Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

Am I wasting my time with this draft?

Hi again, I have made what appears to be a classic error of starting a draft before checking the subject is notable. I find lots of Reliable coverage, but not focussed on the subject when googling. Am I wasting my time with User:GreyGreenWhy/Parliament of 1327? Thank you for being so helpful, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet User:Serial Number 54129 can give an informed opinion. They've done a fair bit of work in and around this time period. GMG ^talk 16:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, GreenMeansGo; @GreyGreenWhy: (curiously apposite usernames you both have, when placed next to each other!). Absolutely, yes. It was one of the—what, four?—most important parliaments of the fourteenth century, and certainly the most important in the first half of the century. And you've made a good start on it too :) How are you fixed for access to sources, by the way? Incidentally, I'm not sure, but I'd guess that now your question has received an answer, substantive discussion should be moved to talk pages? Eh, GMG? >SerialNumber54129::^{...speculates} 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Serial Number 54129, it sounds like you mean yes, it is notable, rather than yes, it is a waste of time. Is that correct? Thank you for the feedback. With sources access, I have mostly just been using Chris Bryant's book, I don't have anything else that is really relevant. I'll try to write the background section, add a few google books sources and then submit, then. Thanks again, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:User:GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreyGreenWhy: Your previous ping was OK, see WP:Notifications#Triggering events. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, just to confuse matters, they don't always come through... sorry, GreyGreenWhy, I rather thought the discussion was over here. Hope all's well? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good so far, I have moved it to draft space and added a reflist, perhaps others will chip in. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor needed to verify newly-created page

Hello. My apologies first because I am sure I did not do things in the official correct way.

I created an entry for a short-lived American TV show from 1997. Here is the link: Draft:Prince Street (1997 TV Series)

Could someone please look over/edit the page so it can be a part of Wikipedia's catalog? If there are other steps I need to take before the page becomes a part of Wikipedia, please let me know.

Thank you in advance to anyone that helps me and thank you for your time. AvitheTVGeek (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AvitheTVGeek and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your draft looks to be in very good shape. My "defang cats" edit was needed because we do not enroll draft-space articles in main-space categories. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One user is constantly reverting facts to lies

Hello,

Really simple, i live in a small town named Posusje in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When you check that page, in explanation of pronunciation of the name Posusje SHOULD be: Posusje, Croatian word for drought. It is very simple because 99% of population that live in that town and county are croats. So, 99% of people, ok?

User with name Surtsicna is constantly changing info from croatian to "bosnian". First of all, to clear things up, bosnian language did not existed twenty years ago. Bosnian language is basically combination of two languages, croatian and serbian.

It is not my intention to start political discussion, but the fact is, this is just an example of majorization of one ethnic group by another one, in this case "bosniaks". I would like to point freedom of speech, and common civil rights in this case. Posusje is small town and not really important but what most important is our native language, our history and our culture and we are very proud of it. Those 99% of population are croats and they speak croatian language.

Please if any one can help me to stop spreading lies over wikipedia and to stop this person reverting truth to lie. Thank you Drazj (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drazj, and welcome to the Teahouse. You and the other editor are currently engaged in an edit war over the pronunciation. This is a content dispute, and the correct procedure is to discuss it on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 08:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both of you for stating your positions at Talk:Posušje, but you need to come to some sort of compromise over the language. I've changed the sound file back to Croatian because there is no Bosnian sound file. Both of you are correct, and both of you are sincere in your beliefs, but to avoid being blocked for edit warring, you need to agree to include both languages in some form. Dbfirs 15:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Haripal Kaushik

Can someone take a look at Haripal Kaushik? It's literally a single line article. I added a reference earlier today, due to his death, and that's the only reference for the article thus far. Since it's creation in 2006 there hasn't been much edit history, based on this, I nominated the article via AFD but that was removed by an editor who said "The subject is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)" I'm still not sure I agree--there's not enough sources. Not enough biographical information. I'm an article reviewer and it just didn't pass the smell test with me. Does this sportsperson still warrant having an article? Thoughts? Thanks in advance for the feedback. Snickers2686 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snickers2686. Generally, athletes who have competed at the Olympic level are very likely to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia, so if it is verifiable that an athlete participated at the Olympics (in this case, even won a gold medal), I'd say it's more likely than not the article will be kept if you nominated it to WP:AFD. This is reflected in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria, which states that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). One thing I noticed was this person was active a very long time ago, and most sources about him would have probably been published while he was still actively competing. As a result, the sources may be harder to find than sources about an athlete who participated in a more recent Olympics. In addition to being offline, they may not be in English. These are considerations that I think we should keep in mind when deciding whether to delete. Mz7 (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His team won two gold medals at two different games (1956 and 1964) so that automatically makes him notable according to guidelines- see the Olympic team section Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Olympic and Paralympic Games. And he also has a war medal (not enough on its own, but certainly adds to it..) Curdle (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Snickers2686. Please take another look at Haripal Kaushik now. I have added references and expanded the article significantly. What do you think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources (remix)

I just read a Teahouse section about citing primary sources. I understand the reasons and Wikipedia policies, BUT sometimes they do not make common sense. Here is a concrete example: Elon Musk made a presentation about a current SpaceX project whose goal is manned trips to Mars. In theory a contributor cannot cite the original presentation for the information presented but can cite a web article that parrots it. Here is a couple of things that happened. Elon Musk consistently referred to the new spacecraft as "BFR". One of the questions is what does BFR stand for. Several news writers used some of popular "translations" which include "Big Falcon Rocket" and "Big F___ing Rocket". These names can be (and were) used in the Wikipedia article since they are from secondary sources. I do not believe an Encyclopedia Britannica article would even mention these alternative names. One reason to use "reliable" secondary sources is supposedly they have done some verification. I see very few references in web articles. Basically, I can write that "Joe Blow says John Smith said ..." but I cannot write "John Smith said ..." Now the question, am I missing something?User-duck (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, User-duck. A guy like Elon Musk might give hundreds or thousands of speeches during his career, most of which are unworthy of mention in the encyclopedia. It is not the job of individual Wikipedia editors to decide that a given speech deserves coverage. But when independent secondary sources devote an unusual level of attention to a speech, then it may deserve mention in Musk's biography or an article about the rocket. Once that decision has been made through consensus of interested editors, then the primary source speech text can be used for accuracy of quotes. Editorial judgment is important. If a secondary source makes solid factual assertions and then veers off into speculation, then level headed editors ought to know what to summarize and include, and what to exclude. If there are multiple sources, then use the ones with the best reputations for journalistic integrity, accuracy, fact checking and error correction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom

This article does not mention that propertied women could vote in UK local elections before ever they got the Parliamentary franchise. This is a neglected topic about which I know very little but the article needs some expert attention. How to arrange this? Frankem51 (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that would already be explained in detail in the very first section of the body text? ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing from own work and photo copyright

Dear Wikipedians,

In my edit of William Edwin Hamilton I used a reference to a book I wrote and which has not been published officially, although it is in several libraries: A Victorian Marriage. But based upon it we published an article in the Bulletin of the British Society for the History of Mathematics, which is peer-reviewed: A most gossiped about genius: Sir William Rowan Hamilton. The reason I decided to use it is that the source is an opinion piece which, apart from the dates of emigration and resettling which seem to be in accordance with information from other sources (but very hard to find), contains some errors and a clearly negative (hearsay) opinion (WE certainly was not a 'remittance man') which I think should not be repeated in an encyclopedia: Hamilton listed cost of everything in his diary. Please let me know if this is ok. Btw, my book is open access; I did not sell it apart from a very few (12) hardback copies.

