to another?

I want to add a few paragraphs to a country's Wikipedia article. That country also has a separate article about its history. Is it ok for me to copy my paragraphs from the country's article and paste them into the country's history article? Or, is copying not allowed even if the material you are copying is your own text? Lupine453 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lupine453. You are allowed to copy any text from Wikipedia, even if not your own and even to outside Wikipedia, as long as you provide attribution. For details in the specific case of in-WP copying, see Wikipedia:COPYWITHIN. Actually, you don't need to attribute yourself (since you did not transfer your copyrights to Wikipedia when publishing it the first time around (you merely granted a CC-BY-SA license), you can re-publish the same thing at place A and place B without having to credit place A for the text at place B).

However, if the text is more than a sentence, I would check whether duplicating content is a good solution. Maybe it is the sign that the articles should be reorganized with internal linking from one to another, and making sure the articles' scope do not overlap too much. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tigraan Lupine453 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think in this situation would be appropriate to include a summary rather than the whole text with multiple paragraphs. Best, Lingveno (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are "good hand" accounts blocked?

I have read a lot on this website about sock puppetry, and one part of sock puppetry that I've never understood is good hand / bad hand accounts. I understand why the bad hand accounts are blocked, but why are good hand accounts blocked? I am not supporting sock puppetry in any sort of way, but I have never understood why the good hand accounts are blocked. They don't seem to cause issues. I just wanted to ask this, simply because it's been on my mind recently. Thank you. RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Because the "good hand" account has used a sock to edit disruptively, which is against the rules. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. -- RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2017

Can I ask whether you are signing your posts using four tildes (~~~~), RockMusicFan 2002? The fact that your second post is missing the "UTC" and that the time is wrong on both makes me wonder if you are signing manually. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am signing on my computer. Right now, where I live, it is 15:50 (as of writing this). And I don't know why it forgot UTC. Moreover, are you mad at me all? Because I don't see anything that would warrant it. RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would we be mad at you? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not mad at you, RockMusicFan 2002; I'm just trying to work out what's up with your signature. It might be 15:50 local time, but it's not 15:50 UTC. Moreover, if your signature is working correctly, you should have to manually add brackets like this. Are you generating the signature by typing four tildes? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I am. I am typing four tildes. RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, RockMusicFan 2002, can I suggest that you check the time offset in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No offense dude, but it doesn't really matter what time zone I'm in. RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think it does matter, RockMusicFan 2002. When your talk page posts have the wrong time on them, it's going to get hard for users to follow the thread of any complicated discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

For example, here, it looks like you issued a user a final warning before they received their first warning, due to the incorrect timestamp. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Becoming an Administrator.

Hi! I would like to become a Moderator. I have read all articles that I have needed too. I love helping people and I dislike it when people break rules. I think that I would be a good candidate. Can someone help me to become nominated to become a possible Moderator please? Thank you! ArticleInspector2000 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ArticleInspector2000 and welcome to the Teahouse. Although you say that you've done your homework, you obviously have not read WP:RFAADVICE, which is considered essential reading for would-be admins. Your account is just 4 days old and you have 17 edits, well short of what the guideline notes: "Successful candidates will almost always have edited Wikipedia for at least one year, will have thousands of edits in various 'maintenance' areas of the project, and will have made measurable contributions to articles." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi ArticleInspector2000. Welcome! Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I'd like to expand a little bit on the good advice that Finnusertop gave you. Wikipedia doesn't have moderators per se. We have different user access levels (sometimes called permissions) that are granted based on demonstrated need. The most well-known of these levels is called administrator ("admin" for short). Administrators have various tools to help keep Wikipedia running smoothly. They are trusted, longtime users who have proven over many edits and a considerable time period that they will use their tools competently and impartially.

