Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, 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

What does it mean to be "patrolled by" another user?

I received a message that I was patrolled by an administrator. What does that mean? Do I need to do anything? AshdownAnne (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

174.134.214.162 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Please help us stop the lie being perpetuated about Oildale California. 174.134.214.162 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

174.134.214.162 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC) > Dear Sirs, > > > > Your information about Oildale California is in error. I do not know > where you got the census map, but it is wrong. Oildale has been a > township for over 100 years. It is even portrayed in a display at the > Smithsonian American History Museum in Washington DC. I know you have > a hard job to do, trying the keep your information as accurate as > possible, but there are forces trying to minimize Oildale's > importance. Here is a letter that I wrote to the US Postmaster General: > > > > ************************************************** > > Dear Postmaster General, > > For years the city of Bakersfield has tried to incorporate Oildale, > California into the Bakersfield city limits. Not because they are > particularly interested in having the Oildale residents as a part of > their city, but more for the economic reason that if incorporated, the > City of Bakersfield would now have the right to tax some of the > largest oil fields in the state of California. Time after time the > residents of Oildale have turned down giving up their history and > heritage by voting not to become incorporated with Bakersfield. > > It appears that the US Post Office in all of their ultimate wisdom has > done to Oildale, California that the City of Bakersfield has been > unable to do; that is, force Oildale, California to be recognized as a > part of Bakersfield. Unlike Bodfish, California (population of maybe a > 100+) or Malibu, California (known for their rich and famous), > Oildale, California is no longer recognized as an independent > unincorporated township, but an official part of Bakersfield. this > according to the US Postal Service. Even though Oildale, California > has its own world renowned post office (The Buck Owens Post Office) > that visitor from around the world come to visit, if I want to send a > letter to Oildale, California, the US Postal Service requires me to erroneously address it to Bakersfield, California. > > Postmaster General, we would like our 100+ year-old identity back. > Even though our past hasn't been prefect, it is still our past and you > shouldn't take it away from us. Oildale, California is recognized by > the Smithsonian in their display about "Hoovervilles". It is > recognized in history books for the top secret U2 spy plane plant that > was disguised as a tire factory. It is recognized by the Country > Western and Rock and Roll industries in song and by action for Oildale's musician's contribution to their music genre. > Oildale, California is a place known in literature, song, movies, and > history, but not at all by the US Postal Service. > > We ask you to please reinstate the 93308 zip code as officially > Oildale, California once again. > > ************************************************* > > I found out from the US Postal Service that the City of Bakersfield is > the government entity responsible for submitting the postal data to > the US Post Office. On old government maps and previous census it > shows Oildale to follow the area covered by the 93308 zip code. If you > go to the current US government maps (and Google) you will see that is true. > > Please help us stop the lie being perpetuated about Oildale California. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oildale,_California 174.134.214.162 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Article submission being declined due to unrelaible sources... help!

I attempted to write my first article on a guitar player that I really admire, but it's been rejected two times already. First time because there were no proper footnotes, and second time because of unreliable sources. The thing is that the main sources I've used are independent 3rd party newspapers. Here's the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Angel_%22Pato%22_Garc%C3%ADa Please help me!Highfifan (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing my draft - first time writer

I was hoping someone could review my draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michele_Woodward (Catdean (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Catdean: Hello! On a quick glance, it appears to be failing the basic criteria for a stand alone article: That third party-reliably published sources have discussed the topic in a significant manner. There are lots of footnotes, but none of the footnotes meet the three required prongs of the criteria. The significant coverage is not in reliable sources or not third party and the reliable sources are not about her or not in depth. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference mark error message

Help-- I seem to have my reference marks incorrectly inserted on my draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keith_A._Schooley... can someone please correct for me? Thanks, Hillary Chase Hillary Chase (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the message on your user talk page on 8 July it said (inter alia):"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners." In each case the words in blue are a wikilink to pages which you ought to read. When you've read those pages, if you have specific questions please come back and ask. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please check now! FrederickJEffington (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting there - you need to read the section Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once to consolidate the references - and remove the 5 repeated "stray" references at the bottom - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article?

Please advise if there is something else to do to have this Bio published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Thank you Juvetorre (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

who can help to expand the article?

sir, who can help to expand any aricle in this wikipedia?where we can submit the stub article for expanding?-AJITH MS (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@AJITH MS: Hello! under most circumstances YOU can expand any article! (However, you should probably not directly edit articles where you have a conflict of interest. If you want to alert people's attention to a particular article, you can check on the talk page for any WikiProjects that might be associated with the subject and start a conversation on the project page, or there might already be discussions on the talk page where you can contribute.

If you want to submit an idea for an article about a topic that is not currently covered, you can do so at the "request an article" process. Note the basic criteria required for a stand alone article and if you include suggestions and links for appropriate sources, it is more likely that someone will take up your suggestion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 Thanks--AJITH MS (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out which of my sources are causing the page to be rejected

Hi there,

I've been helping a notable Australian magician (Phil Cass) attempt to get his Wiki page up. It's been rejected multiple times due to sources, and I have no idea which of the sources are failing.

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

I'm not sure if that link will take you there.

But I am so confused as to what to do next.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Remsington (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, using YouTube as a source would be enough to fail it. Read WP:RS for the full criteria- most of what you have there do not suffice. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Some help with starting a new article

I am beginning my first new article (in my sandbox), however, I think I should ask for some guidance regarding notability and references.

The article is about a French painter, Louis Jacques Vigon (1897-1985). I am interested in his work, and from time to time various art houses/online catalogues list his works for sale, but usually full details of the artworks/auctions are only available to paid subscribers of those newsletters. I am continuing to do further research.

Do you think I should create the page now, in the hope that other Wikipedia users may help to add and edit information, thus expanding the field of public knowledge about this artist, or should I rather wait until I have found further references myself?

Thank you. Kevin Turner RSA (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

He does seem relatively obscure - fr:Liste de peintres français shows a redlink, so there isn't an article on him in the French Wikipedia.
The fundamental requirement for any article is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The more specific notability requirements for artists are at WP:ARTIST.
The fact that the newsletters are paid subscriptions is not the real problem, mentions in catalogues or other lists are not usually significant coverage, and as they are to promote a sale, are often not really reliable or truly independent. A monograph, article in a respected arts magazine or similar coverage is required.
Please don't waste your time writing an article, unless there is significant coverage to prove notability, as No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

At the English Wikipedia, the qualifications for painters being notable are set at WP:CREATIVE.The basic one, and usually the easiest one to demonstrate, is that the artist has works in the permanent collections of major museums. (that's permanent collections, not temporary exhibitions) The museum website or publications are good sources for this, I you can demonstrate this, and there is no other problem, the article will be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion WP:ARTIST and WP:CREATIVE are both shortcuts to exactly the same section Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, not two different sets of criteria - Arjayay (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How to get approval for a business page?

