Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Vandalism on individual with the wrong use of word "convicted"

Hi,

This inquiry is regarding the wiki article for a company named Eminata Group:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminata_Group

This article contains the following sentence. “Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran.” This sentence contains a defamatory term "convicted" which is not applicable given that it was a civil injunction. As you may know, in civil law, a judgment/injunction may be made against the defendant but it is different from a conviction which is applicable to criminal cases only. This is a dangerous entry as it harms the individual noted, and misinforms the layperson who may not know the difference between civil lawsuits and criminal charges. Similarly, when Mcdonald’s was sued for injuring Liebeck with hot coffee, the company (defendant) was ordered to pay $2.7 million to Liebeck. Now, this does not mean that the CEO of Mcdonald’s was convicted. (Liebeck v. Mcdonald's).

As you can see in the history page, I (Amvan2002) have tried to make edits on the page as the page is filled with outdated and misinformed entries. However, it has been difficult due to the Conflict of Interest policy as I am an employee of the company. A particular user, Ronz, has been reverting my changes without willing to collaborate to rectify the situation.

Below are the links of his “talk” page that shows my attempts to work with him with no success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Regarding_your_changes_on_the_Eminata_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Eminata_Group_page_edits

Despite my efforts, the only response I received was:

“The solution is to provide sources. I've tagged the article as possibly being out of date. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)”

Although this was frustrating, I tried to accommodate his request by obtaining a clear criminal record check from Mr. Peter Chung, but I found out that “California Penal Code section 11142 prohibits you from giving your copy of your criminal record to an unauthorized third party. In addition, California Penal Code section 11125 prohibits an individual or agency from requiring you to provide him/her or the agency with a copy of your criminal record or proof that a record does or does not exist. Violation of either of these sections is a misdemeanor offense.” (reference: https://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security_faq)

Lastly, you will note that this particular user (Ronz) has been a subject of other Wikipedia users’ complaint for his disruptive behavior. See link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard#User:Ronz

Thank youAmvan2002 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nude Photo?

Am I permitted to post a nude photo on Wikimedia commons? Another question: Isn't Indian National Congress a socially liberal political party? Senthoora poove (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Senthoora poove. Commons is not censored; so the requirements for a nude photo are the same as for any other photo, including free content and educational purpose. There are many nude photos on Commons.

Why do you ask about Indian National Congress? the article says several places the party's ideology is social liberalism (among other things). —teb728 t c 08:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

cropped img d n display

I cropped the img File:IConji-cropped.jpg and it doesn't display (though it is visible as a file history thumb). This has happened before when I've cropped images (using jpegcrop) but not always; don't know why the diff. Can s.o. advise? Thanks. — kwami (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbio (talk • contribs) 09:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Madbio (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC) "Thanks for the warm welcome".

Lionel Messi

Why does it state Lionel Messi has won the champions league four times when he has only won it three times?

In 2006 he wasn't in the squad for the final so couldn't have received a winners medal?

Same applies to Paul Scholes/Roy Keane in 1999

FACT is if you didn't play you didn't win — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.229.137 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

why ?

even there is gravitation force exists in whole world but why we can't attracted towards big building while we walk near them ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B madan11 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

even there is gravitation force exists in whole world but why we can't attracted towards big building while we walk near them ?? its my question ..response please — Preceding unsigned comment added by B madan11 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ask this question at the Science Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

change Company Picture

I am trying to update our company logo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPointbut it will not let me. The logo displayed on the page is not our logo and I am not sure who put it there.72.48.120.164 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is TrackingPoint. The logo shown there was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrackingPoint_logo.png, by "Factual1979", possibly without the right copyright procedure, and is being discussed here. The company's own web site uses a related but clearly different logo. Maproom (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Merging Pages

Our companies have recently performed a merge. You can see that referenced from our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Mission_Systems

General Dynamics C4 Systems was redirected correctly. However, we need General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Advanced_Information_Systems) to do the same redirect as C4 Systems.

Please let me know how we can start the process of this. I started a Merger proposal back in January 14, 2016 and I am not sure what the next steps are.

137.100.97.30 (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Article needs more to be published

Hello,

I wrote an article and it was denied to get published because of the references. I was wondering if anybody could help me to get it published by telling me what else I need to do.

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rhino_Equipment_Group Rhinotechnician (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have a conflict of interest and should not be trying to use Wikipedia to publicize your company. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Frank Garvan

I reviewed Draft:Frank Garvan about a month ago and declined it, saying that the subject was probably notable, but that additional independent reliable sources as to that notability were needed. Another reviewer declined it today. I then received the following polite comment from User:Robertpschneider saying:

Dear reviewer, Thank you for taking time to look over my submission. This is a page for Frank Garvan, mathematician, who is a prominent figure in modern number theory. Most famously, Garvan is responsible for co-discovering the crank function in partition theory, which is a big deal and a widely praised discovery made with George Andrews (the preeminent number theorist of our era), who was Garvan's PhD advisor. Note that "crank of a partition" has its own Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_of_a_partition) and Garvan is credited on that page. I added a reference from an article by Richard Askey, another towering figure in modern mathematics, detailing Garvan's role in the discovery of the crank function. I do not know Garvan personally, and provided the best references I could to show his importance. I hope this is adequate; I believe it is vital that Garvan should have his own Wiki as he is an important figure in recent mathematics history, whose work is the subject of great interest for other researchers in the field. Sincerely, Robert Schneider

I would appreciate comments from other experienced editors or advice to the author or to me. It appears to me that Garvan is notable, but that the author hasn’t established notability (and may not understand how to establish notability). Can the author find references in independent reliable sources, such as journal articles?

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I was the other editor who declined the article. And Robertpschneider left a virtually identical message on my talk page as well. I agree almost completely with Robert's assessment, although I am less sure about the notability of the subject. A Scholar search gives several of Garvan's papers, but they all have relatively low citation counts (213, 134, 131, and the rest below 100). Now that could be because of the specialty, but I'm going to ping several editors who spend much more time evaluating academics like this, to see what they think: DGG, Mscuthbert, and Randykitty.

In the meantime, the two relevant guidelines Robertpschneider should take a look at are WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR. My feeling is that the second one is the best bet. Then, they need to find sources which back up the notability criteria. Those sources need to be independent of the subject. Currently, there are 3 sources. The first is Garvin's CV - this needs to be deleted. The second is his university bio. Not independent. The third is a lengthy paper by Richard Askey, which doesn't give any page references (the editor might also want to check out WP:CIT on how to format citations). Journal articles, from peer-reviewed publications are probably the way to go to show this person's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Unquestionably notable by WP:PROF. 2 papers with citations over 100 are normally enough for notability in any field, even biomedicine, and he has 3. Furthermore, this is mathematics where citation counts aren normally much lower than in biomedicine. I accepted the article. The list of most cited eapers needs to be added. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Allumer Jewellery London

I reviewed and declined Draft:Allumer Jewellery London, citing too few independent reliable sources. I then received this inquiry from User:Elvislondon on my talk page:

Hi Robert, I am new to creating a Wikipedia article and my first draft was recently rejected. Please could you give me some feedback on how I could create a successful article. I am a university student hoping to create a Wikipedia page for the brand I am studying 'Allumer'. Thank you. Elvislondon (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

On the one hand, if other experienced editors think that I should have accepted it, I will listen to their comments. On the other hand, if other experienced editors agree, do they have any advice for a new editor?