About the photo: I asked permission to use it from one of Hamilton's descendants, but that reason cannot be chosen when uploading the file? VWA (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VWA. There are several separate items to tease apart here.

A book from a reputable publisher is usually regarded as a reliable source; a self-published book is usually not (though reliability isn't a simple yes/no: it depends on what it is being used to support. See WP:IRS.
An article in a peer-reviewed journal usually is regarded as a reliable source (though the same caveats apply).
But citing your own work as a source is seen as at least a potential conflict of interest: it's not forbidden, but it is better practice to suggest the change on the talk page and wait for an uninvolved editor to decide what to do. Where the work is proposing a new interpretation or opinion, that is doubly important, because it would be so easy to give one's own work undue weight.
Whether the book is open access is irrelevant: what is required is the a reader can in principle obtain the reference to verify it, but being able to order it through a library, or get it on subscription, would be acceptable for that purpose.
As for the photo: permission to use a photo on Wikipedia is not enough. One of the purposes of Wikipedia is that its content may be freely used, so normally images must either be in the public domain (by reason of age, or by explicit release by the copyright holder); or they must be explicitly licensed by the copyright holder under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse them for any purpose. See donating copyright materials for more information. Because this is so restrictive there is an exception that non-free images may be used provided such use meets all the non-free content criteria: in this case, permission is irrelevant.

--ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ColinFine. Thank you for your comments. I deleted the reference to my book.

For some changes I have waited for about a year. Is there any way to attract attention from an editor in case of not-very-important pages?
I do not think I understand the part about the photograph, and I read many pages now and still feel not much wiser. But you mention a "reason of age": the subject died in 1902, and I found his photo in a 1980 p-book, where is was published 'courtesy to' Hamilton's nephew. I would think it is in the public domain then? VWA (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:COIREQ, VWA. Using the {{request edit}} template will attract attention to any talk page request. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the copyright, I don't know, VWA.I see that you have uploaded the photo as PD, but WP:PD#Publication seems to me to be saying that if the image was first made available to the public in a 1980 book, then it is not PD. I suggest asking at WP:CQ. --ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"TBA" listing don't make sense

Enough. What precious few questions were buried in the wall of text of back-and-forth discussion below have been answered, in spite of the original poster's impoliteness. If they failed to read or understand replies, it is no reason to abuse those who answer; the civility rules apply on the Help Desk, and not only to answerers. Since (1) the discussion has long gone past its usefulness and (2) it takes a large chunk of the page, I am hatting it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the “Upcoming pay-per-view schedule” section on the “List of WWE pay-per-view events” page. In the “2018” section there are eight (8) “TBA” listings under “Venue” but there ARE IN FACT cities & states listed under “location”….so my question is this: if, for example, on “May 27, 2018” the “Payback” event is going to be in “Baltimore, Maryland” what arena/venue do they go to other then Royal Farms Arena? Therefore, why is the “venue” listed at “TBA” & not Royal Farms Arena? If the city/state “location” in know, why isn’t the “venue” known & only listed as “TBA”? That doesn’t make any sense to me.2602:306:CCE0:8550:ED15:6CBF:3191:62C2 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC):[reply]