Here on wikipedia, I have added my own business page, but all the time it got rejected. I am quite curious to know what's the reason and how can it be consider under notability and verifiable criteria. As I follow some of business pages that are live here. What I have written is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NOTO_IT_Solutions

Please review this and suggest me some valuable suggestions that can help me to get acceptance.

Thanks

14.141.174.138 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to prove that your business is notable (famous) enough to justify having a Wikipedia page. Please read WP:COMPANY to get an idea of what this means. You can prove this by adding references: significant mentions of your company in reliable, independent, neutral sources.

Unfortunately, if your company is not yet notable enough, then there's really nothing you can do to have the article accepted. It's not about what you write or how you write it; it's simply a question of whether your business is big, well-known, or significant enough. A lot of articles get rejected for lack of notability. If that happens, all you can do is try again later, when you've expanded your business and gotten more significant coverage. --Ashenai (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ashenai Would you please advice a tentative how many reliable sources article required to be considers as Notable and it should be recent or old source also matters as per WIki Guidelens. Ruproy1972 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent or old doesn't matter. As for numbers: more is better, obviously, but you only really need two or three if they're good sources (major media outlets, not a paid advertisement, serious reporting on the company and not just a casual mention.) And if you don't have any good sources, then even a hundred bad ones won't help. --Ashenai (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

NB, notability is not "fame", please let's not confuse the two.--ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

True! I got the impression the person asking was ESL, and notability is kind of a tricky word/concept. I was trying to simplify. I hope the meaning wasn't lost! --Ashenai (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite apart from notability, the article must also not be promotional. The current draft is: it contains one paragraph of praise, and a list of products, and uses adjectives of quality throughout. No matter how important the company, such an article will be immediately deleted in mainspace, or at least ought to be. Experience shows that the proprietor of a company is usually not in a good position to judge the suitability of their company for Wikipedia-- see our policies on WP:Conflict of Interest. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Do posts on talk pages have to be neutral?

Just curious, because I got a message saying my comment on a talk page about a controversial topic wasn't from a neutral point of view. I got confused because it didn't look like the other comments in the talk page were much more neutral than mine. Thans.--SwordofStorms (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Heya SwordofStorms! Generally, talk page posts are a representation of a user's own opinion and don't have to be written and checked to be from NPOV. Only articles need to be neutral as far as I am aware. However, you might need to be careful that your posts don't constitute WP:SPAM, as this is sometimes confused with NPOV, although I don't think that your talk page edit in question did constitute it. I'm going to head over to the talk page and see what the fuss is about now. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor was making libelous statements towards a living person on the linked talk page. Other edits to mainspace were indicative of POV pushing. Since the libelous statements were directed towards a prominent target of the Gamergate harassment campaign, I also informed the editor of the existence of the Gamergate Discretionary Sanctions. I stand 100% by my warnings to the editor. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 14:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So this was a WP:BLP issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct, also the article in question, and the particular individual which was the subject of BLP concerns is currently subject to the Gamergate Discretionary Sanctions. I have properly alerted the editor. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am pro-GamerGate personally. Never "harassed" anyone or met anyone that has. But, I think most of us know that we should trust the game's developers about their own game over Brianna Wu, which is why the Samus Aran page is fixed and protected now. Also, I of course would be neutral when editing actual articles.--SwordofStorms (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

One other point, if you are using the talk page to suggest an improvement to the article, such improvement must be NPOV.--ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And since talk pages are for article improvement improvement, most posts should be neutral. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

creating an article

If you google my name the results include another person with the same name who is a convicted child molester. Currently neither of us comes up in a search for "Moshe Turner" on wikipedia. I believe my reputation has been negatively impacted by sharing a name with this person. I thought it would be helpful if a search of my name on google brought up a link to a wikipedia article about me. As it happens I am the founder and executive director of a public charity so a (weak) case can be made that it would be appropriate to have such an article on wikipedia. I really want to put in place as many things as I can to differentiate myself from this monster of the same name. This would help, I think. What is wikipedia's position? Onemosheturner (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Onemosheturner. I have not yet looked into your story but will accept for the sake of discussion that your story is true. If so, my heart goes out to you. Here are my initial thoughts: Wikipedia does not exist to "right great wrongs" and if the only reason to have an article about you is to differentiate you from that other bad person on the internet, then that is not a sufficient reason for a Wikipedia biography. But, if you meet our notability guidelines, then we can write an encyclopedia article about you. The question is how strong your weak case for notability is. So, your first step is to assemble a comprehensive list of reliable independent sources that have devoted significant coverage to you. An experienced editor can assess that list. Beware of anyone offering a commercial service to create a Wikipedia article about you. Several hundred such accounts were blocked today.

I am willing to help if your story checks out. However, I am having eye surgery for a cataract tomorrow morning and do not know when I will be able to return to editing. I hope that it will be soon. My wife will read messages to me on this page and my talk page. And there are plenty of other helpful people here at the Teahouse, so please feel completely free to ask additional questions. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear that your "strategy" would even work. Wikipedia being created by volunteers is very likely to end up conflating stories about the two people sharing the same name further expanding the issue, and yet now on a highly cited location. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Editors are obligated to avoid combining information about two people with the same name into a single biography. Please read the essay Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 13:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there's always the danger that it's just a Jackanory to try and get official backing for an otherwise totally non-WP:GNG BLP, I suppose _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here for a moment. Are we sure this is even Wikipedia's problem? Google's Knowledge Graph (or whatever it's called these days) pulls data from all over the internet, it's not our job to "correct" it. The OP's first point of contact should be Google.--ukexpat (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that Google is conflating the two people, at least based on my preliminary search. The problem that Onemosheturner is having is that newspaper articles about bad Moshe Turner dominate Google search results and you have to look way down the search.page to find information about good Moshe Turner. But, is good Moshe Turner notable by Wikipedia standards? I do not yet know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought I answered these comments (by clicking "join this discussion") but my answer is not here. Did I do something wrong?Onemosheturner (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Did my lengthy reply get lost in the ether?Onemosheturner (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding notability and referencing

Hi!