I am assuming that studying the brand does not constitute a conflict of interest. Is that correct?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no conflict of interest as far as I see it, Robert. Elvislondon, the best thing I can suggest is simply to use Google and Google News to find more sources that discuss the company (preferably in depth rather than just in passing). It might be that you have access to other resources via your university's library that could be used to find sources, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will find and add more sources Elvislondon (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Can't make my edit "stick". At all.

Just now, tried every way I can think of to improve the opening para of "Margarita" and it shows in a pre-posting Show Changes, but not in the Show Preview or Save Page. Tried several times. I was logged in.

I have no idea what step I'm omitting.

NeverLift (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

hello NeverLift, and welcome to the teachouse. At least two edits by you to Margarita are currently in place, both to note 1, See this edit and this edit. Were those the edits you had in mind? DES ^(talk) 03:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Now I am confused. On the off chance that my "issue" might be browser-dependent, I re-accessed the page in question from IE and found it unchanged. So I hit Edit -- the editable version has my changes present! Neither the Review nor Save brings them up. The only possibly unusual element: My newly insert text follows a ref group=note (had to leave off the) enclosures to get this response in). Uh . . . I have been a computer jock for 50+ years, but edit a Wikipedia entry once or twice a decade, so there is clearly a RTFM point I'm missing. NeverLift (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverLift (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The one labeled "Revision as of 01:13, 24 February 2016 (edit) (undo)" Did I inadvertently add it to the note? NeverLift (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I wanted it to be simply text, following the note ref.NeverLift (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I see it is in the note. I don't want it there. Just in the text following the note cite. What am I doing wrong? NeverLift (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

NeverLift, all text between the ref tag and the closing /ref tag will be part of the note. You inserted text into the middle of the note, so that is where it wound up. But then, the how-to tone of the text "Take care to moisten only the outer edge and sprinkle the salt, so that it presents to the lips or tongue of the imbiber and does not mix into the liquid. " would not have been appropriate for the body of the article anyway. DES ^(talk) 04:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Non English sources

Are sources from Hindi newspapers inferior to sources from English websites in English Wikipedia in India related articles? Captain Spark (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Captain Spark, and welcome to the Teahouse. No they are not. However, when sources of equal quality, reliability, and relevance to the article are available, English-language sources are preferred. This because many readers will find them easier to use and more informative. When non-English-language sources are used, it is helpful to provide a translation of the title and of a relevant quote. DES ^(talk) 02:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How to Correctly Make a Wiki Page for a Business?

Hello Wikipedia representatives,

My name is Cameron Smith, and I represent Henley Enterprises, Inc. dba Valvoline Instant Oil Change. Our company Henley Enterprises, Inc. is the largest Valvoline Instant Oil Change franchisee in the country. We have 235 stores in 12 states. I created the username henleyenterprisesinc and recently requested approval to create a page—“Henley Enterprises, Inc dba Valvoline Instant Oil Change” that educates the Internet world about the company we are.

My recent request to construct a Wikipedia page for my father’s company was denied, and I was wondering if you could tell me why—and/or please advise me how to correctly set one up.

I would like to create a Wikipedia page similar to the one In-N-Out Burger has created on your site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-N-Out_Burger. Just like In-N-Out, we are privately owned and started with only one store (25 years ago for us).

People constantly get our company information, history, products/services, store designs, advertising practices, mission statement, vision, and values mixed up with that of Ashland, Inc.—the public company that currently is the franchisor of Valvoline Instant Oil Change (they have 260 stores, we have 235 stores). Although we are mentioned on the Ashland, Inc page—their page comes up when users of the Internet search for our company on engines such as Google—and we are not currently separately represented on Wikipedia.

My father has tasked me to create a page just like the one you have on the site for In-N-Out. We are hoping to let the Internet world know about “Henley Enterprises, Inc.” on Wikipedia just like In-N-Out Burger has done.

Please advise! Thank you.

Cameron Smith

<Contact info redacted>

Henleyenterprisesinc (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Henleyenterprisesinc, that user name is not acceptable, Wikipedia user accounts must be for individuals. They must not be shared, nor may they appear to represent or promote a group, company, or organization.

Secondly, Wikipedia articles must be neutral. They must not be designed to promote anyone or anything. Thirdly articles must be supported by citations to independent published, reliable sources, sufficient to establish notability. The In-N-Out_Burger article is IMO rather poorly written and needs to be significantly cut down; In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, and you would be well advised to avoid it.'

You have a clear Conflict of Interest and are considered a paid editor on this topic. You must disclose your connection to the firm in Uses of accord with our Terms of Use. DES ^(talk) 02:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: OP blocked as an advertising-only account. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Replacement of a stub/short article

There is a very short article entitled James Ferguson-Lees. This contains several erors and hundreds of omissions, and is not worthy of a place in Wikipedia. James is now 87 years old and is without doubt one of the pre-eminent ornithologists of our age.

I have written a biography of James, whom I have known as a friend and colleague for 45 years. This biography is 100% accurate and is fully referenced. I want to know how I can replace the existing inadequate article with the longer one (7000 words) which I have written. 62.49.68.241 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is about the article James Ferguson-Lees. I believe your praise of him is justified. But I have two warnings: replacing an existing article by one which is entirely your own work will receive extensive resistance, particularly from those who have contributed to the current article; and adding extensive citations of your own work may be interpreted as pushing your own point of view. At best, it will be an uphill struggle. What I would recommend is to describe your concerns, and proposed changes to the current article, on the article's talk page, and hope that other editors will make the changes. As a "connected person", you should not try to edit it yourself. Even I, with limited knowledge of but great respect for Ferguson-Lees' work, feel that my partiality for him precludes me from editing the article, so I regret that I won't be helping you with actual edits. Maproom (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The article has had relatively few editors to date, so I wouldn't overestimate the amount of resistance there will be. Of course, that shouldn't change the fact that you need to observe Wikipedia's policies, 62.49.68.241, but I am encouraged by the fact that you are aware for the need for referencing. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that the article George Bristow (ornithologist) has no in-line references at all, a state that we abhor here on Wikipedia. If you could improve that article by supporting its statements with references to your book, I think everyone would approve. Maproom (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of things that you should know before proceeding. Wikipedia's content is built on three fundamental principles we call the "core content policies". They are that Wikipedia articles:

1. must be verifiable (meaning that readers should be able to check that what is being written is true),
2. written from a neutral point of view (meaning that all opinions and viewpoints on a topic are represented fairly and without bias), and
3. must not contain original research (meaning we only write about what reliable sources have written about).

Jointly interpreted, these three policies form the backbone for almost every other content policy or guideline we have here.