Hello IP user. The answer is, it is that way because the editor(s) who put the information in chose to put it in that way. If you disagree, you can either edit the article List of WWE pay-per-view events directly, or start a discussion on the talk page Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view events. This page is about problems with editing Wikipedia, not about the content of articles. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that does not help me. I looked there but can’t seem to figure out how to post anything there - all I can find is archived stuff but nothing that looks at all like what I’m looking for….I posted here because this was the only place I could find to ask - so please don’t tell me I posted in the wrong place when I had nowhere else to post. 2602:306:CCE0:8550:ED15:6CBF:3191:62C2 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the "New section" tab at top of Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view events. Note that all the entries with a venue at List of WWE pay-per-view events#2018 have an inline reference on a small clickable number either at the venue or in the "Main event" column. If you find a reliable source naming a venue then you are welcome to add the venue and reference in the same format as the others. It would be against Wikipedia:No original research to add a venue just because a user thinks it's the only possible venue in that city. You may read "TBA" as "To be announced in this article". It's certainly possible that some of the "TBA" venues have been announced outside Wikipedia. We don't claim to be up to date with everything. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely useless to me. First of all, I do not post on here but am looking for info….but “TBA” is not actuate info when a city/state is listed. I’d actually want to ask the person that posted that (on Wikipedia, not the link) but I can’t find anything that indicates who posted what so it is impossible to ask. I am asking the only place I could find to ask but I have not gotten anything helpful at all - I have only been attacked for even asking a question….talk about harassment & abuse, you are harassing & abusing me! 2602:306:CCE0:8550:ED15:6CBF:3191:62C2 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find out which edit added a particular piece of text to the article, you can ue the "Revision history search" option from the article's history page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how the answers you have received could be perceived as harassment or abuse, IP editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We try to be helpful but it's not always clear what a poster wants. The top of this page says the Teahouse is "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia", so I thought that was your goal. If you are only asking for info about entertainment events then the proper place is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Nearly all the events at List of WWE pay-per-view events#2018 have a reference to [1] which lists cities but not venues. I haven't examined the page history but I guess that is the main reason the page shows cities but not venues for many of the events. I have tried several Google searches but can nearly only find sites saying the May 27, 2018 event in Baltimore has the venue to be announced. The exception is https://www.cultofwhatever.com/2017/11/wwe-2018-ppv-schedule/ which says Royal Farms Arena but may not satisfy Wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. The event is not currently listed at http://www.royalfarmsarena.com/events/all but they have no other listings between May 5 and June 5. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I had said previously, I had already tried that but that did not help me as all! Furthermore, s a matter a fact, please don’t tell about the “talk” link because I did that & that is exactly how I got here only to be told this isn’t the right place to ask! So how does anything I have been told really help me at all? Quite frankly, it doesn’t - I have not gotten any help at all! 2602:306:CCE0:8550:ED15:6CBF:3191:62C2 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which talk page did you use to ask the question, and what IP or account were you using? I ask because your current IP has never posted anywhere on Wikipedia but to the Teahouse, and as far as I can see this question has not been raised recently on Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view events. If I misunderstood, then follow ColinFine's suggstion and start a thread on that talk page. If you can post here then you can post there (the article is protected but its talk page is not). Meters (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I did all along! Way before Colin said anything at all (actually, before I even posted), I went to the List of WWE pay-per-view events page, click on view history & clicked talk on the most recent Upcoming pay-per-view schedule that I could find….but guess where that got me….RIGHT SMACK-DAB HERE where I posted as the very next page I saw had the link Visit the Teahouse, clicked that & badda-bing, badda boom HERE I AM RIGHT BACK AGAIN! So don’t tell me I’m wrong as I TRASED MY VERY STEPS (in a second browser window) as I type this so DON’T YOU DARE tell me I’m wrong as this posting is FACTUAL PROOF of how I got here! Don’t believe me, do it yourself & prove me wrong…. 2602:306:CCE0:8550:ED15:6CBF:3191:62C2 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you're frustrated, IP user, but SHOUTING at the people who are trying to help you really won't help anything. I don't understand for sure what you mean by " clicked talk on the most recent Upcoming pay-per-view schedule that I could find…", but I'm guessing you found the relevant edit to the page and clicked 'talk' on that line. That should have taken you to the user talk page of the editor who made that edit. It may be that that editor has "Visit the Teahouse" on their User Talk page, (though it does seem an odd thing to have) but without knowing which line you clicked on, and so which user's talk page you went to, I can't check. What you should have been able to do is start a new section on that user talk page (or create it if it had never been created) and ask the user about your concern. --ColinFine (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to tell the IP anything other than that his or her current IP has made no edits other than to this Teahouse thread Special:Contributions/2602:306:CCE0:8550:ED15:6CBF:3191:62C2, and that the talk page for the article in question is not protected . If he didn't post anywhere using any other IPs or accounts then he should go back and try posting to the talk page again. The talk page is not protected andhe should be able to post there. And yes, I did check that unconfirmed editors can post there with no problems. Yelling at people who are trying to help and accusing them of harassmentand abuse is not polite or likely to help. Meters (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, I have done every single thing that I have been told - multiple times, in fact - but nothing has worked at all….I just end up right back here every single time! I have clearly stated that multiple times & no one has proven me wrong yet - so no one can say otherwise as I have stated nothing but facts, it doesn’t work….therefore as much as you say I’ve been help it is nothing but lies - no one has told me anything that has helped at all! 2602:306:CCE0:8550:4D43:C119:24B4:6A33 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We may be able to help if you say clearly what you are trying to do and link the pages you have visited. Like ColinFine, I cannot guess where you went when you only say "clicked talk on the most recent Upcoming pay-per-view schedule that I could find…". I examined the page history of List of WWE pay-per-view events. "TBA" for many of the 2018 venues was added in November 2017 by User:Galatz. I guess Galatz could not find a source naming those venues. The edits used [2] as source for other information but it does not list venues. Galatz is still active and has been notified of this edit but can also be contacted at User talk:Galatz. If the only thing you are trying to do is find the venues (and not to change Wikipedia) then I have given you a link to https://www.cultofwhatever.com/2017/11/wwe-2018-ppv-schedule/ which lists venues but I don't know whether it's accurate, and I have given you a link to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment where you can try to ask people interested in answering entertainment questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me. The issue is that by the nature of the person's first message above “May 27, 2018” the “Payback” event is going to be in “Baltimore, Maryland” what arena/venue do they go to other then Royal Farms Arena? shows that his only source of this information is WP:OR. The WWE has used baseball and football arenas in the past as well, so there are other possible venues. Additionally, the WWE will often bill events like Judgment Day (2009) as taking place in Chicago since if they said Rosemont, Illinois people would have no idea where they meant. Just two years ago they billed WrestleMania 32 as from Dallas when it was in Arlington, Texas. As you can see its not as easy as saying this is the only venue so it must be here. This is why wikipedia requires a WP:RS for any of these things dealing with future events. As stated above, the RS used only mentioned city which is why that has been included. If you have a reference to a website that meets the requirements of WP:RS I will be happy to add it to the page for you. For a listing of professional wrestling specific sources we can use as a RS you can check out here Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. I hope this helps. - Galatz ^Talk 17:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Galatz, you are wrong! You say “The WWE has used baseball and football arenas in the past as well, so there are other possible venues” but that is not accuate! The only time WWE goes to football stadiums is for WrestleMania & the 2 times the Royal Rumble was at the Alamodome (they have baseball never been to a baseball stadium until next year’s Royal Rumble). Tell me just 1 time they’ve been to a “baseball and football arenas” for something other then WrestleMania or Royal Rumble? Case in point: when have they ever been to Baltimore & went to Oriole Park at Camden Yards (the baseball park) or M&T Bank Stadium (the football stadium) but not the Royal Farms Arena! When in Baltimore they only go to the Royal Farms Arena (other then naming rights changes - Baltimore Civic Center, Baltimore Arena, 1st Mariner Arena & now Royal Farms Arena - that is the only arena Baltimore has ever had)! So why in the heck would you put “TBA”? As far as you clamming “Additionally, the WWE will often bill events like Judgment Day (2009) as taking place in Chicago since if they said Rosemont, Illinois people would have no idea where they meant. Just two years ago they billed WrestleMania 32 as from Dallas when it was in Arlington, Texas.”, that is beside the point….that only makes sense if the arena is outside of the main city limits (i.e. Rosemont, Illinois is a suburb of Chicago, Arlington, Texas is a suburb of Dallas) that would only make sense for promoting the even which is not the case in Baltimore there are no arenas in the suburbs of Baltimore to list it that way. My question was simple yet it still has not been answered….go figure! 2602:306:CCE0:8550:4D43:C119:24B4:6A33 (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, last time I checked Showdown at Shea took place at a baseball stadium and King of the Ring multiple times took place at a football stadium. Your point is moot however. Before the first time you do something you can always say it was never done before. And even if you are correct and it does take place there, unless you have a WP:RS to back up your assumption it is WP:OR and a clear violation of wikipedia policy. Chances are you are correct and it will be there, but Wikipedia does not go based on your feelings, it goes based on information in a RS. I am sorry if that is upsetting to you, but it is policy. There are other venues in Maryland that they could in theory be calling Baltimore, such as Cole Field House or Xfinity Center (College Park, Maryland). After all, College Park is only 30 minutes away. You could say they would call those DC instead, but again that is based on your assumption and not supported by a RS. Again I am sorry if this is upsetting to you but it is policy for a reason. - Galatz ^Talk 20:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really, wise guy? First of all, there hasn’t been a Showdown at Shea in 38 years (besides there were only 3, in 1972, 1976 & 1980)….same with King of the Ring, the 2 you are referring to were way back in 1985 & 1986 - way before PPVs, BTW so they don’t count! You clam “And even if you are correct and it does take place there, unless you have a WP:RS to back up your assumption it is WP:OR and a clear violation of wikipedia policy.” where do you get your info from? Maybe I know about &/or have proof but I don’t update/edit anything on wikipedia, ever think of that? What if I actually know everything you have “TBA” for but can’t post it? Or do you know rather or not I’ve posed anything (before) but someone (else) changed it & took it down? You don’t, do you? Maybe I don’t post (anymore) because I got tired of updating/posting just for someone to change it? Maybe, just maybe I got tired of wasting my time, ever think of that? Let me ask you this: if it’s know info (on the web) how do I know [about] it & have it but you don’t know it to post it? Kinda makes you seem lazy to me! The point is you do not have accurate information & are just making excuses for why you don’t know what I do! Maybe you need to do a better job before with your research before you post stuff you don’t have actual information on/for! You farther clam that “There are other venues in Maryland that they could in theory be calling Baltimore, such as Cole Field House or Xfinity Center (College Park, Maryland). After all, College Park is only 30 minutes away. You could say they would call those DC instead, but again that is based on your assumption and not supported by a RS.” but that is false….unlike other universities I have never known the University of Maryland to have ever held/hosted a non-university-related sporting event (the only held at/on the UMD campus was an Obama rally which from what I know was university-sponsored & high school tournaments but nothing non-student/school-based) so I guarantee you your clam is completely incorrect - WWE is out of the question - it will not be in College Park, that is a fact, jack! To put it mildly, the fact of the matter, is that despite what you say, there is no reason whatsoever why you have “TBA” & not the actual arenas as I have clearly stated (multiple times, in fact)! Gee, it sucks not to be able to back up what you say, doesn’t it? I prove you (all) wrong yet again….I make my point, thanks for NOTHING you stupid idiot(s)! 2602:306:CCE0:8550:4D43:C119:24B4:6A33 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're not actually here looking for help; you're just looking for people to tell you the answers you already want to hear. If you're unwilling to refrain from personal attacks on other editors or assume the good faith of the editors seeking to assist you, you're putting yourself at risk of being blocked. Ravenswing 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I want - all I ever wanted, actually - is answers that actually make sense that someone that is not a tech geek would understand (I have no idea what any of the lingo that has been thrown at me ever means yet you expect me to have the slightest idea what you are talking about)….speak English & now tech-talk so I can understand it. How ‘bout that for starters? I am fed up with you people - I’m done…. 2602:306:CCE0:8550:4D43:C119:24B4:6A33 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've received several such answers, and the handful you've received based around Wikipedia jargon have also come with hyperlinks to the policies being referenced; the people providing them to you aren't at fault if you haven't been willing to take a look for yourself. Ravenswing 23:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a short answer: The article doesn't mention a venue because nobody has found a reliable source naming a venue.