So I was making an infobox earlier for the Algerian National Office of Statistics and while entering the name of the minister, I found that it is a redlink. Now, I understand how the current minister would be considered noteworthy enough to create (at the very least) a stub page about him, but what about the previous ministers? I noticed that the Ministry of Finance page is also missing an infobox and I was thinking of making one, looking at similar governmental agencies for other countries I find that some of the infoboxes contain the names of previous ministers/the inaugural minister. If that minister doesn't have a page already, is s/he considered noteworthy enough for me to create a stub article (at least) about him/her?

Also, the same question would be regarding the Managing Director of the National Office of Statistics, his name is a redlink as well. Should I fix this by creating a page about him or simply remove the link?

With regards to the incumbent Minister of Finance, would the CV published by the Ministry on its website count as a reliable general reference for his article? What about his picture, can I use a picture published by the Ministry - is it considered public domain? How do I find out if it is public domain?

Browsing the NOS website I came across an Excel document with recent statistics on Algeria, how do I use this as a reference to update the numbers relevant articles? I read on the website itself that the statistics issued by the Office are considered in the public domain (need to verify these by double-checking the French, I used a quick translation tool to go through the site).

Thanks in advance, and sorry for the wall of text! RubyALG (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• The National Office of Statistics does not appear to be really a ministry in the usual sense, but a subdivision of the Ministry of Finance. The Minister of Finance would be notable; the head of a subdivision of the ministry of Finance would usually not be, unless there are other bases for notability. The most likely for a political figure is having been a member of the country's legislature. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Broken template?

I was looking at the article Howard Sims and noticed that the square feet to square meters conversion template used seems not to be working correctly. It's yielding "3 sq ft-wide (0.28 m²)" which is obviously wrong, since 0.28 m is less than a foot. I believe the correct figure is 0.84 m², but I didn't want to just change it manually because I figure someone well-meaning would eventually put the template back in. I have absolutely no idea where to report something like this other than here! (BTW, I know accounts are free, so thanks in advance for the offer to register. ;)) —2601:19A:4000:4A02:880D:D326:7C45:718F (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The template is working correctly but was used incorrectly in [1]. The calculation done by the template was right that 3 sq ft is 0.28 m², but that's not what it should have been used for. I have fixed the article.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go look to see how you did that. —2601:19A:4000:4A02:880D:D326:7C45:718F (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What is a reliable source for filmographies?

I recently had an article rejected with the notation that "IMDB is not a reliable source". What would be a reliable source for a filmography?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tara_Indiana&redirect=no

Nona Urbiznez (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I tend to Google the person's name with the film title (make sure to put the title in quotes; for one-word titles, add either 'film' or 'movie' to your search string), that will usually bring up some reliable source that mentions the person was in (or directed or whatever) that film. —2601:19A:4000:4A02:880D:D326:7C45:718F (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References in section titles

Hi Teahouse,

Is it OK formatting to put a reference in a section title? I haven't seen it before this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytophthora_infestans#Disease_management_.5B3.5D and I want to know if that's supposed to be that way or if there are any different guidelines.

Thanks! Mechanic1c (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be done. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking advice for my new article which was previously deleted.

I have created this article Draft:Vishuddhasagar. It was previously deleted. Can you please guide me on how to improve it, so that it passes through this time. Thanks in advance -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

1) You have not demonstrated that Third parties have found the subject worthy of coverage . What you have presented is loaded with inappropriate flowery and promotional terminology. 3) and the quote is just completely random and non encyclopedic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Image not being displayed

Please help! Image in Nirvana section of Mahavira not being displayed. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Capankajsmilyo. Because of the number of images in the page, they are stacking for me so that even though the image code for File:Kalpasutra Mahavira Nirvana.jpg and File:Siddha Shila.svg are placed in the nirvana section, they are displaying in 'read mode' way below that section when viewing the article at a fairly normal screen width. I can make them appear approximately next to that section but only if I drag my screen to a very narrow display. Is it possible this is the issue, rather than that they are not displaying at all? If they are not displaying, are you seeing some type of broken code or error, or are they just absent?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It was fixed by [3]. Unclosed elements can interfere with later code. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Source for religion

Hello, I have recently added few sources in some articles, which were reverted saying unreliable source. Can someone, please help me identify a reliable source which talks about relation of Solanki dynasty and Jainism -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Capankajsmilyo: Reliable sources, in general, are those that have a reputation for fact checking, expertise in the particular subject matter and editorial oversight. However, no source is automatically always reliable. The New York Times while generally one of the top reliable news sources is not necessarily a reliable source when discussing a subject involving the New York Times. Context matters. For religious claims, you will want to look for work by recognized expert theologians-and generally published by scholarly publishing houses such as University Presses. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 22:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this not vandalism?

A user just deleted the whole article, written long time back. He did not used any tags for citation, nor any discussion on talk page. He straight away deleted everything. Here is the article Sthulabhadra. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, removing unsourced and unverified material that could have been completely made up is not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Capankajsmilyo. See also the section of the bedrock verifiability policy known by the shortcut WP:BURDEN. In short, while there are recommendations for waiting before removal under certain circumstances, core policy allows wholesale challenge and removal of unsourced (or poorly sourced) content – without discussion and without any waiting period – and the burden to restore it is always on the proponent for keeping it in the article, to return it only with reliable sources directly supporting the content, cited using inline citations. Being unsourced was not the only reason this content was problematic – just because content can be properly sourced does not necessarily mean it must be included or that other policies don't warrant or even necessitate removal. Here, the content had terrible tone problems, and even though I'm noting it after the fact, it was required to be removed as it bore multiple hallmarks of being a copyright violation and plagiarism, and it was, of this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ohk, thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 22:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nanda dynasty Religion

I have been adding various sources on Nanda Empire showing its religion, but a wikipedia editor keep on deleting them, saying they are unreliable. please help -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss with the other user on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse! I know editing on Wikipedia can be overwhelming, and the other editors, frustrating. From the way I'm looking at it, it seems that this editor was reverting your edits because they were either (1) from an unreliable source (e.g. this edit was reverted because the source was a not well-known source) or (2) because they didn't contain the relevant info, as stated here. I appreciate that your are being bold in your edits, but please also remember how we identify reliable sources on Wikipedia. Once again, thanks for your contributions! —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 22:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Eastman Kodak Products and Services

Looking to have the Products and Services sections of the Eastman Kodak page updated. Submitted a note via the Talk tab a month ago and haven't seen any response or activity. Thank you.