My suggestion to you is this: go and edit more articles. Fix misspellings, improve grammar, and make the prose clearer and more readable. When you've been doing that for a few hundred edits or so, you'll have developed a sizable watchlist and be able to keep a close eye on articles you've edited and grown to know well. Then, if you still want to help people and make sure rules are enforced you might want to start keeping an eye on recent changes. This is a rolling list of every edit made, and in it there are lots of examples of vandalism and other unconstructive edits that should be reverted. On that list, you'll also find (with a little effort) plenty of new users who are confused and would benefit from your newfound knowledge. But recent changes can be very hard to interpret at first, so I'd definitely recommend you get a lot more general editing experience under your belt first. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 18:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Finnusertop|talk,

I have been on Wikipedia for more then a year. I joined last year and then had to get a new account as I lost my password to it. I also lost the email too that account so I could not reset it. I just wanted to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticleInspector2000 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ArticleInspector2000. Can I suggest that you contribute to the encyclopedia regularly for another year or so to gain experience, and learn how to do the basics such as signing your talk page posts, and then consider whether you are in a position to run to be an administrator? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If your previous account was Articleinspector I see that you edited for 20 minutes in October last, and made 8 edits. A number of things that you failed to learn during that time included:

how to make a wikilink
the need for material to be sourced
the need to sign contributions to discussion pages such as this
the fact that we don't have "moderators" but "administrators"
How not to break the syntax of a template

Please keep learning. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticleInspector2000 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the advice. And I was wondering instead of trying to become an Admin, how can I apply for the User Access Level, Pending changes reviewer. And How do I apply for it? Thank you! P.S, David Biddulph, Sorry about the "Moderator" Thing, I am another MOD on a couple other sites and Chats. I am/was an owner of a Chatbox before selling it to a good friend. I just got those mixed up with my other jobs. ;-D No, it is not an excuse either. ArticleInspector2000 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Before that you still need to learn some basic competencies, such as:

the need to sign contributions to discussion pages such as this (particularly when you have already been reminded twice)
the format for section headings (capitalisation rules)
how to search Wikipedia and where to look for Wikipedia processes such as pending changes review

You've got a lot of learning to do before thinking about enhanced user rights. First of all you need to learn how to improve the encyclopedia. Don't think of running before you can walk. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the advanced user rights are given only when one really needs them and not for an intention of collecting multiple hats. Please first read basic Wikipedia rules, try to write and expand other articles. Best, Lingveno (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

ArticleInspector2000, I have been on Wikipedia for nearly 12 years and made over 13000 edits. I am a regular on the help and reference desks, and often receive thanks (and occasionally awards) for my work. I have never even considered becoming an administrator, because I don't need those rights in order to contribute significantly to Wikipedia in my way. That doesn't mean, of course, that you should not go for an admin eventually: I am me and you are you. But you don't need to be an admin to earn respect - in fact, the reverse is true: you will only be given admin rights if you have already earned respect. --ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Grateful for input on notability references

I've had feedback from helpful editors on the live chat about the chances of the Green Star Media Ltd entry currently in draft here: User:Rugbyboy2/sandbox/Green Star Media Ltd being accepted. I've made disclosures about my links to the company on the user page and in the draft, what I really need is objective interpretation of what's considered significant independent sources for the information. Any takers? Thanks Rugbyboy2 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rugbyboy2, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, there is no "objective" interpretation of the coverage a topic needs in independent reliable sources. There is no number we can give you – say 10 or 20 sources – but the six you provide looks too little. More than the number of sources, it's the depth of coverage they provide: a multi-volume book series is obviously better than a passing mention in routine news coverage. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rugbyboy2. Finnusertop's reply may be a bit misleading, especially the the six you provide looks too little part. The general idea is that when it comes to notability, there is almost no tradeoff of quantity for quality: one good source trumps a thousand bad ones. Most people active in areas where these questions are asked consider that our policy mandates at least two different sources, but a nonnegligible minority would be OK with a single outstanding source. That is sort of an academic question anyways, because when you can find one outstanding source there are usually many other OK-ish ones. Sometimes, when there are many sources that all fall into the gray area, the sheer number can tip the scales, but that is rare.