Your arguments for the venue are not relevant to Wikipedia. The quality of the arguments doesn't matter. Wikipedia requires a reliable published source specifically naming the venue of the event. A discussion about the likelihood of an unsourced venue is off-topic for Wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia satisfying our guidelines. You are apparently here for something else. I suggest you find another website for that. Try a Google search on wrestling forum. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes disruptive editing?

I recently received a 48-hour block for disruptive editing. While I understand the reasons why it is considered an offense, I'm unclear on why some of my later edits were considered disruptive. I don't want to cause more trouble, so I'd like to make sure I understand the difference between disruptive edits and constructive ones. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximajorian Viridio: There is an explanation and examples of disruptive editing at WP:DISRUPT. RudolfRed (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see excessive overlinking in your edit history, not enough to be disruptive, but perhaps NeilN, who imposed the block, saw something that I didn't. Are you sure that you have no other account on Wikipedia? Dbfirs 21:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maximajorian Viridio. Your edits were very similar to another editor's who was blocked the same time you started editing. That editor never communicated despite numerous attempts to reach out so by posting this here, you show you are very likely not them. I apologize for the inconvenience. Pinging David J Johnson (who originally expressed concern) so the he's aware. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Water under the bridge. I'm just happy this misunderstanding's been cleared up. I've read WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Overlinking, and I'm still not sure what I did wrong, at least for the edits I made after David J Johnson posted to my talk page. I thought I was making edits that would help readers understand the article better. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not convinced by the statements made by Maximajorian Viridio. The question of WP:OVERLINKing was ignored by this user until their block. Further their range of "contributions" range over a vast amount of unrelated subjects in exactly the same way as the previously blocked user and those changes do not look like a recent new user. I suggest that the community continues to monitor these alterations and perhaps this user can supply us with a user page? David J Johnson (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure user pages aren't required. Also, how exactly does having a wide spread of edited articles imply sockpuppetry? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 12:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... is wondering that as well, and agrees that on an encyclopedia where registration isn't required, user pages sure as hell aren't. Ravenswing 23:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that a User page is required. It would just be informative to know the contributor's interests and motives. Regarding the wide spread of "edited" articles, all I have mentioned that this exactly the same pattern as the blocked person. My view on registration are well known. David J Johnson (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That makes sense, just the way you worded it sounded like "I'll report to AIV if they don't make a user page". That still shouldn't count against them if they don't, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urth Caffe

Hello all! After reading 'Your First Article', I am getting ready to write my first. I wanted to first check in with the Teahouse to see if the restaurant 'Urth Caffe' would be considered a notable enough topic to create an article about? It is one of the main restaurants that the crew goes to in Entourage and right down the street from where I live. I've placed 3 sources down below of which there are several others online. Looking forward to receiving feedback.

http://tbrnews.com/news/urth-caffe-bringing-headquarters-to-manhattan-beach-adjacent-location/article_204483ac-8200-11e7-b644-13210e7b07d7.html https://www.eastwestbank.com/ReachFurther/News/Article/How-Urth-Caffe-Owners-Turned-a-Labor-of-Love-into-Booming-Business https://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/17/old-towne-urth-caffe-will-occupy-plaza-building-as-old-as-orange/

MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome MirzaTheGreatest. From looking at the articles you've posted, as well as a quick Google News search, it appears Urth Caffe has received a lot of press coverage. I haven't looked at it in great depth but I'd keep in mind that things like restaurant reviews and so forth might not necessarily contribute to WP:CORPDEPTH. However, if among WP:RS, we can establish things like the ownership, year of founding - basically things that don't just prove it exists, as merely existing doesn't satisfy notability, but can demonstrate in-depth coverage of the business itself - you should be good to go. The article you provided from eastwestbank.com would be absolutely ideal for that purpose, except I'm not 100% sure a profile on a bank website necessarily meets the standards of RS. But something similar in a newspaper, magazine, etc. would really fit the bill. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I found these two articles from the Los Angeles Business Journal [3] and Los Angeles Magazine [4]. It's always impossible to say with certainty if an article will pass the WP:GNG , however, I'll just say that if it were me I would certainly move forward with writing an article on the Urth Caffe! Chetsford (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Chetsford! I will begin working on it this week. MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reading it, MirzaTheGreatest! Chetsford (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can not anyone edit my posts to fit the wiki properly?

Hello,Bfpage Teahouse host(To-Eum constitution) please don't delete it again it is newly written in my own words. I look forward to helping anyone who speaks English well. User:Solvaram/sandbox It is the situation which can not understand and cope with various intellectual points. I made it difficult for me to post the 8 constitution-medicine article related to the Google translator, and I have posted the minimal articles that I keep on my user page as a self - help. As I was studying English, even the wiki format became a bogus. However, they are willing to issue the relevant subject matter formally, but their ability and time are not allowed. I would be very grateful if anyone would arrange this on my behalf. Solvaram (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Solvaram: I'm sorry you're having trouble, but machine translations are not allowed. If your English skills are not enough to translate the article, then consider instead contributing by making smaller edits to existing articles instead of trying to create a new article. Or, work on the Wikipedia for your native language. RudolfRed (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Solvaram. My recommendation is to contribute to the Wikipedia in your native language, at least until your English skills improve to the level of basic fluency. I reviewed your talk page, and you seem to have difficulty writing English prose that other people can easily understand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the article on 8 constitutional medicine made in Korean. 팔체질의학 Solvaram (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Solvaram? I cannot read Korean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user talk page in other languages

I clicked on a notification that took me to what appeared to be the arabic version of my user talk page. I must have closed the window, and now the notification is gone, so I cannot figure out what it was. Why did the notification disappear from my list, and how do I check it again?

Oz freediver (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the English Wikipedia notification system shows only the notifications from enwiki, but I believe that occasionally notifications from various foreign Wikipedias can be seen at other foreign Wikipedias. If you don't speak arabic, your user talk page at arwiki can be translated using Google translate and it's just a welcome message. Quite a number of the other language Wikipedias apparently send you a welcome message when you look at pages there, without you needing to edit anything there. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I get notifications from Wikimedia Commons here on English Wikipedia, David Biddulph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that there is an option in preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, where I had not enabled cross-wiki notification. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oz freediver, welcome to the Teahouse. Cross-wiki notifications are enabled by default at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo but they only show unread notifications at other wikis. Clicking on the notification icons can show read notifications to the current wiki. I don't know a way to see read notificatons at other wikis without first going to those wikis. And I don't know a way to get a list of wikis where you have read notifications. But I do know how to get a list of all wikis where your account exists, often because you visited the wiki while logged in: Click "accounts" at the bottom of your Contributions, or enter your username at Special:CentralAuth. Special:CentralAuth/Oz freediver only shows 9 wikis so it wouldn't be hard to check them (especially when you know it was probably Arabic). Note however that the notification interface will be in the local wiki language if you haven't changed language at Special:Preferences there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revising a new article-- sources

Draft:Kusala_Bhikshu

After reading the comments sent to me about my new article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kusala_Bhikshu I have updated the footnotes to only include sources as indicated..