Nick Rangel

NrangelEKC (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I looked at your link. While conflict of interest editing is discouraged, I believe these proposed edits are fairly uncontroversial. As you have asked for input and received no feedback for a month, I suggest you make your affiliation clear on your user page, as per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and then simply have at it. Please note that if one or more editors end up objecting to the content or tone, or choose to substantially edit your contributions, then your edits are no longer uncontroversial. And it would certainly not be prudent for you to edit, say, the Controversies section directly. But Products and Services seems dry enough, content-wise, that judicious editing on your part should not be problematic.

I must emphasize that for COI edits, asking for advice/input on the article talk page first (as you have done) is always the correct way to go. But if you have received no suggestions or input for a month, then edits to bring the article up-to-date or correct uncontroversial factual inaccuracies seems acceptable.

In short, I think this conflict of interest can be managed, as per item 3 of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Escape,_disclosure_or_management. I have added the page to my watchlist, and will be reviewing any edits made. --Ashenai (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@NrangelEKC: While I'm not an admin and have no particular involvement with this page, my Wikignomishness impelled me to look at that section, Eastman Kodak § Products and Services. I noticed a couple of things that should be fixed while you're about it:

1. § Digital printing solutions: "In 1997, Heidelberg and Eastman Kodak Co. had created the Nexpress Solutions LLC..." Heidelberg is a city in Germany, which this "Heidelberg" obviously isn't; but then what is it? It needs a link or at least the full name of the company.
2. Many of the subsections are unsupported by citations. Rather than add {{Refimprove section}} to all of those, I'm mentioning it here because, well, you've said you're going to update the section.

--Thnidu (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I did several Google searches on the Heidelberg situation, and it appears Wikipedia has an article on the company. I'm attempting to find sources that would be considered reliable to make the necessary article additions.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

making short footnotes for multiple pages on a website

Help:Shortened footnotes explains how "to cite many different pages of the same source without having to copy the entire citation", but it is specific to books or other sources that have pages. I am trying to create an article, or at least a stub, that will refer to a number of different webpages on the same website. I could formulate my question as

Solve for x:

book : page : {{sfn}} etc. :: website : webpage : x

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Different pages on the same website are separate citations. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So then there's no way to do the detailed sort of citation that {{cite web}} can provide, without repeating most of it for each page? I like to be thorough when I can, but this would not only cost a deal of extra effort but would clutter the reference section with a lot of redundancy. --Thnidu (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For each web page you will need to provide the title and url anyway so they can be located now and in the future if the website is reorganized. (Book pages don't move around.) Most web page cites then include only the publisher and accessdate. Few web pages list author, date, or many of the details that "cite web" can accomodate. It would help if you give an example of the website you are trying to cite. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma and DGG: Well, that makes sense. See next.

Mnglrph. It was Professional Artist Client Toolkit. It was speedy-deleted –

G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject

 – although I said on the Talk page that I'd be willing to move it to Draft space to work on it further. It seems to me that it wouldn't have hurt to respect that, e.g., by notifying me to do so soon or else. I half expected Wikipedia:Too soon, or Wikipedia:Notability (which would be the same at this point, i.e., "not notable yet"), but WP:PROMOTION seems a bit of a stretch.

I'm not going to fight this, much less edit-war it. Fortunately, I kept a sandbox copy, which I will now put in the Draft namespace under the same name while looking for further verifiable evidence of notability and, if necessary, waiting for more to develop: it is, after all, a pretty new organization. That, I trust, is permissible?:

drafts are not subject to article deletion criteria like "no context" or no indication of notability

— WP:Drafts § Deleting a draft

--Thnidu (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the sandbox draft, I'm not surprised that the article was deleted. There are no references to significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the organisation. You may be safer leaving the draft in your userspace for now, rather than moving it to Draft: namespace. In the latter it would be liable to be deleted after 6 months under {{db-g13}} if the subject hasn't received the coverage to allow the draft to be developed further. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Drafts, and even userspace pages, are subject to deletion as G11 if they are fundamentally promotional. I deleted the article for that reason also, and if you do not promptly improve the sandbox copy, I shall do likewise. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @DGG: I have tagged the sandbox copy {{db-self}}. @David Biddulph: Thank you for your advice. I was intending to wait for PACT to gain more attention in the field (freelance illustration) and become WP:NOTABLE, but user DGG has credibly threatened ↑↑ to delete even my sandbox copy "promptly" had I failed to do so. I have saved a copy of the wikicode as plaintext to my own computer.

  DGG, if you've read this far, I am unhappy with your apparent assumption that I was going to go ahead and post the article to mainspace even without the improvements, which I see to be necessary. As I said above, "I'm not going to fight this, much less edit-war it." I was going to say "I resent", but I am trying to see your point of view as one working to maintain WP's standards. And on rereading at a day or so's remove from last editing it — a separation often necessary in editing and proofreading, with which I am quite familiar — I see how promotional it looks. Yeah. :-( --Thnidu (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding article deletion

Hi,

I have written an article SMU School of Accountancy which has been nominated for deletion because of its promotional tone, lack of links and lack of independent sources. I have tried to add references to more independent sources and have added a number of links. I've also tried to make the tone sound less promotional. Would appreciate any advice on anything else you think I can do to improve the article so as to avoid deletion.RachR310 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMU School of Accountancy. I doubt there is much to do to help--it's a department within a business school, and it is very rare that such subdivisions are considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians that edit Wikipedia?

They prefer deleted article who are not hoax for G3 Blatant Hoax...??? Example Judo do. Few don't let opportunity to the Wikipedia community (to discover an art geek don't find on google (Black Belt nov. 1967newspaper before 1970's or real books with paper...) to work with it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikikai45 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aikikai45: it's been explained to you by User:WikiDan61 that your article on Judo do probably shouldn't have been deleted as a hoax but doesn't look like a notable topic at the moment. You created a one line article with a list of titles that don't appear to do much more than confirm that Judo do exists but don't do anything to establish it as a notable sport. Please get over the deletion as a hoax and concentrate on coming up with some content that shows that it is a notable sport rather than just a variation of Judo. Nthep (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: doesn't look like It's a point of vue not the wikipedia community then I re-create a one line article to not hurt older wikipedian who wanted to write the article (it seems you didn't see the good version...)! My normal request are  Partly done white knight Accepted to delete the page that must be deleted! Now will you  Works for me works for Wikipédia and start doing good job so restore the page Judo do and his sub-page list of Judo-do techniques. So simply!--Aikikai45 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aikikai45: I gather from your writing that English is not your native language, and therefore you may be having difficulty reading and understanding the various Wikipedia guidelines about notability (which judo do appears to fail) and civility (which your editing often fails). Might I suggest that you might be more comfortable (and better understood in your arguments) editing the Wikipedia of your native language? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Template Help

Talk page template of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism lacks classes redirect, template. How to include them? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I resubmit my article?