As for what a "good" source is, it has to be at the same time (1) reliable, i.e. its writer/publisher has a reputation for fact-checking at least in the domain for which it is used, (2) independent of the subject, i.e. its writer/publisher ~~has~~ does not have a conflict of interest with the subject (such as a family or work link), and (3) deal with the subject in detail, i.e. more than a short sentence. The latter point is usually the most subjective to evaluate. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Finnusertop and Tigraan, your responses are both helpful and intriguing. I understand that quality trumps quantity, and it is handy to know that. The question of how quality is objectively judged for the purposes of assessing notability is the intrigue. My draft entry contains independent sources and the main "quality" source is a trade publishing website/magazine that has covered developments at Green Star Media Ltd over several years. Given that we are a specialist publisher, and we would not be covered in the mainstream media, would there be a better quality source than an established publishing trade magazine? If not the reality must be that the definition of notability in fact is popularity. Surely that can't be right? Rugbyboy2 (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Niche sources are fine; for instance, academic newspapers such as Classical and Quantum Gravity are certainly not well-known let alone read by the general population, but they are still the best-quality sources one can get for the topic they cover. In your case, the source is inpublishing.co.uk; the only real issue concerning [1] is my point (1), whether it is or not a reliable source, which I could not check from a quick search (I tend to think it is, FWIW). You could ask at the reliable source noticeboard where folks check such things routinely. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tigraan, that's very helpful. Unfortunately InPublishing doesn't appear in the search as a reliable source, but I will add a request. The submitted text has been declined again as the reviewer said the coverage is "only announcements and notices" which puzzles me, as the role of InPublishing in covering the publishing industry would be to report these things. Rugbyboy2 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

So in the case of the profile of Green Star Media Ltd, the judgement of editors now seems to have moved on from "use reliable independent sources" to "ensure the content is of a certain quality as well" which is obviously subjective. Rugbyboy2 (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Pavel tashev, EasyMail

Hi there, I have just created an article which simply described a software solution called EasyMail. This is the URL: [[2]]. The page described - what features offers this software products, what is its history and what technologies are used. BUT I received an email saying that the article will be deleted. Why is that? Please give me further explanation because I need to know what is wrong with my article. I have seen many articles like this one which follow the same architecture and type of content and I didn't know that I do something wrong.

There are two main source which can be used as a proof of my words. The first one is the website of the project which is [[3]]. Another source which is even more reliable is the GitHub repository [[4]]. On the website is described what the product offers and also in the GitHub repository can be seen everything which is developed since 2015. The project has three contributors and 35 different people are following it. Also, the project has been presented to Mailjet during this event here [[5]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel.tashev (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pavel.tashev The reasons that the article has been nominated for deletion are explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyMail, where the article will be discussed and a decision reached. Wikipedia's notability requirements mean that we can only accept articles about subjects that have been covered in multiple, independent sources such as newspapers, academic journals or books. You may well have seen existing articles about subjects that do not meet this requirement, which have slipped through the net. If you tell us about these, I can check them and nominate them for deletion if appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for review of new article

Hi. I'm not really a new editor, but I do have a small doubt. I created the article Defending Jacob about a week back and it hasn't been reviewed yet. Is there some place I could request a reviewer to look through it? Thanks. GinaJay (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. These days the new page patrol process is limited to those with a special user right. You will see from Special:NewPagesFeed that there are about nineteen thousand pages awaiting patrol (including yours), and that the backlog is about five months. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I will add to my previous reply that Category:Unreviewed new articles has about 700 articles, and the oldest in that backlog is from March 2016. As it is stated that "Reviewing an article follows the same basic principles laid out in Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Patrolling new pages", it isn't entirely clear to me why the review process (optional) exists alongside the (compulsory) new page patrol process. Perhaps one of the experts can explain? --David Biddulph (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What's the next step for publising?

Hello. Hope you can help me. My article was reviewed by 2 persons of Wikipedia, first, it was rejected but they helped me a lot to make it neutral and understandable. They also asked me for the references and media about the idea, and I shared all of that... it went very good so they said it should be enough.

Then, the final person helping me told me he's busy now, so we couldn't finish the process to finally publish the article.

This is the draft we are working on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Camelpower

I just want to know what to do now... I followed all your valuable advice and I think we are in a good spot, but I don't know what's the next step...

Thanks.