Could you Please advise if I need to do anything further before re-submitting.

Thank You EluckringEluckring (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eluckring. Your draft currently has ten references, but as far as I can see, none of them are reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to this person. Your draft contains many external links in the body of the article, which is not allowed. Wikilinks are fine but external links should be very few, directly related to the topic, and in their own section at the end. The official website of the topic is the most common example. We do not use honorifics like "venerable" which are not appropriate in neutral encyclopedia articles. In all honesty, I am unconvinced that this person is Notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page that the article is directed to goes to another person with the same name - how do i put in the correct name link?

Hello, the article links to a person with the same name but different occupations . How do link the correct person to the article? I see nowhere to put the link address in the wiki pedia story. Both people have wikipedia links, just the article does not use the correct one. Dasnj1 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just put the full article name in the link. The link can then be piped (see WP:PIPE) to change the displayed link. It would help if you told us what articles and links you are concerned with. Meters (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link is the bit that looks like [[article name]] in the page code. It does not display that way when jsut reading the page. Meters (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dasnj1. The article in question is Sade Baderinwa. I changed the wikilink to go to the article about the right person. Please read WP:PIPE for an explanation of the technique. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would add information about a song that doesn't have a Wikipedia page currently in English.

There seems to be some songs that only appear in Chinese, however I feel since this is an English article, the names of the songs in English followed by the Chinese name in parenthesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_(singer) Drogge (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drogge. If you are pretty confident the subject meets our notability criteria for songs, you may want to take some time to review our tutorial on writing your first article, and consider submitting a draft to our Articles for Creation project using the Article Wizard. There it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG ^talk 17:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make references

I am a new editor and article maker and I would like to know how to add references I click edit but what coding do I use

Hello Mary_Raymond, I recommend using taking a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. This page includes other tutorials, you can navigate to other tutorials using the tabs.Drogge (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just add, Mary_Raymond, that when I first started here, I found getting my head around how to add references correctly was the hardest bit to grasp. I think I'd been doing it completely by hand using so called "wiki markup" for 6 months before I discovered that both of our two editing tools each had a "Cite" button, which gives you a drop-down option of a template, into which you fill in all relevant details like title, author, date, published, website name, url etc. Drogge has given you a really great link to using both of these editing tools. But the extra brilliant trick is that our so-called Visual Editor tool (it's the WYSIWYG one) can sometimes automatically complete a reference for you, based just on a url. It doesnt always work - but its great for Google books, online news, major websites etc. Don't overlook that - it can makes life so much easier. Enjoy your Wikipedia journey. The fun starts here! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Process for using a non-free photo

I've contacted Geoff Knorr about whether I could use the photo on his website on his wikipedia article, and he agreed over email. What process do I need to go through in order to use/upload the photo? The Verified Cactus 100% 18:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a non-free photo of a living subject. Permission to use a photo on Wikipedia is not acceptable. The only way that the photo can be used is by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons, if the copyright holder (who may be the photographer rather than the subject) is prepared to release it under a suitable licence. More detail is available at WP:How to upload a photo. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome back to the Teahouse, VerifiedCactus. If the photo is the portrait of Geoff Knorr on the biography page of his website, then we cannot possibly use this non-free photo based only on your email. If you read Wikipedia:Non-free content, especially the section on images, you will see that non-free images of living people are not allowed, but such images of people who have died are allowed on a strictly limited basis - low resolution, a single biography article, and only when no free alternative is available. So, in order to use this photo, it must be freely licensed, and only the copyright holder can do that. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials carefully, because this must be done properly. Just because the photo is on Knorr's website does not mean he owns the copyright. Photographers normally retain copyright unless they have agreed in writing to release it. The easiest way is for the actual copyright holder to open an account and upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, answering all the licensing questions properly.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I'll see if I can contact the photographer to donate it, then. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent rollback edit on Linda McCartney Foods page

Dear Teahouse team,

I just rolled back an edit on the page for Linda McCartney Foods. I think it would qualify as the vandalism-2 template warning, but I am unsure how to do this? I read the vandalism page but not sure of how to proceed. The userpage for this IP address seems to indicate other intentional vandalism. Thank you very much for your time and advice!

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

SunnyBoi (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SunnyBoi: Just place {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} on the user's talk page User talk:82.6.242.200. Neither the talk nor user page for that IP exist. Where did you see the other warning? RudolfRed (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: Thank you! Have done so on a talk page for them. In their user contributions, it looks like their other 2 edits were questionable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.6.242.200 SunnyBoi (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily blocked that IP address. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to redlink an Australian scientist

Hello Teahouse,

I would like to redlink Australian scientist Dr Robin Bedding, but I'm not sure of the best project? He works in the field of entomology and nematodes.

I looked in the science portal but couldn't work out the most appropriate project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Science/Portals_and_WikiProjects

Thank you for your time! SunnyBoi (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SunnyBoi: Why do you want to add a red link? Is an article about this person likely to be created? RudolfRed (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: Oh, because he was recently recognised in the Australia Day Honours Awards, and has had several nematode namesakes? He has made a big impact in his field and would meet notability. SunnyBoi (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SunnyBoi: A red link is normally used when a page mentions a notable subject without an article so I'm not sure what your purpose is when you are still looking for a page to redlink him in. If you want to request an article about him then you can use Wikipedia:Requested articles. List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science has a red link to Robin Anthony Bedding. 2018 Australia Day Honours mentions him but that article has no red links and lots of unlinked people so the editors may not want red links there. A few articles have references with author "Bedding, R." or "Bedding, R.A.", but we don't redlink authors of references. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My draft has been rejected

I am writing a wikipedia post about my friend who's a writer (Draft:Ferdiriva_Hamzah) It then got rejected because they said it looked too much of an advertisement.

I honestly don't know what to edit as I think I've put nothing but data on it (and they have been featured in his interviews) Can anyone help me? Thank you. Dwikaputra (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome, Dwikaputra! WP:AUTHOR lays-out the criteria by which authors can be included in WP. Has Ferdiriva Hamzah's writing been the subject of (1) two or more reviews in major publications like the New York Times or Koran Tempo, (2) won a major literary award like the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize, (3) are they considered major, classic literary works like Catcher in the Rye or This Earth of Mankind, (4) have they been the subject of scholarly study at multiple accredited universities, (5) are they historically important works like Les Miserables or The Three Muskateers?

If the answer to all of the preceding is "no" then Hamzah would need to meet the general notability guidelines which means he would have to have been the subject of sustained and ongoing coverage in reliable sources like newspapers, scholarly journals, or books published by major publishing houses (but excluding things like company websites, social media, blogs, etc.). You can find out more about reliable sources here: WP:RS.Chetsford (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dwikaputra. I'm afraid the tone of your draft is onlyone of your problems; but an example of that is "Ferdiriva's love for writing is seen in his productivity of generating books after books despite his study and professional work". A more neutral way of writing that would be something like "Ferdiriva is both an author and an academic". The rest is advertising puff. No Wikipedia article should use evaluative language like "love for writing", or "his productivity" unless it is directly quoting a cited independent source. Also the "despite" in that sentence is a editorializing, in that it is guiding the reader to think a certain way about what it is describing.

But the more serious problem is that there are no inline citations of sources, and of the three references you have, one is not independent of him, and the other two (I think) are just about the novel. Please understand that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employers, or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them. What you need to do when you attempt the fairly difficult task of creating a new article, is to find several reliable published sources where people who have no connection whatever with the subject have chosen to write about them, and then forget everything you know about the subject and write an article based solely on what those sources say. Once you have a reasonable article, you can add a little uncontroversial factual information (such as places and dates) from non-independent sources such as the subject's own website or profile.