I submitted an article, which got rejected, and I have now updated the draft and would like to resubmit it, how can I do this? MotherlodeStudios (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In this edit you removed the feedback & comment from the previous submission, and in doing so you removed the "Resubmit" button. I've added it back for you. The feedback & comment will be removed if & when the draft gets accepted and published to mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Is this a personal attack? Sociable Computer (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sociable Computer: Yes, that kind of comment is not right.--Aero Slicer 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How can I know if a news article is notable enough?

Hello Teahouse! I have a question, how can I know if a news article is notable (except for a disaster, a plane crash, declaration of war and peace, and wildfires. I know they are notable.)? I am seeing sometimes an article like this, and I am thinking they are not notable enough. It has no references, and I think they doesn't show any significance, so I marked it as proposed for deletion, because I cannot see any speedy deletion criteria for that article; it is not controversial either. And also, if I encounter these unnotable articles again, what type lf deletion should I use, speedy delete (don't forget to include the criteria, such as A3), proposed delete, or article delete? And also inform me if that article is good for deletion. Thanks! Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Edited by Pokéfan95 (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pokéfan95 if you see any article without any reference or the only reference being official website, feel free to nominate it for deletion. If the subject is clear, then it can't be speedy deletion page.--Aero Slicer 13:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

But if you do propose for deletion you need a better reason than "News article", and you also need to read the part of the {{prod}} template that says " If this template is removed, do not replace it." --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to bear in mind when you look to see whether the subject is notable before you nominate it for deletion is to see whether the content is a WP:copyright violation. In this case, the wording obviously looked like a press release, and it was easy to find at least one place where the content had been published. I have tagged it for speedy deletion on those grounds. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices! I will do that next time. Again, thanks! Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello I have recently updated my page

I have recently updated my page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumeet_Mittal Can someone please tell me if I can submit the page and make it liveShashank29 (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Shashank29: I hope this page helps you Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Happy editing.--Aero Slicer 14:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello

We can these only sources available, so what can be done with this. Can we submit our page with this?Shashank29 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Let the producer become more famous and then, edit after few months as right now it would be WP:TOOSOON.--Aero Slicer 14:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello

The producer is very famous personality in TV industry in India. He is currently running 7 shows on Indian Television, from which 3 have the top TRPs. We want to submit the page and make it live asap123.201.246.120 (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of problems with your statement. Who is "we"? Only one person may use an account. However, I see from the article history that several usernames have contributed. As for getting the article published, there is no deadline, and our purpose is not promotion.

Another question about this article is here. Ankyth claims to have created it. However, Shashank29 calls it "my" article. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking advice about a declined article

This is my first visit to the Teahouse, and I am also working on my first article, Draft:C. L. Edson.

I would like some help in identifying particular passages that violate encyclopedic style, and also which references are not up to standards.

If you notice any other problems, please mention them.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

Wills473 (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wills473: Your article looks well sourced, but you need to change a few things. Better check this page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. --Aero Slicer 14:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How does one fix a Wikipedia page that has been tampered with?

I just took a look at the Wikipedia page for Thornton Wilder, and noticed that someone has recently made frivolous changes here and there and even added some scatological material.

How does one correct this sort of thing? EditWikiJapan (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi EditWikiJapan
Simple, recent, vandalism can easily be reverted by selecting a "clean" version, before the vandalism, from the page history, opening it and saving it.
User:Theroadislong did this on the Thornton Wilder article at 11.35 - has any vandalism been missed? - Arjayay (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In this case it was the most recent edits. In other cases there may be good edits after the vandalism, and the vandalism can often be reverted without affecting the good edits by clicking the "undo" link at the edit. See more at Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Review of my Article

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia and recently submitted my first document for review, I would like to implore the help of seasoned writers for feedback and review. I would appreciate if you can tell me how to improve my article and identify the gaps in my writing style. My first article can be visited here Draft:Health Warehouse

Thanks

Billy ConnerBillybyconner (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'm seeing potential copyvio issues. Half the lede is almost identical to this, and there are other similarities in the text to various online sources. It's important that articles be free of potential copyvio content. --Ashenai (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What do I do if I want to make an essay public?

I have an essay currently sitting in my namespace, User:Drcrazy102/Last_Chance_Saloon and I am wondering about how to submit it for general feedback, as it is a re-write of WP:ROPE's idea but with different language. I am not sure on how to submit it, so any help would be wonderful. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey. There is no special process for publishing in the Wikipedia namespace; it works exactly the same as for article mainspace. I'd suggest you be bold and simply make the page at Wikipedia:Last Chance Saloon; if an article is ready or near-ready, publishing it is really the easiest way to get feedback. If people think it's inappropriate for some reason, it might end up at WP:MFD, of course, but even then, you'll get useful feedback at the deletion discussion.

Read this first, though! --Ashenai (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help! Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Editing

Why do I have to wait 4 days before I can edit pages with semi protectio? Thanks Sociable Computer (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sociable Computer: The semi-protection system is put in place to prevent abuse by requiring editors to have made at least 10 edits and have existed for four days before they can be edited directly. Don't fret though, the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia are not under such protection and if you wish to make a change to an article with semi protection you can use the Template:Edit semi-protected by adding {{edit semi-protected}} to the talk page of the article along with the edit you wish to have preformed. An experienced editor will come along and assess your change. Hope this helps! Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Winner 42 I've added userboxes to my userpage, how do I put them all together? Sociable Computer (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sociable Computer: I assume this question is unrelated to the first? Anyway, there is about a million different ways to arrange userboxes. Some of the common ones are found at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Grouping_userboxes. I personally use {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Have I sufficiently abided by the minimum standards for article creation?

Hi. Does this make the grade? Music Gone Public thank you for your time. MHoop (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey MHoop, and welcome to the Teahouse. Music Gone Public just needs more references and it needs to be shown through those references that the article is notable. If you need more information, please read this page. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Trying to create a page

Hello Teahouse,

I've been reading up on the do's and dont's of creating a page. I am not trying to get started and am confused. Would someone be so kind as to tell me exactly where I should go to create a page? I've tried going to what is referred to as a subpage so that I can create it there, but it shows that I have no page created.