Writing a biography about someone whom you know very closely, such as a friend or coworker, is discouraged on Wikipedia because you have what we call a conflict of interest ("COI"). Editors with a conflict of interest in a topic area often have an unintentionally distorted view of that topic area, and this conflict of interest has a significant potential to go against some of our core content policies. For example, you might unconsciously over-embellish your friend, or perhaps omit verifiable facts that may be negative or controversial—this would violate neutral point of view. Alternatively, you might inadvertently add details that haven't been published in reliable sources—a violation of verifiability and no original research. Because of this strong tendency, the Wikipedia community discourages editing in areas you have a conflict of interest in.

Although we discourage it, we don't outright prohibit editing with a COI either. To do so successfully, you must have an especially solid understanding and strong command of our expectations. Consider editing other topics for a while to gain experience. Carefully read our guideline on conflict of interest editing. Then, describe the changes you would like to see at Talk:James Ferguson-Lees, adding the following code to the top of your note: {{edit request}}. This will notify other editors that you have a conflict of interest and wish to submit a major change to the article. These other editors will review your proposed article and make the changes, if the content satisfies our policies. If you get stuck or need help with anything, just let us here at the Teahouse know. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Any tips for finding historical importance?

Hello Wikipedia

I have submitted an article for review and it back rejected. I fixed my notability problem but now I am trying to find sources for the impact of the subject. I feel as if it has made an impact but I am not sure what to say about it. Here is my draft for my article. Does anyone have any advice for me that will be helpful for this and future edits to wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Subterfuge_(game). Also is there a way I can clear my sandbox to start on a new project? Thank you very much for dealing with my lack of experience and taking time out of your day to make everyone smarter.

Chariot Rider (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Chariot Rider. To clarify, notability isn't really about importance or impact per se, but more simply the requirement that people have written about the subject in independent sources. Have you tried simply searching using Google and Google News? As for User:Chariot Rider/sandbox, this is currently serving as a redirect to Draft:Subterfuge (game). If you want to reuse it, you can just delete the current markup in the sandbox or replace it with something different. Alternatively, you can start a new one with a different name (e.g. User:Chariot Rider/sandbox2). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your question. I see that the notability issue is resolved. The latest review comments state that the article needs more detail on the game's development, impact or historical significance. It doesn't have to all be about impact (though I imagine you could probably find sales figures somewhere) - could you find something on the game's development, for example? Are there more reviews that you could cite? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should explain. I had submitted it twice. The first time it was struck down because of notability but not this time. I should have made that more clear. This is what the poster said was the reason why he rejected it" The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot. You may wish to add this content to an existing article, such as Subterfuge (game). As anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to do so yourself." I don't think he was hitting for notability but for lack of significance? But thank you anyway. I didn't think of using google news. Chariot Rider (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Lance Hohaia - Early Years.

Good morning I am the father of Lance Hohaia and I have documentation in my possession that details Lance Hohaias' early years before his NZ Warriors and NZ Kiwi rugby league careers which are all well documented elsewhere. My problems is, I don't know how to go about placing said info on his Wikipedia page. I can email info to someone if that's any help. There are 3 A4 pages of detail.

Rex Hohaia125.238.134.95 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rex, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can I ask what the nature of the documentation is? If it consists of newspaper articles or other published materials, then we can certainly use it, but if the documents are of a more personal nature, we might not be able to. Material on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, which essentially means it needs to be based on published sources that a reader could reasonably expect to access in some way. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of template at bottom of page

What is the generic name for a reference template like Template:LosAngelesCityAttorneys which you often find at the bottom of Wikipedia pages? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. You appear to have asked this below, where your question has already been answered. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing

I edited an article and someone deleted my edit without any proper explanation. What should I do in this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SabbirHossen177 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

They provided an explanation on your talk page, but you deleted it with this edit, and insulted them on theirs. What you should do is read, and try to understand, the explanations and advice you are given. Maproom (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How can I delete this account? I don't need it anymore because I have been blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SabbirHossen177 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@SabbirHossen177: You haven't been blocked from editing, you've just been asked by other users to add reliable sources to support what you are adding.

And Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted, however if you no longer wish to edit then you can request a courtesy vanishing, or you can just leave your account. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. In the last couple of days, I created an article and today I received an email that it has not been accepted at this time.

Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Judith_Donovan

Please guide me.

Hammadshk (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hammadshk, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen the notice at Draft:Judith Donovan that points you towards Help:Referencing for beginners? You have attempted to manually insert footnote references into the article, which is not how referencing works on Wikipedia. The software will sort the footnote system out for you, if you learn how to use the correct markup. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the technicalities of the references, I think you need to do more to demonstrate the subject's notability, Hammadshk. On Wikipedia, that term has a very specific meaning. Basically, it means that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, so you could do with citing a few more sources that discuss Donovan in depth rather than just mentioning her in passing. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding new page

How do I create a new page on Wikipedia without having to refer to the Special Pages dialog page? I would like to create a page on an upcoming comic house known as RED Comics.Mcpemaestro (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mcpemaestro. Please start by reading your first article, and then use the Article wizard to create it in draft space so you can work on it. But before even that, you need to locate several independent reliable sources which talk in depth about the company, because if you cannot find them, then there is no point in spending any time trying to create an article which will not be accepted. Very often, things which are upcoming have simply not been written about enough yet to make a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Due to COI I suggest you wait for a non-affliated editor to create an article Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

1, 2 Are these two sources too bad to be used in an article in Wikipedia? Captain Spark (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Captain Spark: and welcome to the Teahouse. The Daily Mail is not usually considered a reliable source, per WP:DAILYMAIL, which says "In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used."

If the information in those sources is good, then it'll likely be published in another more reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Spark: and @Joseph2302: – Recently I found template {{Friendly search suggestions}} which may be helpful looking for reliable sources. The template can be added to talk pages, under the banners. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Links at bottom of page

What is the generic name for the links at the bottom of a page that lead a reader to associated WP articles, like this one: Template:LosAngelesCityAttorneys BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. They're called navigation boxes, or "navboxes" for short. They're described in fuller detail at Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

finding out what directs to a page

Is there some way of finding a list of places that direct one TO a particular page? Thanks. Marentette (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marentette. Go to the page you want to check, then look to the tools menu, toward the bottom of the left hand side of the page. Click the top link labeled  • What links here Note the filters displayed near the top of the resulting page. If you wanted to just see redirects, for example, hit hide transclusions and hide links. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Marentette (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft: After-school Programs and its Effect on Children

I reviewed Draft: After-school Programs and its Effect on Children, and declined it as reading like an essay, in support of after-school programs for children. Its author, User: Alma760 then wrote to my talk page:

Hi Robert McClenon, I wrote a draft on my sandbox and submitted for a review, but it was declined because it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Should I erase everything I did or is there a way I can keep my information. I'm so used to writing in an essay format. I don't know exactly what kind of information goes into an encyclopedia article. My topic is after-school programs and its effect on children. This is my first time working on wikipedia; I would appreciate it if you could help me. Thanks.