I'm sorry that you're having a frustrating time; but if you look at your first article, you'll see that it advises you not to plunge straight into creating an article as the first thing you do in Wikipedia, but to get some experience editing existing articles first. It also talks about all the special advice given to editors with a conflict of interest, such as people who try to write articles about their friends. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Door gunner

I noticed that the rating for Talk:Door gunner is displayed as C-class, despite the fact that when viewed in source, it is rightfully displayed as start-class. Why does this happen, and how do I fix this? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VerifiedCactus: I'm not sure exactly what is happening, but it seems to be related to having some of the B class criteria met. If I remove the B-class checklist items, then it displays as Start-Class. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Quality_scale a C-Class article meets four of the five B-class criteria, so maybe the template makes that assessment automatically. RudolfRed (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 00:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See the C row at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Criteria. It has enough B-class criteria to override class=Start and assign C-class. If you think it fails some of the B-class-X=yes then you can change them to no. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how to get started?

hey guys.

so i just joined wiki but have no clue where to start. there's a few things i need help with. is there a way you can chat with other users here?

how do i find articles that need a grammar check? is there a particular way to do it? since it's my strongest, i'd like to do that.

how do i get better at editing wiki pages?

Thanks!xo. Sarah312x (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sarah312x. You can chat about editing Wikipedia here, in question and answer format. Ask as many sincere questions as you want. Every editor has a talk page, where you can have conversations. But the only thing we discuss in detail on Wikipedia is how to improve the encyclopedia. The menu at the left has a link to the Community portal, where you can find links to articles needing various types of improvements. Practice is the best way to improve your editing skills. Make frequent helpful edits, listen to advice from more experienced editors, read the helpful wikilinks to policies and guidelines, and always do your best to improve the encyclopedia. That is our shared goal. Welcome to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Wikipedia:IRC, if you were looking for live chats.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote the Wikipedia page on me? The page name is my name: Paul Mirecki

Paul Mirecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also, how can I edit it? Can I prevent others from editing it if necessary? 24.225.99.165 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paul. You can see the full history of the article, including details of its editors, here. It is not possible to prevent other people from editing it, unless it is being vandalised, in which case it can be temporarily protected from editing. As the subject of the article, you should avoid editing it directly but can request edits by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! That was my original account, taking it off WP:AFC. No way would I have done that even a year later. Original version was - ahem - differently wonderful. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should also be aware that the article has been proposed for deletion. Mention of this is in a box at the top of the page. You can comment at that discussion page, although probably best to identify yourself, and not actually express a KEEP or DELETE opinion. (It's not a vote process. People comment, and then an Administrator decides.) As CL wrote - once there is an article about a person, that person should not edit it and cannot 'own' it. If you believe information is wrong you can start a discussion in Talk, providing references for correct information. But again, moot if the article is heading toward deletion. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing for page Luke Rockhold

Hi, I am a regular editor for "Luke Rockhold" wikipedia page. Recently, I had requested for semi-protection of the page, since there were few users from different ip addresses that were making some false changes to the change and were continuing even after asking them not to make changes unless true fact. But since yesterday, I too am unable to make any changes on the page. I am an auto-confirmed user and so how can i continue making edits to this page? Is there any particular template I must follow? Please advice, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7leumas (talk • contribs) 10:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 7leumas. Your request for semi-protection of Luke Rockhold was declined. It is not protected so everybody should be able to edit it. What happens when you try to edit it? If you only see a "View source" link then try clicking that. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am able to see the edits now. Thank you, cheers! 7leumas (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)7leumas[reply]

How to write entries in other languages

I have been trying to write an entry for Wikipedia, but presumably because I am not English, and am writing from a foreign computer in a foreign country, it seems to be problematic to write an entry in English. When I want to insert a link to English Wikipedia-pages that exist, the 'creating page' tells me the page does not exist - because it exists only in English and not in my language. As for creating a page, after I submit it I receive a message saying that entries in other languages are not allowed. Changing the settings on the left to English (both 'display' and 'imput'), does not suffice.

So, how can I write an entry in English? DeV18 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:Your first article, you can create a page here (in English, of course) after your account is autoconfirmed. If that wasn't your question, you may need to be more specific with what steps you are going through and where you are seeing what error message. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if you are trying to create an English article on a Wikipedia in another language. This is not allowed, of course. It doesn't matter what computer you are using, or what country you are editing from, but you need to log in to the English Wikipedia to create an article here. Your account here was created only today. Dbfirs 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression they wanted to create an article in a language other than English. Did I misinterpret?--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article was Draft:SHAC (ambix). Dbfirs 21:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does my article have enough Secondary sources?

Hi all,

I recently made an article about a widely used open source software tool in health care research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TranSMART. I included quite a few scientific papers go verify every claim. However, I was wondering whether these would be considered Secondary sources, since a few of them are written by people working on the product too (while others are evaluations of the tool or the tool amongst others).

Other feedback on the article is also welcome. I do contribute to the product (as declared as a COI), but I tried to make it as objective as possible. Would more articles that use tranSMART help? I have cited quite some already and also didn't want to make the list of sources way longer than the text. I felt it didn't need to be a scientific paper either...

Thanks for the advice! Wardweistra (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinct lack of independence here - they all look to come from press releases or company work. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I see five research papers, and an announcement about a product release. Zero independent secondary sources. Maproom (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me upload a picture file-.jpg; .png?

I am a newbie and need help uploading a picture of the Wabash Cannonball Express. I have tried numerous times and it won't take it. Now I am frustrated. This file was created by 'snipping' from a book online at Hathitrust. Then placing this into a Word Document and cropping, formatting, and referencing the source. Then snipping again and saving as a .png in Pictures. I have been working on this for two days and would love to share this picture.Can anyone help me? AmericanHistorysmith12601:984:200:63EB:9C1A:558D:A040:3A0A (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I assume that the copyright in the picture belongs to someone other than yourself? Unless all of the conditions for the use of non-free content are satisfied, it can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide a link to the online book, someone here may be able to help you sort out the copyright issue. If it turns out to be acceptably licensed, I bet someone can help you upload it, as the process you describe sounds more complicated than necessary.S Philbrick (Talk) 16:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This link suggests that the aforementioned picture may not be copyrighted after all, but it is hard to say without a link. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cave created for troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

who is trump

who is trumpMpierceabc123 (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either Donald Trump or other people with the same name. In the future, please use this forum for questions about editing Wikipedia only. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is a forum for editors to ask questions strictly related to editing on the wiki. However, out of curiosity, which rock do you reside beneath, and how have you procured an internet connection there without encountering Trump? Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Ian Erix

I would like to request the comments of other experienced editors on Draft: Ian Erix. The current draft is being written by User:Bruinsects and is being advocated by them at great length. They are clearly passionate about the issue of acceptance of the draft, although I would advise them that more length isn’t always more effective. I am not the only editor who has declined the draft and has raised questions about it.