Thank you

Ks6499 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ks6499 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. This question is your only contribution to English Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what you believe you have done, unless you were not signed in. The best advice is edit some existing articles and get a better idea of our policies. But if you are determined to go ahead and create an article, go to The Article Wizard and once you have read the information the blue links send you to, click on the big blue button. Follow the directions. And keep in mind all new articles must have independent reliable sources and a neutral point of view and they must be about notable topics. And if you are closely connected to the topic you want to write about, keep in mind conflict of interest.

One way to create an article is to use the search function, type in the desired title of the article, and see if you get a red link. If there is a red link, click on that. It is recommended that you choose the last option, a subpage, and follow the directions for a userspace draft.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And here is some more good advice. It applies specifically to people, but a lot of the information is worth reading for any topic.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not able to create aritcle

Hi,

Please help me out to rectify the content so that it is accepted by wikipedia.

Here is my link.

Draft:Riitam Riitam (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added a welcome message to your talk space. You should have received a notification about it. That you help you get started. Jadeslair (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Riitam
As clearly stated by Happysailor "You need to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to show notability".
Unless and until you add such sources to the article, it will never be accepted.
If there are no such sources, all you can do is keep playing, and hope that, one day, when you are better known, there will be such coverage. - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Help my article publish

I had created this page lately https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumeet_Mittal Can someone please tell me what are the measures I should follow to get it live as soon as possible, Thanks in Advance. Ankyth (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Read the numerous feedback messages which you've already received. Learn about how to write in a neutral point of view. Get rid of the promotional claptrap. As long as you've got rubbish like "A major force to reckon within the space of mainstream Television, Mr. Sumeet H Mittal is a creative visionary par excellence and a master in telling stories close to the heart on a grandiose scale. Known for his strong story lines, beautiful character sketches and ground-breaking concepts, Sumeet H Mittal today is a name associated with continuous process of innovation and uncompromising attention to deliver quality content to his audiences, every single day, which has resulted in high quality content appealing to the masses.", the draft will always be rejected as being excessively promotional. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Ankyth, you keep resubmitting this draft without addressing the problems other editors have raised.
Firstly, remove all the totally meaningless PR puffery such as

"A major force to reckon within the space of mainstream Television, Mr. Sumeet H Mittal is a creative visionary par excellence and a master in telling stories close to the heart on a grandiose scale."

Secondly, remove all the references citing Wikipedia, IMDB and blogs, as none of these are reliable sources

Thirdly, add references showing he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there are no such articles, the article will never be approved.

Fourthly, re-write the article using only the facts in those independent, reliable sources, but without copying them word for word, as that would be a copyright violation. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note also that you had been warned about copyright violation, which is a serious legal issue so much of the material has been deleted from the draft and from its history. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, your article title should not include an underscore. Checkingfax (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And as Happysailor said elsewhere on this page (this time with links and emphasis), you need

• to show significant coverage
• in reliable sources
• that are independent of the subject
• to show notability.

--Thnidu (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What can be done about offensive material?

On the talk page for the article about Jess Greenberg ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jess_Greenberg#Mammaries ) there is a section called Mammaries that discusses a particular woman's breasts in a way the seems worse than merely rude -- I find it demeaning -- and it raises the question about how Wikipedia treats women in general. Two editors are involved in this, and they both are misbehaving. Where do I go to complain? Or can I delete this on my own? I mean there are rules about controversial unsourced material regarding living people -- it applies to articles but what about talk pages? Tuesdaymight (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tuesdaymight, welcome to the Teahouse. You are right that there are problems with how Wikipedia treats women. There is a lot of discussion and information about this at meta:Gender gap... you might wish to join the mailing list mentioned there to see what others are doing to try to address some of these issues. I will say that such problems are much worse on many other websites, although that does not make it OK of course. Anyway I have changed the section heading there, because I agree with you that it is not appropriate according to our policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I haven't removed the section entirely, as it really is just an admission that such attitudes exist... suppressing them by section blanking does not really help things perhaps. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your response, Arthur. And I say this with all due respect. This is not a "gender issue": There are plenty of examples of men whose body parts are subjected to inappropriate and disrespectful discussions in some dubious parts of our pop culture and the internet -- the principles involved are EXACTLY the same. Is it proper for a talk page to indulge in a conversation regarding a person's body parts in such an offensive way? For you to suggest that I go explore gender issues is not only a confession on your part that you don't "get" the problem, but also it is to send me on a wild goose chase. I would prefer it if you just throw up your hands and say, "Hey Tuesday, I can't think of anything to be done." I would respect that. But I also disagree with your action -- you went over to the talk page and expressed support for Dontreader (if I've got that name right) who is an editor who said something like "Yeah, I know what you mean" regarding a woman's breasts. That's wrong of you, Arthur. I apologize if this sounds unduly harsh, but I'm trying to express this straightforwardly, and I know that you are being very helpful to most people here in the Teahouse, and I appreciate your attempt at this. I have a feeling though that I need to move on and search for a solution elsewhere , or else give up on it, or blank the section myself and see what happens. Cheers. Tuesdaymight (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to help you at all, Tuesdaymight. Nor, from what you say, have I even understood the problem. I still believe that this is a gender issue, and that a male actor would almost certainly not receive the same sorts of (repeated) comments. You believe otherwise. You mention searching for a solution elsewhere; you could, perhaps, raise the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where people more experienced with such issues are available. Then again, you might disagree about what "such issues" are! Or indeed, it would not be unusual for someone to go ahead and blank the section themselves. I doubt that someone doing so (once) would suffer any sanction beyond a warning or two, but I do not decide such things so my word means little on that front. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, Arthur. And just to respond to your suggestion that no male actor would receive the same sorts of repeated comments -- I could name some famous examples of performers, but, of course, I would risk being guilty of the same fault that I complained about. However, I will mention only one: A recent autobiography by the most famous guitar player of the most famous London rock band that has been around since 1964 -- that memoir is famously loaded with tons of the sort of comments of which you claim to be completely innocent. His comments are directed at a celebrated lead singer -- and they are specific comments and graphic descriptions repeated throughout the book as though he were obsessed. It is wrong, as everyone who has read the book seems to "get", and wrong in the same way that the talk page I mentioned to you is wrong. If you were to read that book you would not only learn more about narcotic drugs than you ever wanted to, but you would also come back to this page saying "Oh my God, Tuesday, I had no idea!" This is not a gender issue, but it's an issue of how humans should behave respecting other humans, and an issue of what Wikipedia is. Is Wikipedia a trashy sort of thing, like the tabloids, or is it not? However, thank you again, I have a good feeling that you and I have made some small progress in a good direction. Tuesdaymight (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Userbox