I thank Alma760 for asking politely for advice. (Not all new editors do that. It is appreciated by the reviewers.) Can some other experienced editors share advice (and possibly help) with this editor? My first advice would be to research whether a separate article is needed, or whether reliable sources, such as papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals, about a positive effect of after-school programs on children can be added to After-school activity or Day care or Child care. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Alma760, I'm slightly confused about what the subject of the article is. You use the term "After-school Programs" (plural) but then "its" singular. Is the article about a set of related programmes, or a single programme? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Larry, I meant to say a single program I will continue to make changes and edit my wikipedia page. Will I still be able to make the changes for my subject or is it too late to change the title? if I am able to change it should it be After-school program and the effect on children? or leave it as after-school program? Thank you for the feedback. Alma760 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You can change the draft as you see fit, Alma760, and can change its title by moving the page. It will have to be moved the fix the capitalisation of the title anyway. I think the "its effect on children" part of the title lends itself to an essay-like article, so I would consider dropping that part, but if it is to become a general article on after-school programmes, then you need to consider whether this is already covered by an existing article such as After-school activity. If you think it is, consider working to help improve that article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rajeswari Paled Tress

I reviewed Draft:Rajeswari Paled Tress, as did other editors. Some of us declined it based on the need for in-line citations, and some of us declined it on the failure to provide references establishing notability. (These declines are really two versions of the same thing.) User:Rajtress then wrote to my talk page:

Hello, Can you please provide an example which will help me edit the content.

First, while it is fine to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, it is easy for new editors to use one particular article as a prototype and try to produce a draft that parallels it, and meet with rejection, so I won’t provide an example. Maybe another experienced editor will. Second, the original poster was twice told to add footnotes, and was also twice told to provide references to independent reliable sources, and has not added footnotes. If the original poster doesn’t understand how to add footnotes, and has already read referencing for beginners, then they can ask a specific question here, and we will be glad to advise them. Third, the usual step in trying to get independent reliable sources is to Google on the subject, and see whether any of the top hits appear to be independent reliable sources, and use several of them. However, fourth, as to how should you edit the content of an autobiography to get it accepted, the usual advice is: Don’t try. You probably aren’t notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. If you are, someone else can write the article about you. Also, even if you are notable, you are likely to write a non-neutral autobiography (one of the various reasons for the conflict of interest policy), and are likely to include peacock language, and the draft includes a lot of it.

Do other experienced editors here have additional or other advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Film Page rejected

Hi, I've added a page recently and I tried to use the guidelines but still didn't manage to create the content table and the right side with the film crew. I also received a message saying the page would be deleted, not quite sure why because the project is real, I've got the copyright to prove it and it doesn't have any information that goes against the wikipedia rules. Really need some advise please. Many Thanks Sofia.c.canali (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason for the deletion was explained on your talk page. For an article to be accepted in Wikipedia, it is not enough for its subject to be "real"; it must have been discussed in several reliable independent published sources (something that we call "notable" here). Maproom (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have two comments. First, your draft has been saved from proposed deletion because an experienced editor moved it to Draft:Abduct (2016 film), where you can submit it for review and get advice on how to improve it. You will need to provide more independent reliable sources. Has the movie been released in theaters yet? If so, please provide movie reviews. If not, unreleased films are seldom notable unless there has been publicity about their production. Second, you say that the project is real and you have the copyright to prove it. That creates two additional complications. You have a conflict of interest, and are likely to be seen as being here to promote the movie rather than to build the encyclopedia, and are not likely to be neutral. Also, many new Wikipedia editors do not understand about Wikipedia and one's own copyright. You cannot post your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia, even with your own permission, unless you explicitly release the copyright either under a CC-BY-SA copyleft or into the public domain, and, when you release the copyright, you are not releasing it only for Wikipedia; you are releasing it, under terms of CC-BY-SA, to all in the world. Your draft will probably now be scrutinized carefully for copyright violation. Even if it passes, it will then be reviewed for neutrality. However, it has been saved from deletion by being moved into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Change title of page to Clifton Observatory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory,_Bristol

Hi,

I work in Marketing for Clifton Observatory and am looking to change the title of our Wiki page to Clifton Observatory as this is the correct name of the site. (www.cliftonobservatory.com)

Many thanks. 213.105.132.227 (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@213.105.132.227: Wikipedia does not use official names, but rather the common name that it is referred to in reliable sources. Looking at the reliable sources on Observatory, Bristol, some of the sources call it Clifton Observatory, whilst others call it the Bristol Observatory, or The Observatory.

To move the page, you would need to start a requested move discussion.

Also, note it is not your Wiki page, rather a page about your organisation on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have created a redirect from Clifton Observatory to Observatory, Bristol. This means that a reader who looks for "Clifton Observatory" will find it, and will automatically be redirected to the article at "Observatory, Bristol". I hope this helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Having taken a quick look, I think Clifton Observatory is actually the common name. Take a look at the Google results for "observatory bristol", for example. I'll make the move now. —me_and 09:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the new editing I did 24 hours ago

I wrote additions to 'When A Blind Man Cries', 'Showdown (Electric Light Orchestra) & 'Heart Full of Soul' with citations and they were there for two hours at least but now they have disappeared. What did I do wrong? GLambvick (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of When A Blind Man Cries, you will see that your edit was removed by User:Ojorojo in this edit, with the comment "see WP:NOTPROMOTION". That was a little harsh, IMHO. You could do with the removal of the reference to "a female perspective", as that could be construed as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and you should find a reliable independent source to back up the information. Rojomoke (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi GLambvick and welcome to the Teahouse. The editor who reverted you also left a longer explanation on your talk page. The problem is that famous songs usually have many, many cover versions. the vast majority of which are not notable. If the band doing the cover, i.e. Annee 2CU Blues Band, does not have an article, and their album has not been reviewed in published sources completely independent of the band, then it doesn't belong in an article about the song, and does appear to be promotional, since the references link solely to the band's website. Also, if you have any connection whatsoever to this band or any of its members, you need to read this page for guidance when editing under those circumstances. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. GLambvick (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright and images of paintings

Thank you for inviting me here!

I’ve just written the East London Group page about a group of artists who worked together from 1928 to 1936 in the UK. As it’s about artists, it would be good to illustrate the page with a few images of their paintings. All the artists have now died and their work is held either privately, in public galleries or by their heirs.

Two of the heirs are happy (keen!) for their paintings to be used on the page. I’ve read all the 'paperwork' about copyright several times but still can’t work out which category these images fall into. Any advice would be very welcome.

Thanks in advance for your time and words of wisdom. :)

Graean (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Graean. Copyright is a complex issue. You probably should ask the experts at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions forum. —teb728 t c 10:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Graean, it can be a bit tricky, but not overwhelmingly so. Under UK law, copyright now lasts for the life of the author (artist) plus 70 years. So any work f an artist who died before 1946 would now be out of copyright. Works of artists who died later than that would still be protected by copyright in the UK.

However, in the US, under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, copyrights in foreign (to the US) works that were still in copyright in their home countries on 1 jan 1996 were restored to the full length of applicable US law. This means that all such works are protected for at least 95 years from their dates of creation. Therefore, it seems very likely that all the works of the East London Group would be considered still under copyright in US law.