The problem is that there was a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Erix, several years ago, and the article was deleted. I requested that I be able to compare the draft with the deleted version. The deleting administrator has restored the deleted version in a sandbox. I have looked over the deleted version and the current draft, and the current draft does not appear to be an improvement over the deleted version. I don’t want to just decide, as the author is asking me, that the community made a mistake, or that I should ignore the AFD. Will other editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chetsford and User:MadeYourReadThis declined earlier versions of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I would prefer not to accept a draft and promptly have it taken to AFD, which would indicate that I might have made a mistake. (I know that we all make mistakes, but we should avoid the ones that we can easily avoid.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My major issue is that the claims the author uses to justify inclusion under MUSICBIO are sourced to non-RS or have to be taken on faith. For instance, being featured on 90210 would certainly meet criteria 5 of MUSICBIO, however, it's sourced to tunefind.com which, per that site, consists partially of user-generated content ([5] "The song listings on Tunefind come from Music Supervisors - the professionals responsible for selecting music for TV shows and movies - or may be submitted by our users: people passionate about music or TV. After a Tunefind user submits a song, the entire Tunefind community votes on the accuracy of the song submissions."). His source for being signed by Warner is the copyright notice on the iTunes listing. He claims substantial mainstream coverage for his national/int'l tours but the article is almost entirely sourced to sites like smashparty.net and euro200.net. I'm not saying that he doesn't merit inclusion, however, it's just not demonstrated in the draft. Unlike AfD which requires a BEFORE review prior to deletion, the AfC criteria specifically excludes reviewers from acting on information other than that which is contained in the draft: "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason." [6]. Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Robert McClenon for creating this discussion. I appreciate you making the effort to get a fair consensus here. At user @Chetsford, I actually agree with the fact that you declined the earlier draft and I respect the fact that you don't want to approve something that will quickly be thrown back into AFD. I certainly don't want that either. I appreciate your feedback on this and understand all you have pointed out. The draft has been significantly rewritten since your denial on January 23rd. As a matter of fact, another well meaning editor had been in the middle of modifying my draft at the time you declined it so the version you declined was not actually finalized or event meant to be up for review yet. It was only put under review at that time as an error, and you reviewed it prematurely through no fault of your own.

That said, the current draft has a good deal more meat to it with numerous sources that I believe meet notability guidelines. I understand your point that a site like TuneFind may have some user-generated element to it but there content is mainly submitted by professional music supervisors from what I understand. However, since you pointed this out, I just added direct sourcing to the episode on Netflix as per the guidelines from Wikipedia:Videos as references using their {{cite episode}}: Empty citation (help) template.

In regard to meeting other notability guidelines, as you will see in the most current draft there are links to sources showing the subject had a gold record in Finland with his song "Shangri-la/Rannalle". There are also several links showing that several of his songs have been added to national playlists in various countries. There are also links to show two of his singles were on national music charts in several countries. I outlined most of this already in the comment section of the draft.

Also, another guideline for notability according to WP MUSCIBIO is simply releasing two or more albums on a major label which Erix clearly has done. I realize I only submitted the iTunes release links for this, which contain the name of the record labels who put out the records. I would argue though that this should be enough to support an encyclopedic truth. If I am wrong about that, I can accept that but I still believe there is more than enough alternate content provided in the current draft to prove notability as several of the key factors listed in the WP MUSICBIO have clearly been met.

Thank you for your consideration of this. Best, Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A scientific publication is not considered a reliable source

Hi everybody

I have tried to create in WIKIPEDIA a page for Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research (or Gesellschaft für Arzneipflanzen-und Naturstoff-Forschung.

This is a scientific society since 1953 and all the history was mentioned in a publication of the scientific journal Planta Medica. Thus I had as a reference this publication.

This journal is already in WIKIPEDIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planta_Medica Also in the German version of WIKIPEDIA the society exist (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesellschaft_f%C3%BCr_Arzneipflanzen-_und_Naturstoff-Forschung)

Can somebody tell me why they consider that the info I have added they are NOT from a reliable source?

What do you suggest to do?

Thanks

Nikolas

Fokialakis (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to create an article Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research, and it was deleted as "not adequately supported by reliable sources." In fact multiple reliable independent sources are needed. The only source you mention above is Planta Medica, which is published by the society in question and so not an independent source.

I suggest that instead of trying to create an article in main space, where it is at risk of deletion, you create it as a draft, where you and other editors can work on it until it reaches an acceptable standard. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am reading a different deletion log from Maproom, but as far as I can see the article Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research was deleted not for "not adequately supported by reliable sources" but as A2 "Article in a foreign language that exists on another project". There was also an article Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research or Gesellschaft für Arzneipflanzen-und Naturstoff-Forschung deleted as A7 "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", and a draft Draft:Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research, deleted as G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Maproom is, of course, entirely corrected in saying that an article on the society needs multiple reliable independent sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nba edits

Hello, i get this invite and i see my edits are being deleted. Why is that? Is there some limit of EDP or i did something very wrong?

Igoreurobasket (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to refrain from the use of unnecessary external links in article spaces. Your edits to pages like Indiana Pacers contravene this policy. You are also likely the recipient of such messages due to your reversion of the link's removal, which was not accompanied by a reasonable rationale. In the future, please move towards the use of in-line citations, and use edit summaries to justify your edits. However, you have not done something "very wrong" - I would read this issue as an opportunity to learn, rather than a criticism. Keep up the good editing. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

submitted article declined / inadequate references

Hello! My first article, a biography of a living person who fulfills several criteria of notable persons (academics) was declined because the "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". I have identified some of the weaknesses and will correct them. However, I am unsure whether it is allowed to cite the subject's own peer-reviewed publications in leading scientific journals (e.g. Nature, Science) to support the statements regarding his research. - His work is also widely cited (this can be supported by Scopus and/or Google Scholars). And is it possible to upload a PDF generated from a newspaper's website as a reference? (the online article is only available if one subscribes). Also, the reviewer commented that the article "reads like a CV"; I am not sure what is wrong with that as I wrote it in the same style as numerous other biographies of academics ... Your feedback would be appreciated! (Btw, is there a limit to the number of times an article can be submitted?) Thank you! Scairp4 (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scairp4.Articles about professors need to meet WP:PROF. The content of User:Scairp4/sandbox clearly shows that Stainier meets those qualifications since he is a fellow of the AAAS so the reason for the decline was wrong. The article does read too much like a CV. Also leave out the material trying to show how wonderful he is. A statement like "Thus, by pushing the frontiers of genetic, cellular, molecular and in vivo microscopy methods, Stainier and his laboratory have contributed numerous new concepts to the field of vertebrate organogenesis." is promotional, not encyclopedic in tone. Just state the facts and that will be obvious. An article about an academic should show how their ideas developed over time, along the lines of an entry in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Rewrite to show how his ideas developed as his education and academic career developed. See my essay here for more information. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Language Is This?

At Articles for Creation, I have encountered a draft that isn't in English. It is in a Romance language that I do not recognize. It isn't French. I don't think that it is Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. It appears to be a translation of an existing article, Peter Sellars. It probably should be contributed to the version of Wikipedia that is in whatever language it is in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ftt2017CN/sandbox

Can someone tell me what language it is in, and, if possible, advise the author how to contribute it to the appropriate Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I knew it was a Romance language, and I didn't think it was French, Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a direct translation of Peter Sellars. Are there any copyright issues? Adam9007 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor soon afterwards produced another Romanian draft at Draft:Peter Sellars, and an earlier version is on his user page at User:Ftt2017CN. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I thought it was a translation. As to the multiple copies, I know. New editors sometimes do that, typically out of enthusiasm, but occasionally to game the system. In this case, I assume it is enthusiasm. Can someone please explain to him in Romanian how to put the draft into the Romanian Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His edit summaries are written in English, so hopefully he understands English. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Someone is doing a self promotion on a userpage. (i think) What do i do? their userpage name is User:Aspkom Thegooduser talk 01:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'd say let it go. If you've a concern, I'd say it'd be in the draft article about himself that he still seems to be working on, despite it being declined at AfC three times. Ravenswing 01:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thegooduser. An administrator has deleted that promotional userpage. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

archiving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia

I tried adding an archive bot to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia, but it didn't seem to work. What did I do wrong? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After many years of service, User:MiszaBot has retired. I setup User:ClueBot III to help with archiving at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MiszaBot config still works quite happily with the current archive bot, so that wasn't the problem. The reason it didn't work was that you (both) had the wrong file name. It's not Talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia. I've corrected that in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim in article