What is a userbox? Is there a page with them on or? Sociable Computer (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sociable Computer
A userbox is a small colored box added to a user page to provide information about a user's interests, abilities and background - e.g. they are interested in music, athletics and gardening,, they speak native English and Spanish with a little French and they have a degree in psychobabble from the University of shoebox - for more information please see Wikipedia:Userboxes.
As for where to find userboxes Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery gives links to dozens of pages - each showing numerous boxes - although it is often as easy to spot one on another's userpage and copy the code. - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

how to create wiki pedia page of a person?`

i want to create one wiki pedia page of a actor. how to make it loook gud and complete?what details i should give? like refrence and all? ANSHUJJW (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ANSHUJJW. My advice would be to not even think of creating an article until you have had some experience of editing existing articles, and learnt some of the requirements: writing articles in a way that will be kept is difficult. But if you want to go ahead with Raghav sharma, start by reading my first article, and looking for all the reliable independent published sources about the actor which you absolutely must have in order to write an accecptable article. Then use the Article wizard to create your draft somewhere where it won't get deleted while you're working on it.

Bear in mind that

• if a piece of information hasn't been published, don't put it in the article. Period.
• if a piece of information is only published in a user-generated source, such as a blog or social media (or iMDB, or Wikipedia!) then don't put it in the article. Period.
• if a piece of information is only published in a source close to the subject (his website, his agent's website, the website of a film he's in, an article which is based on a press release) then it might be acceptable to put it in the article - but only if it is uncontroversial factual data, like dates and places. Even then, the published source must be cited.
• Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a person says or wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what other people have said about them.

It follows that almost every piece of information in the article must come from a reliable published source with no connection to the actor or his associates, and should cite that source (see referencing for beginners). You need to start by finding several of these independent published sources which speak at length about Sharma, because if you cannot find them then there is not point in wasting your time writing an article that will not be accepted.

If this sounds discouraging, in a way it's meant to be: I hope that you become an active editor of Wikipedia, but many new editors begin by trying to do one of the hardest things - creating a new article - and get discouraged. Please start by helping us improve Wikipedia in easier ways.

(A minor point to finish with: Wikipedia uses standard spelling and punctuation). --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

lowercase sigmabot III vs ClueBot III, which one should I use and why?

lowercase sigmabot III vs ClueBot III, which one should I use and why?-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 12:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, what are you trying to do?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Archiving old discussions -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

When I go to the page about that, it suggests ClueBot takes less work but might not do what you want. Lowercase Sigmabot doesn't have as many warnings about what could go wrong.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Required Valuable Feedback on My Created Article

Dear Editors,

This is my first article i have created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rwadhaawa/Shriram_Automall_India_Ltd.) I am looking forward to get some valuable feedback from all of you on my article to make possible changes before making it live.

Thanks in advanceRwadhaawa (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Rwadhaawa, Are you aware of their umbrella page Shriram Group? It is only 245 words. I would suggest expanding that article first. Checkingfax (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of the url, that probably won't work as a link because of the trailing full stop, try a wikilink, to User:Rwadhaawa/Shriram Automall India Ltd.. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Empty pages

There are empty pages that need to be deleted, if i'm not mistaken. And more data stolen by pages like these. Thanks. Ras Benjih/^RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 09:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

hi @Ras Benjih: ,they should not be deleated ,as they are users personel pages.

-- Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan 09:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User pages (not talk pages) can be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G7 if the user tags them for deletion or blanks them. I have deleted that one now. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Using Images in Wikipedia

Can I just use any image (found over the internet) as long as I mention author and source? PranjalSingh IITDelhi (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi PranjalSingh IITDelhi. The situation is near the opposite. You cannot use any image you find unless 1) you can affirmatively demonstrate it to be in the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's free licenses, or 2) you use it under a valid claim of fair use. The rules are a bit complicated but to meet fair use, a (low resolution) image's use in a specific location and for a specific purpose must meet all ten of the criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. To translate all this a bit, if you find an image on the Internet and don't know what copyright license it bears or that it's in the public domain, it is assumed to be non-free copyrighted and cannot be used unless it meets the strict fair use requirements I linked. You have to positively show it is free and, if you can't, only the fair use exemption would allow its use. Common places where fair use comes into play are for books and albums covers, film posters, organization logos and things of that nature – and almost always only in articles directly about the work being depicted. If you tell us a specific image, and where you would like to use it, we can provide a tailored answer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So it seems easier to take a photo myself and upload rather than use one uploaded somewhere on the internet. I'll try to see if I can take an image by myself. Thank you very much for the detailed response. It will help me on occasions when I don't have chance to take a photo myself.

PranjalSingh IITDelhi (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear PranjalSingh IITDelhi, Yes you can donate the image to the Wikimedia Commons and then you give up your exclusive copyrights. When you're in Desktop view of Wikipedia there is an Upload File link and if you click on the link an upload wizard will launch that will ask you several ownership and copyright questions. Follow the yellow brick road. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't save edit with external link

I am trying to improve Arkan (dance) with external links to videos of several performances of the dance. I cannot get my edits to save. One window where I saved it, I think, over 8 hours ago still says "Saving"!

FWIW, I'm using mobile beta interface on my smartphone. And I entered this § through the Ask a Question box and it still came out down here. --Thnidu (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

PS. Can't put them anywhere. Not the article, not its talk page, not here! Any external link and the d*!# wheel just spins, nothing gets saved. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??!!! --Thnidu (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: About your question ending up at the bottom of the Teahouse: It appears to be a normal result of using the "Ask a question" on mobile devices (I've seen someone else make a similar comment when using mobile). I think it's because the pop-up box that's supposed to appear when you click on it (when using a computer) uses Javascript or something like that, so it doesn't work the same on a mobile device. (But don't trust me on this; I'm not sure how these Teahouse things work.) As for your editing issues, I don't know the answer to that, sorry. CabbagePotato (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Thnidu, I don't know if this will help you. For mobile, I use a Blackberry Bold 9900 with the Blackberry web browser. When I edit in mobile-view half the time the editor won't open. If it opens, the first time I try to save my edits, it fails. Once in a blue moon the edit won't save at all. I have found it is easier to edit in desktop-view and 100% reliable for launching the editor and for saving the edits. The desktop editor is more robust too, plus you get all the helpful links on the left side; the diff is more robust; etc. Hope this helps. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: When new editors try to include an external link, they are asked to complete a CAPTCHA. It may be that your device is not showing you this, while Wikipedia is waiting for your response. We'd need to know more (the type pf device/ OS version, etc) in order to diagnose and fix this properly. You might also do better to raise this matter at WP:VPT, or on the talk page for the beta app you're using. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks, but I'm not a new editor, and my mobile device (Samsung Verizon Android Galaxy S-3, SCH-I535, OS v4.4.2) logs me in whenever I come to WP. I've been around here almost ten years, am autoconfirmed, etc. I'll take your suggestion, but from my laptop. --Thnidu (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Oy. This may be at least partially my bad, maybe two ways.