Given that the best way to handle any such images would be to secure permission from the copyright holder, who would normally be the heir or heirs of the artist. Follow the procedures at WP:DCM and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and have the copyright holder fill out and send in Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries or something very similar.

Note that under UK (but not US) law, the photographer obtains an independent copyright when taking a picture of a flat work of art, such as a painting. It would be best if the photographer (or scanner) is identified and also releases any copyright under a free license, although this may not be strictly required under US law and the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 12:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice. I'll follow it up.

Yes, it's a complex issue!

Graean (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Graean. Just to clarify: we cannot accept a one-time license for use here of non-free copyrighted material, because we require that our end users be able to take media they find here and reuse it as liberally as the licenses covering most of our content. Rather, it has to be a permanent and irrevocable release of the material under a suitably-free copyright license or licenses (or a release into the public domain). That is what the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, linked above, describe. I mention this because it is exceedingly rare for owners of the works of established, prominent and exhibited artists to want to, or to actually go ahead and give up their rights in this manner – for very good reason.

Understand that this would mean a release of almost all rights over the copyright, essentially but for attribution; use even for commercial purposes. The minimums of a compatible free copyright licenses would allow anyone to take the paintings/images and put them on mugs, t-shirts, placemats, sell posters bearing the image, etc. and the only limitation would be that sufficient attribution be provided to the author and the license for reuse be mentioned.

Assuming they are non-free copyrighted, the only other way these images could be used is under a claim of fair use, if a particular use met all ten of the non-free content criteria. That's a whole other conversation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It might be possible to create a moderate-to-low resolution version, and release only that version, I suppose. DES ^(talk) 04:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks,Fuhghettaboutit, for the clarification. And DES for the moderate to low res idea.

I'll pass this on to the heirs and see what they think.

213.78.66.3 (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

rating an articlewiki tamil 100 09:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

how can i rate an article. i am a member of wikiproject asia.but i doesn't no how to rate an article wiki tamil 100 09:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki tamil 100 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Wiki tamil 100. For information on this, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. I'm afraid I can't give you more information, as I've never rated articles. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wiki tamil 100. To rate an article, go on its talk page and edit the WikiProject templates. Fill the rating= parameter with any class from stub to B that you feel is appropriate. Refer to the link provided by ColinFine above to see how to assess quality (Projects usually have guides that have the same standard but use examples from the field, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/Assessment#Quality scale). The higher classes (A, Good Article and Featured Article) need a formal review process, so you won't be able to rate them by yourself. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I change the title of a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Motor_Centre

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the Marketing Assistant at the British Motor Museum (formerly known as the Heritage Motor Centre). I have recently tried to amend our Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Motor_Centre to change the details accordingly.

I have managed to change the copy within our page but cannot find where to change the title of the page. This is effecting our google pages as we are still appearing as Heritage Motor Centre as it is pulling the information from Wikipedia. Please can you let me know how I can go about making this change or if this needs to be done by yourself. If it the latter please can you let me know how long it will take to which the change.

We are now open to the public and therefore, need to make this change as soon as possible.

Many thanks

Jo Flowers Britishmotormuseum (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Now done, by Theroadislong. Maproom (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Guess again. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the move did take place.Ian.thomson I do not understand.

Britishmotormuseum (I'm not sure if this works since the name is blocked) you say "need to make this change as soon as possible." Actually, we move pages based on our needs, not yours, and we do need to have the accurate name of your museum.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that Ian's point was that he moved the article, not Theroadislong. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Improvement of the article S-200 (missile)

The article appears to be quite inconsistent about the means of guidance of the missile. From what I know, it is semi-active radar homing throughout its flight. However, I cannot find any reliable sources myself to verify this. It is hoped that the forum linked below may serve as a starting point for a search for sources.

[1]

Obviously, it is not itself usable as a reliable source. I am not suggesting that we do so. It is hoped that my suggestion would not violate policy or guidelines.

Thanks,a CLoG? | unCLoG 05:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, A Certain Lack of Grandeur, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to raise this and to have the discussion about sources would be at Talk:S-200 (missile). If you don't get any input after a few days and you feel that you need it to proceed, you could post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I am concerned that placing such a suggestion on the talk page will be met with strong responses relating to WP:reliable sources. See what has previously taken place on that talk page for an example of what I mean.a CLoG? | unCLoG 21:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A Certain Lack of Grandeur, I would just go ahead and post. As long as you explain that you're not suggesting using the forum as a source, I think you should receive constructive input. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Shoul I simply paste the text of my original post here into the talk page under a new heading? a CLoG? | unCLoG 21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, A Certain Lack of Grandeur. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

how do I hire someone to do a wikipedia account for me?

Hi how do I contact someone to hire to create a wikepedia account for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:BA43:B900:5CAF:A00F:3FA3:D1EE (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What you do you want to do? Do you want to create a Wikipedia account, a registered account, to edit Wikipedia from with a name rather than an IP address? Or do you want to hire someone to create a Wikipedia article about you? The answer to the first is: Just do it. It takes about five minutes, although some of the privileges of having an account only apply after four days and ten edits. All unregistered editors, that is, editors from IP addresses without user names, are encouraged to register accounts. You don't hire anyone. If you want to hire someone to create a Wikipedia article about you, don't. That has multiple policy problems. Wikipedia strongly disapproves of paid editing. Also, if you aren't notable in the Wikipedia sense of having been referred to by independent reliable sources, the article will almost certainly be deleted. What are you asking? If you are asking how to create a Wikipedia account, just do it; it is easy. If you are asking how to hire someone to write a Wikipedia article about you, don't. The article will be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Or are you asking about hiring someone to write an article about someone or something else? Like Robert, I didn't really understand what your question was about, as creating a user account is pretty simple. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

about geocaching

I was hoping to create an article under my geocaching username (www.geocaching.com) the reason is to include Global Positioning Satellite co-ordinates in the article. Other geocaches would have to come to Wikki and look for the username to find out where to look. All information in the article would be true and verifiable at Geocaching.com. Is this allowable. This would be part of a mystery cache which required some type of research to find the GPS location. Stormcrow50 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless sources independent of you and geocaching.com have written about the cache it does not belong as an article. It does not belong in userspace either as Wikipedia is not a webhost. -- GB fan 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Stormcrow50:. That sounds like something that belongs on a personal web page, not something that would be written about in an encyclopaedia article. Articles here are only for topics that are generally "notable" (in the particular Wikipedia sense of the word, where it has been written about in detail in multiple reliable, independent sources). Individual geocache contests would not meet this criterion, and would not be suitable for Wikipedia. There are plenty of Web hosting sites that would be better suited to your needs.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I've changed the "Notable|" link from [[WP|Notable|]] to [[WP:Notable|notable]]; hope the latter is what you intended. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@CabbagePotato: Oops - is there a "red face" icon? Thanks for picking that up.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

{{Blush}} All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

Also note that anyone can edit Wikipedia pages and somebody may change coordinates and other content. An article about a geocache would probably be deleted quickly. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with my learned colleagues - in tone and effect if not substance. For example a geocache near me is in a ruined priory. If I were to create a Wikipedia article about that priory, which has ample coverage in reliable sources, and add the co-ordinates, that would be fine.