Hi, while I was looking through List of animals that have been cloned, and for the Dog section, there is a rather outlandish claim that Sooam Biotech had cloned 500 dogs, but has a citation to back that claim up. Can someone verify the integrity of that information? Thanks! ＲａｎｇｅｄＲａｎｇｅｒ (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranged Ranger: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may have better luck if you visit the talk page for that article, Talk:List of animals that have been cloned, and express your concerns there. That way people directly involved with that article can do what you request or offer an explanation to you. Article talk pages are there for that purpose, to discuss the article itself among interested contributors. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit the page Draft:List of fastest YouTube videos to reach 100 million views in Mandarin area to meet wiki's principle

I just created a page named "List of fastest YouTube videos to reach 100 million views in Mandarin area." But it didn't accept because it was said "fancruft article".

But there's a page "List of most-viewed YouTube videos" have already been released. Isn't it also a "FANCRUFT ARTICLE"??

I need to know how to revise the article so that can be released. Beneb Siny (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beneb Siny, welcome to the Teahouse. List of most-viewed YouTube videos is World-wide and the record gets significant attention as shown by the references. The only regional list in Category:YouTube-related lists is List of most-viewed Indian videos on YouTube and that is headed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-viewed Indian videos on YouTube. I don't think we need a bunch of regional lists for videos on the same website but see Wikipedia:Notability for the kind of sourcing that may help if you want to try to convince others. None of the current sources are independent so they show no notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

In the article about George Hamilton (actor) it says there is no page concerning Vincente Minnelli ( his name is misspelled bu f2ffff there is a page about him). I wanted to correct that but do not know how. I'm hoping that you are able to correct this. Thank you for your help with this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmoudy (talk • contribs) Welcome to Wikipedia!

Editing a page is easy. On a desktop, just click the edit button in the upper right corner. On mobile, clock the pen icon to edit a page. For more details, see Help:Editing

I’ve already fixed the link in the article on George Hamilton (actor), but if you want to get started fixing typos, just click this link and it will take you to a random page in need of a copy edit. Happy editing. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool remind me to sign posts

I have a bad habbit of forgetting to sign my talk page comments. Is there a tool I can use to remind me to add the ~~~~ BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Billhpike: Hello and welcome. I do not know if there is or is not such a tool, but I do know that you can change your Preferences(link in the top right corner of the screen on a computer) to prompt you for an edit summary, which might remind you to sign your posts. The option to do that is under the Editing tab when you get to the Preferences page. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how long does it take to create a page?

okay, so i know i'm not even eligible yet but i was just wondering how long it takes till a page is live? i know there's not an exact time period but approx. how long does it take? Also, how do you get other people to contribute to a page you're working on. I really want to get started with posting pages asap. Sarah312x (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sarah312x. If you write an acceptable article, then it shows up in Wikipedia's search box almost immediately. As for Google and other search engines, any new article will need to be patrolled, or quickly reviewed for overtly bad content. It could take weeks to show up on search engines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help me to publish this page

please help me to publish this page. i am a new user on wiki shave no idea how to start a new wiki page thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssreejithips (talk • contribs)

@Ssreejithips: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that this refers to your Sandbox. I also assume that you are the person the content in your Sandbox is about. Unfortunately, you seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia and not social media like Facebook for people to post pages about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. Also, though not forbidden, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Please review the policy.

You have also dived right in to article creation, which is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia. New users who successfully created articles almost always first took some time to edit existing articles in subjects that interest them, in order to learn about how Wikipedia works. If you are interested in being a Wikipedia contributor, I would suggest doing that along with using the tutorial at this link. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. If you are interested in writing an encyclopedic article, and have independent reliable sources to support the content of such an article, you should visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review and feedback. Please understand that such a draft can only include information in independent, third party sources, and not things written by you such as press releases, resumes, or interview transcripts. If you cannot do that, please don't take the time to submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 416: / Line 416: @@
 ::In particular, I would prefer not to accept a draft and promptly have it taken to AFD, which would indicate that I might have made a mistake.  (I know that we all make mistakes, but we should avoid the ones that we can easily avoid.)  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::My major issue is that the claims the author uses to justify inclusion under MUSICBIO are sourced to non-RS or have to be taken on faith. For instance, being featured on 90210 would certainly meet criteria 5 of MUSICBIO, however, it's sourced to tunefind.com which, per that site, consists partially of user-generated content ([https://www.tunefind.com/about] {{xt|"The song listings on Tunefind come from Music Supervisors - the professionals responsible for selecting music for TV shows and movies - or may be submitted by our users: people passionate about music or TV. After a Tunefind user submits a song, the entire Tunefind community votes on the accuracy of the song submissions."}}). His source for being signed by Warner is the copyright notice on the iTunes listing. He claims substantial mainstream coverage for his national/int'l tours but the article is almost entirely sourced to sites like smashparty.net and euro200.net. I'm not saying that he doesn't merit inclusion, however, it's just not demonstrated in the draft. Unlike AfD which requires a BEFORE review prior to deletion, the AfC criteria specifically excludes reviewers from acting on information other than that which is contained in the draft: ''{{xt|"If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason."}}'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Reviewing_workflow]. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 18:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
+:Thank you @Robert McClenon for creating this discussion.  I appreciate you making the effort to get a fair consensus here.  At user @Chetsford, I actually agree with the fact that you declined the earlier draft and I respect the fact that you don't want to approve something that will quickly be thrown back into AFD.   I certainly don't want that either.  I appreciate your feedback on this and understand all you have pointed out.  The draft has been significantly rewritten since your denial on January 23rd.  As a matter of fact, another well meaning editor had been in the middle of modifying my draft at the time you declined it so the version you declined was not actually finalized or event meant to be up for review yet.  It was only put under review at that time as an error, and you reviewed it prematurely through no fault of your own.
+That said, the current draft has a good deal more meat to it with numerous sources that I believe meet notability guidelines.  I understand your point that a site like TuneFind may have some user-generated element to it but there content is mainly submitted by professional music supervisors from what I understand.  However, since you pointed this out, I just added direct sourcing to the episode on Netflix as per the guidelines from Wikipedia:Videos as references using their  {{cite episode}} template.
+In regard to meeting other notability guidelines, as you will see in the most current draft there are links to sources showing the subject had a gold record in Finland with his song "Shangri-la/Rannalle".  There are also several links showing that several of his songs have been added to national playlists in various countries.  There are also links to show two of his singles were on national music charts in several countries.  I outlined most of this already in the comment section of the draft.
+Also, another guideline for notability according to WP MUSCIBIO is simply releasing two or more albums on a major label which Erix clearly has done. I realize I only submitted the iTunes release links for this, which contain the name of the record labels who put out the records.  I would argue though that this should be enough to support an encyclopedic truth.  If I am wrong about that, I can accept that but I still believe there is more than enough alternate content provided in the current draft to prove notability as several of the key factors listed in the WP MUSICBIO have clearly been met.
+Thank you for your consideration of this.  Best, Stefan [[User:Bruinsects|Bruinsects]] ([[User talk:Bruinsects|talk]]) 08:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 == A scientific publication is not considered a reliable source ==