Camelpower (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)CamelpowerCamelpower (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Camelpower: as it stands, Draft:Camelpower cites only one reference. Also, it does not make it clear what "camelpower" means. It says "CamelPower is calculated by multiplying the velocity by the projection of the weight over the same trajectory." Same trajectory as what? And why "projection"? Is something being thrown, or is this word used in its geometrical sense? Maproom (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, we were working on the definition. The engineering team clarifies it. Can you have a look, please? Best regards,

Camelpower (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)  Camelpower  Camelpower (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You've added a reference to another Wikipedia article as a source, but that's not allowed. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, due to the possibility of circular referencing and mistakes spreading across the encyclopedia. Also, when you write "we", could you confirm whether your user account is being operated by a team of people? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You should also consult Help:Referencing for beginners and ensure that all of the key points in the article are referenced in the text, Camelpower. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok... I deleted that reference. And the answer is no, I am only one person managing the profile (is that so important? really?) Anyways, I said "we" because there is a complete team of engineers I had to consult to fix the article. I am really happy with all the support you have been giving to me, but honestly, sometimes the advice is "just go there and jump there" and there are no punctual recommendations. Please let me know. The only thing we want is to do it well! Thank you so much!

Camelpower (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Camelpower Camelpower (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought I should check, Camelpower, as account sharing is not allowed and I didn't want you to get blocked for doing so. I'm sorry if you feel that our recommendations have not been punctual. My reply to you above was made 11 minutes after you asked someone to have a look at the draft, which I don't think is too bad given that none of us are being paid to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request: Sternoclavicular Dislocation, aka Sternum Clavicle Dislocation

Brand New Contributor. I wanted to request an article on diagnostics, prognostic, and prevalence of, and surgical approaches to, and rehabilitation for dislocation of the Sternocleido articulation. Links to Rotator Cuff Tear, Sternum, Clavicle, could be included so the article is not orphaned. Also contribution to the article Clavical asks for more information, already. I wanted to only request the article, in that process I was directed to a number of pages about editing. Perhaps I can shed some light on this subject myself, after I see the doctor today and hopefully can get it my dislocation reduced to normal. Can I get help on how to properly request a new article, and the name of the article is not final, and I'd like some advice about editing of the Clavicle Article, and/ or starting a New Page? Ronald A. Neff D.D.S. (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Ronald A. Neff D.D.S.Ronald A. Neff D.D.S. (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ronald A. Neff D.D.S., and welcome to the Teahouse. A good way to request an article is to create a link wherever you see its name. For instance, in the article Sternoclavicular joint it says: "Sternoclavicular dislocation is rare". Simply create a wikilink there: "Sternoclavicular dislocation is rare"; and other places. Red links are not errors, they are in effect article requests. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You could also request an article via Wikipedia:Requested articles, Ronald A. Neff D.D.S., but a quick browse will show that there is a huge backlog there. Most editors create articles about things that interest them personally, so requests made by other people often fall on deaf ears. If you want to have a go at drafting the article yourself, based on what reliable, published sources say about the topic, you can do so via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Practice Sandbox

Hi there is there a place i can just practice with coding and editing before i make a page. my page has been deleted twice now by speedy deletions.

JoshBMarshalls (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JoshBMarshalls, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there are several resources. For just trying out bits of editing and wikimarkup, there is the communal Sandbox, which anybody can edit, and which gets cleared regularly. For anything you want to keep, you can have individual sandboxes, as many of them as you like. They are called User:JoshBMarshalls/Anything you like (that link is red, because the page doesn't currently exist, but you could create it). The one called User:JoshBMarshalls/Sandbox is special in that you automatically have a link to it at the top of every page, but you can use whatever names you like. Anybody can see, and in fact edit, your sandboxes, but the convention is that nobody will touch them unless you invite them to, or unless you do something naughty like putting copyright violations, personal attacks, or blatant advertising in there.

If you want to try your hand at the difficult task of creating a new article, you can do so in a sandbox, but the preferred way now is to create your draft in Draft space. Please read your first article which will explain this. --ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, we had User:JoshBMarshalls/sandbox which has been deleted twice, G11 and U1. Perhaps something in draftspace might be a way forward. Lectonar (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)