Of course the co-ordinates are supposed, generally, to be the "centre" of the subject, so that may not fit exactly with your requirements, but the last part of a cache is usually a bit of a search anyway, so that may not be a problem.

IOW provided that you are complying with WP standards, are improving the encyclopaedia, and you accept that what you write is subject to change, I see no problem.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

how do I make a page about something?

I want to make a page about myself without the "User:" in front of it. Can I delete the "User:" or can i make a new page?

-Alec Ferrari (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alec Ferrari. For there to be an article about you or anyone or anything else, you need to meet our notability requirements, which essentially boil down to the need for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or books. If this coverage exists, Wikipedia can have an article about you, but you are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Alec. Please don't. Go to some service where such a profile fits with the type of site and form of work it is, such as LinkedIn, or a host of sites like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a very specific type of reference work that can be summarized as a compendium of articles on topics of knowledge—as reflected by the world writing about a topic in detail (and not by the the subject or those connected to the topic writing about it). We have no place here for a write-up on you, unless you are truly a topic of knowledge. And any such article would properly be written someone entirely unconnected to you. It would also have to demonstrate notability by the world having taken note of you by writing about you substantively in reliable, secondary sources, e.g., mainstream newspapers that have written articles about you. Unless you're notable, you user page is really the only place where a write-up about you would be appropriate at all, and even there it should not be anything like a fake article, but rather related to your activities and goals here as a contributor to this writing project. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost

How do I get The Signpost overview on my talk page? --Knick Knurrikoff (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Knick Knurrikoff. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe. If you any difficulty with following the instructions there, please feel fee to follow-up here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --Knick Knurrikoff (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How to delete AFC draft article

Note

This article is now in main-space. R F, 12:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

How do I delete an AFC draft article, so as not to waste any more time on it when a reviewer doesn't care if the subject is notable, just wants to demand more work on the article?

"(Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9)) (undo)"

This is false, she does meet notability guidelines, but there is no way to fight an established editor, so deletion is easier. Draft:Winifred Green

2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hi 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 you haven't even given SwisterTwister time to respond - you posted at 12:03 and had given up by 12:21. Looking at there edit patterns I would guess they are fast a sleep at the moment with 4-8AM being their busiest editing time (note all times are from GMT. Also why come asking for how to delete rather than asking for someone else to review? You also do not have to battle a single reviewer, I'm sure if you asked SwisterTwister to leave it for another reviewer they would have. As they have also only rejected it once I'm not sure why you already think you in a "fight" with "an established editor". KylieTastic (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• You cannot get the draft deleted as it was created by 73.243.72.120 not this address (even though that may have been you) - also others may like to add the actual sources you claim exist in your post to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession.
• As for your question on SwisterTwister talk page "Please link to the policy page that gives the exact number of sources I should add" - there is no number of sources, it depends what they contain. For instance you nytimes ref only mentions her name in a list of names, and the srbwi ref also just mentions her in passing, but many of the other refs are good. However, after a quick look I would have thought that she is notable enough - so if you actually add a couple more of the other sources then hopefully it would be accepted. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Lastly I assume that Charles Eric Dawson was also your work and was accepted by SwisterTwister so its not like they have declines all your work. I know its sometimes hard not to take declines and reverts personally, but its just part of the way things work that hopefully get us to better articles. So don't give up your work and time are not wasted. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines." I think this says it all, especially about any chance of adding sufficient sources once this editor decided Green is "a person who does not meet notability guidelines."

There is no rule that you have to write an article in order to get it deleted, if this were the case, then every hoax ever posted to Wikipedia would become enshrined.

I just need to know how I put it up for deletion. 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hi again 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 where does it say "Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines" I cant find that anywhere? I can see "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" that does not say a person is not notable just that it has not yet been shown. Also i meant you cant just get it quickly deleted as you could have if you had written it all, hoaxes etc would be deleted for policies that don't count here, but if you want to propose for deletion it would be Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that you are looking for. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the edit comment when it was declined, "person does not meet notability," good-bye. With that battle mentality, it will not go anywhere. Proposed deletion says it is not for draft articles, only for mainspace. 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I hadn't noticed that before and I use the same 'helper' script for AFC reviewing - it s just a bad choice of words that the script writer has used - please take note of the actual message posted and the policies as they are the ones that count. Also you may not have noticed that Theroadislong has been updating the draft and if you want to look at edit comments they said "clearly notable so doesn't require deleting". Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

YES! Please don't request deletion the article is very close to being ready to publish, clearly she is notable, it's just that the sources weren't quite up to scratch, I'll have another look this evening. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 I have posted to the AFC helper script talk page pointing out this edit summary wording not being inline with our actual notices, so hopefully it will be changed so others do not feel as bad as you appear to with this decline. Hopefully they will look at the others as well, or maybe I'll get around to looking at it myself. KylieTastic (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Every time I write an article about a woman, it gets this. I bet if I wrote an article with the same sources, but slightly less notable, a man not considered worthy by the NYT of heading the NAACP, it would wind up on the main page of Wikipedia, while the same sources for a woman would have editors requiring that an encyclopedia be written about her first.

Sometimes I let it get to me. Usually I do what everyone else does, not bother writing about women so as not to offend the gate keepers at Wikipedia and not to get my blood boiling about the absurdity of it all.

Someone else should write the article. Someone who doesn't see all the missing women in Wikipedia. 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed and accepted the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 in this case it was declined once only, updated, and now accepted. What are all these articles about women being rejected? As you do not have an account and jump between ip addresses we can't really comment on the other articles. However every time I've looked into such claims I have found no evidence of sexism just judgements on policies (some good some bad) that people choose to assign a subtext to. You have read far too much into this single decline - any note that at the finally tally you had yourself, me, and two other editors who believed she was notable, and another who only declined that they thought it did not yet meet the guidelines as they added the comment "May be notable", so overall very positive and with a positive outcome. KylieTastic (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

About as viable as my statement. Back to writing about men. (Note that I edit on a cell phone, the carrier jumps, not me.) 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Create an account. Create an account. If you have an established edit history, it might be easier to show systematic bias, if indeed there is systematic bias, rather than just a combative attitude. Also, if you do create an account, and then want to delete a draft article, it will clearly be associated with you, rather than having IPs shift. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Yes, create an account. (Not an accurate survey, but my personal observation is that the majority of biographies deleted for lack of notability are about men. See Confirmation bias.) Dbfirs 16:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Also if you have an account, you may find WP:WikiProject Women in Red useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

How does "Submit your Draft for Review" work?

Hi, I created an entry for NSW Environment Protection Authority which was deleted for copyright infringement. I also work for the organisation and so was advised to add the Connected Contributor Template to the page. I have added this to my talk page, and would be happy to add it to the talk page of the article once published. In the meantime I have rewritten the main page in my sandbox at <htps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kagey2005/sandbox> and hit the "Submit your Draft for Review" button, but I've not heard anything back. Am I doing something wrong? Kagey2005 (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Kagey2005, I don't know what you did (or more likely didn't), but your draft was not submitted. I have done that for you. John from Idegon (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks John. All I did was click on the button. Glad it is submitted now. Kagey2005 (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yea, that opens an edit window which you then must save. Not intuitive at all. And be forwarned, it is not anywhere near the last non-intuitive thing you will encounter here. Us Teahouse hosts have great job security John from Idegon (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirection

I have just added a Wiktionary link to "Acacia homalophylla" giving its local name, "Yarran". The link is not pretty, but what I would like done (or to do), is to somehow set up for "Yarran" to redirect to "Acacia homalophylla". Wnholmes (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Redirect -- you go to Yarran, write #REDIRECT [[Acacia homalophylla]], and hit "save". Eman235/talk 06:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It's done.Wnholmes (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday

I not speak English good yet, I learn. Yesterday tried explain philosophy question, no success. They do not understand. Maybe also little bad manners, they say to me: "Wittgenstein once wrote "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." --I am One of Many (talk) ". Maybe I do easy thing. I just learn now. Something I can do, to learn that easy for me? You suggest? Something to do. Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk · contribs) actually added by Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk · contribs)

There is page called .Bergius not Sergius. Sometimes I am there, do not know how. After, changes signature.Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC) This page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_Bergius_Alexander_Ferdinand_Fedorovich ... not sign now because will start changing. Signature is Michael Alexander Sergius Ferdinand Fedorovich. Try Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich" is not a registered username, but somehow has a talk page. The "Sergius" version is a normal username with a normal talk page. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I do NOTHING. It is automatic .... I do not understand. Started after DES made a new page for me, spelling with B. After, just sinning both way. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Exactly. True. But why? Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how the page was created now, Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich, because it has been deleted. However, it's possible to create a page for a non-existent user by accident. Perhaps whoever created it accidentally inserted the "B" into the URL before they posted something on your user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. So page is gone? OK, just mistake. I want to interest you in the first question. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Liz deleted it. I now realise how this must have happened - you have spelled your user name in your post above (and in your original post yesterday) with a "B". Someone probably followed the link and commented, hence creating the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not me, it just happens. After visiting the page, start spelling Bergius. Automatic. Also sometimes arrive there, automatic. after, it sign Bergius. There was message from DES at Bergius page. Teahouse message to me. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You have just changed your signature links to the "B" spelling, Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich. Don't do that - this is what causes people to post in the wrong place. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

YES! This not me! https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&curid=34745517&diff=706128762&oldid=706127871

Yes, I'm getting very confused about your identity. Just use four tildes "~~~~" to sign. See Wikipedia:Signatures. Dbfirs 17:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Дерьмо! It does again. It is automatic. I do nothing. I push signing button. Sometimes Bergius sometimes comes Sergius. Why? I do NOTHING. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting very confused / YES Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not change nothing myself. Never, it is automatic. Sometimes it comes Bergius, sometimes it comes Sergius, I do nothing. I push little button. It is automatic. I do not understand. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Started when there was message from DES at sudden new Bergius page. Teahouse message to me. After started signing both Bergius and Sergius. Automatic, I do really nothing. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Somebody do something. Stop this. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:ULTRANET

I reviewed Draft:ULTRANET and declined it, requesting more independent reliable sources about the network and the network project. User:Hvdc news then posted the following to my talk page:

"Dear Mr. McClenon, Thank you for the review. However, I am trying to put up an English page for one in German is already existing. You mention more references: I included them. The link to English references is difficult since it is a German project. Wikipedia will be the reference at the end for the English speaking community. Please check the German wikipedia site to verify the need."

If I understand correctly, they are saying that the English Wikipedia article will list the German Wikipedia article as a reference. It isn’t absolutely clear on reading the policy that citing Wikipedia as a source is unacceptable circular referencing that a foreign Wikipedia, like the English Wikipedia, is not a source. However, Use Common Sense would appear to me to mean that the English Wikipedia should not cite the German Wikipedia. While English references are always preferred, reliable German references are acceptable, so that the references from the German Wikipedia may be copied into the English draft. Am I correct that the German Wikipedia may not be cited as a source?

Also, what is the correct form for linking to the German article? (If the German article is more complete, German-literate readers may prefer to read it rather than the English article.) Is that an external link? It isn’t really external. Is there a specific way to provide a link to a page in a non-English Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon:

• Yes, we should not cite the German-langauge Wikipedia. if WP:CIRCULAR isn't fully clear on that (and it should be) WP:RS is: the DE-Wikipedia, like most wikis, relies on user-generated content, and so is not a reliable source. It could be cited in an article about that edition of Wikipedia, for evidence on what it said, but not to support other content.
• To add the German-language article to the list of interlanguage links, include [[de:<Title of german article>]] Traditionally this goes at the bottom, like a category, but it works anywhere in the article. To DISPLAY such alink, for example in the See Also section, include [[:de:<Title of german article>]] (note the leading colon). The same can be done using any of the language codes that correspond to actual Wikipedia editions. The interlanguage link can also be done via the wikidata item for the article. DES (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Interlanguage links are handled at Wikidata now, not by code at the foot of the article. I don't think the See Also section would be an appropriate place for an ILL either.--ukexpat (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Only mainspace articles get linked through Wikidata, not drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed so, but ILLs should not be added to a draft in any event, but added later via Wikidata if the draft is accepted.--ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I did not mean to cite the German site. The German site, imo, is to biased, using newspaper or praesentation references, not in an impartial way, giving little detail about the actual project, but opinion.

I will, if the Draft is accepted later, link that one as English version of on wikidata, if this is possbile. I need help on how to make this site live, without translating the German website. I will elaborate the Draft when possible in the near future. Links to lets say English speaking references are difficult. That is what I meant by the English version will hold as reference for the project later on worldwide... Greetings hvdc_news Hvdc news (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Template merge pending

Hello, the merger of {{Infobox Jain temple}} into {{Infobox religious building}} was initiated long ago. It is still bearing the tag, though the merger was never actually initiated. Can someone please guide me what are the options available? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo it looks like there wasn't clear consensus to merge. However, I will ask Plastikspork to explain the reasoning behind the statement.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And it appears this user is semi-retired, which won't help. I could ask someone else.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing may have some idea what to do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How to tell which of your edits is your (#)th

Hello, I have recently asked a question in regard of how many pages I have edited, and have been referred to this page: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=KnowledgeIsGoodForYou&project=en.wikipedia.org

However, I need help finding which of my edits is my (insert number here)th, and so forth, so I could add it to my milestones profile page.

I am currently a month-old Wikipedia editor that is still new to the Wikipedia format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeIsGoodForYou (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

KnowledgeIsGoodForYou, the simplest way to do that is probably to go to this page and count up from the bottom of the list. Your first 100 edits are these. HTH. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, go to "preferences" at the top meny bar, and then it says "Number of edits: XXXX" // Psemmler (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki helping projects

Wikipedia must create a project for a software designer, To design for helping children hgrow their minds and brain to be intelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianca Levine (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Bianca Levine, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I thought at first you were talking about an article about a particular software designer, but I don't think you are. Could you explain further, so we can direct you to somewhere suitable? (By the way saying "Wikipedia must" anything is not very enrolling: Wikipedia, in the sense of anybody who does anything, is the thousands and thousands of volunteers who edit and manage it, nothing else. So if you are asking for something to be created, you need to interest volunteers in your idea, not just state that "Wikipedia must" do something). --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continued on my talk page --ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Replicating tables from peer sites

Thank you for the generated offer to help with editing. I'm sure the solution is very simple and I wanted to figure it out myself. But I have received other notices about citations and references. There is no point asking for any editing help if I cannot first convince Wikipedia editors of the page's relevance. So please, let me explain who I am and why I think this article is needed. If you agree, I will post my editing question about tables. I was recently hired to do PR for the international Korean-based law firm in question, DR & AJU. But that is not why, I'm building a Wikipedia article about it. I read Wikipedia's guidelines carefully and only decided to invest the time when we found numerous third-party references about the firm in English- and Korean-language journals and books. The firm is involved in cases with international coverage and is a good example of the changes occurring in the Korean legal market following FTAs with the EU and the U.S. My first task here was to compare law firms' social media presence. While all the Western firms I studied had Wikipedia pages on the English site, only two Korean firms are listed. The largest firm (Kim & Chang) and Yulchon (linked below with a "multiple issues" warning on its page. I did not begin this project until I was sure this firm's page could avoid all the issues raised with Yulchon's presence. I understand the guidelines and directions for references and citations. I don't foresee problems with those. What I am having problems with is getting a table to match those in related sites -- specifically the general summary (headquarters, No. offices, etc.) listed in these two example pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Wessing and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulchon. In the meantime I will skip that table and start adding the citations and references. Please look at the page after 4:00 am ET Friday, Feb. 19. If you feel it meets Wikipedia's criteria for a commercial business and I still have not figured out how to do the table properly, I will post my question. One last thing, if I need to do volunteer editing prior to the article being accepted, I will gladly comply. I have an MA in Korean studies and am a native English speaker, so I would feel confident editing Korean history and culture-related articles in need of grammar or style correction. Another area I may be able to be of help is your in-house pages describing how to post questions to this Teahouse and/or create tables in Wikipedia. To younger readers or those with ample Wikipedia editing experience they are clear, I'm sure. But I think middle-aged novices, like myself, might relate better to different wording and examples. I respect what you have done and are doing. I would enjoy being a part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalKorea (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@LegalKorea: You say, "I was recently hired to do PR for the international Korean-based law firm in question, DR & AJU." Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In brief, Wikipedia generally does not allow articles that people have written about themselves, their close family members, their employers, or anyone else with whose interests they are closely aligned.--Thnidu (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Thindu, for the feedback. I read the policy and if it expressly forbade related parties from writing articles, I would not have started this project. But there is a caveat that if the employee openly discloses the association, writes a neutral piece based on third-party sources and allows critical references added later to stay posted, the article could be accepted. I plan to comply with all of these stipulations. That is why I'm asking editors to verify that the subject is notable and the article neutral before I waste their time with minor editing questions. Also if there were not already many Western firms on Wikipedia and only two Korean firms, I would not have started. But as the point of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, shouldn't that knowledge include the existence of different kinds of firms -- especially in a time of global liberalization of the legal services market -- provided those firms are engaged in work of international relevance? LegalKorea (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where you have complied with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. —teb728 t c 07:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LegalKorea. In answer to your question, that 'table' is called an infobox. If you edit one of those other articles, you will see, near the top {{infobox law firm}} (or possibly another infobox, but I'm guessing that is the one used. You need to copy that, all the way down to the matching double curly bracket, and paste it into the article you're working on; then you can change the values of the fields accordingly. Note that you cannot just make up fields: if some of the fields in the template you're copying don't quite match your needs, you need to look at the documentation on the template (which I linked to above) which say what fields are available for that infobox.

One other point, which might seem a quibble, but I think it is important for you to understand. There is not one firm (or person, or anything else) in the world that "has" a Wikipedia article. On the contrary, Wikipedia has articles about many companies and people. And if anybody chooses to regard the existence or non-existence of a Wikipedia article about a company as relevant to that company's web presence, that is a matter of complete indifference to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine. Another editor, Teb728, was kind enough to add the infobox. Your suggestions and explanation are very useful. While I looked at related pages I never opened the "edit source" links to any, feeling that I had nothing to add and that it was the private content of the original contributor. I am starting to grasp the total Wikipedia package and methodology. It's been very enlightening. After I finish this page, I will look for others I can positively contribute to gain more experience. LegalKorea (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Footnote reference in quote in reference

I've just created Anne's Spot as a planetary science stub, after seeing it redlinked from Anticyclone. I did a bit of research and was able to write two sentences about it from two reliable sources. The second of those, Vasavada et al., gave further detail that I added in the quote field of the note. That quote references a third source, which I think needs to be credited properly, but I can't figure out how to add a reference from a reference. I've read the refn template doc, and maybe I'm too tired, but I just don't get it. Help, please?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu, While it is technically possible to have footnotes withing footnotes, in my view it usually leads to a confusing article, and should not be done unless there is not a better way to handle the situation. In this case, the better way is simple: move the quote into the article proper, with inline attribution. Then the footnote for the quoted reference can simply follow the quote. This will be much clearer. The article would read something like this:

Anne's Spot refers to a reddish-colored anticyclonic oval in Saturn's atmosphere, observed in 1977 by the Voyager space probes at 55°S. It may well also have been observed in 2004 by the Cassini orbiter, at about 53°S, one-third larger east-west, and with faster winds. Vasavada, Hörst and Kennedy write that: "It is tempting to speculate that this vortex is Anne's Spot from the Voyager era [Sánchez-Lavega et al., 2000]. If so, it has moved ~2° north in latitude and increased in velocity by ~25 m s−1, just as predicted by the zonal wind profile (in addition, its east-west diameter has increased from 3200 km to 4500 km)."

References

Does this method seem reasonable to you? DES ^(talk) 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Yes, indeed. Thank you for the advice, which I will take. --Thnidu (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Well, I tried it. I was unhappy about that quote taking up so much of such a short article, so I put it back to almost the way I'd had it, with a kludge in the refs to handle the ref-in-ref problem. --Thnidu (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to change my username, is it possible (Afghanjournalist (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I presume that you meant to post this as a new question, Afghanjournalist, although your edit summary was "response", which makes it sound like it is somehow related to this question. Anyway, you can read about changing your username at Wikipedia:Changing username. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to create a Wikipedia article

Hi, I want to create a Wikipedia article of a company, please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.40.223 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! There's a lot of advice on how to go about creating your first article at Wikipedia:Your first article. Bear in mind not every company qualifies for an article on Wikipedia; for a company to have an article about it on Wikipedia, it should meet the guidelines described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Good luck! —me_and 19:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. As well as the good advice me_and has given you, I would very strongly advise you to spend some time improving some of our five million existing article first. There are two reasons for this: one is that creating a new article is hard and you will probably encounter very much less frustration if you already have experience about how Wikipedia works. Secondly, it will establish that you are here to improve the encyclopaedia, and not just to publicise a particular company. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)