1. I tried to add the links from my laptop and got blacklist warnings... then realized I was using the links from the Google search page rather than the actual URLs.
2. When I checked the Settings menu in the mobile browser view of Wikipedia on my smartphone, I found that Use Beta was not checked. (Need to reset at every restart??)

I have the links up now successfully. I may or may not have the spoons to investigate what I was doing and, if I find apparent bugs, report them appropriately at WP:VPT or Phabricator. --Thnidu (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

After various editors improved my article, the methods they used are not clear in the edits...

My method of learning can most easily be described as learning-by-doing. I am pushy, irreverent, demanding and self-reliant. It's a high wire act. That being said, when my (embarrassingly childish) program works it's wonderful -- otherwise it's crash and burn. A number of people helped to craft Alberto Gómez Gómez to the point that it is now -- a point which may not be "B" level as yet, but that still is certainly a much finer piece of work than it would have been based on my guess work. I'd like to thank every last one of those who contributed, but don't know how. Are there ways to express my gratitude in an individual way for each of those who improved this article? Thanks Rmark1030 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rmark1030, and welcome back. You can look at the article history and see the user name of every person who edited the article, and what changes were made in each edit. Each edit has a "thank" link which you can use to thank the editor for that particular edit. Also, each edit has a link to the talk page of the editor who made the edit, where you can leave any message you might wish, including an individualized thank you. You could even award a barnstar if you think it appropriate.

You can also use the history to click through the diffs of the various edits, which may help in understanding the various editing techniques used (or it may not, it depends on what helps you).

I hope that helped. DES ^(talk) 04:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

GONE TOO LONG

I have not been on here in a couple of years and can't even remember how to sign my name. I had almost finished a course in editing on here but clearly need to get adopted again. The user who adopted me before is no longer active on the site. Thanks. Selene Scott (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Selene ScottSelene Scott (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Selene Scott, this should get you up and running in about an hour: The Wikipedia Adventure. Have fun. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Selene. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is still around. There's also the Wikipedia:Co-op. I recommend the Wikipedia:tutorial for a refresher. And if are willing to really spend the time and want to get a broad education on your own, I recommend carefully going through Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, pausing as you go to open up links in new tabs and explore. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC

Thank You for your help, the both of you. (~~~~)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Selene Scott (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 September 2015‎ (UTC)

@Selene Scott: - Your reply above was shown as unsigned because you had included it between nowiki tags, and the formatting was non-standard because you had included it between blockquote tags. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

2 Questions

I am a music exec and I am trying to create my bio. This is seeming like the most difficult task. But I am SO LOST. karen marie mason Karen marie mason (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Karen marie mason, this should get you up and running in about an hour: The Wikipedia Adventure. Have fun. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Karen marie mason: Please do not attempt writing an article about yourself. see WP:AUTOBIO. Your inherent conflict of interest makes it near impossible for you to actually write and article that would be anywhere near compliance with our policies such as WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV (which states that we present the subject of an article AS THIRD PARTIES view the subject).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Karen marie mason hello and welcome to The Teahouse. You could request an article, though there is a backlog that would take months. But the big question is are you notable enough to have an article? Have independent reliable sources written extensively about you? You need to show that these sources exist.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How many sources neeeded?

Hello. I want to start writing articles on up and coming companies. There is one I am thinking of writing but they only have one article posted on them from last year. Will my article be deleted if I only have one source?

Thank you! E

Elenisf0510 (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Very likely yes, unless it is a truly in depth write-up from a highly reliable, secondary source completely unconnected with the company (and not printing a press release from it or anything like that). For example, an in depth profile of the company from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post or similar – but that is mostly an ideal world pipe dream scenario – if such a highly reliable treatment was given it by a first class source, there would be others. The tenor of your post — that it is an "up and coming" company makes me think it is almost a lock that no article is warranted, and the sources we need to exist and be cited to show notability and from which verifiable content with no original research could be written are lacking. Forgive me if this is misplaced, but it also sounds like you are here to promote a company you have a stake in; an aim entirely incompatible with Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Elenisf0510, and welcome to the Teahouse. Usually an article needs citations to multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. See the golden rule, our guideline on notability of companies, and Your First Article. Note that Wikipedia is not a place to promote something that is up an coming. It must have arrived sufficiently for independent third parties to have published writing about it, or we cannot have an article. So I suspect that the company you have in mind is not ready for a Wikipedia article yet, and an attempt at one might well be deleted. If you do try to start such an article, please use the Article Wizard. DES ^(talk) 02:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Article deletion chances are high in case of adding only one source for notability. it's good to add at least 2-3 third party sources mainly from any news, coverage or interview covered.Rwadhaawa (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

I read at Wikipedia's help page that I can get help here. Sociable Computer (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sociable Computer: That's correct! The Teahouse is a friendly place for new editors to get help from experienced editors about Wikipedia. Feel free to post any questions you might have. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sociable Computer. Many people who hang out here are willing to help but you need to meet us part way by telling us what sort of help you need.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

article needs revision does need annotation?

The talk page for the article Buck_converter has a couple of old suggestions. Should there be some kind of notation in the article itself ?

Thanks for your support

DGerman (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DGerman. I reviewed the talk page, and mostly what I see are minor criticisms and a variety of suggestions for improvement. Since I have no expertise in electrical engineering, I am unable to verify whether those various issues have been resolved adequately in the current version of the article. If you have that expertise, and your user page indicates that you may, then I encourage you to do one of two things: Either improve the article in response to the talk page comments, or respond to the talk page comments there. If, in your judgement, the article has major problems, then it can be tagged for improvement. Actually, improving an article is always preferable to tagging an article, if an editor has the ability and the motivation to do so competently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How to attempt merger?

I have this article Ikshvaku, which is nothing but extract of two articles Rishabha and Rishabha (Hinduism). Most of the content is already there in latter articles. Can you please help me in merging this article to Rishabha and Rishabha (Hinduism) and creating a link on latter pages as For other reference see Rishabha (Hinduism) / Rishabha -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 20:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo and welcome back to The Teahouse. I don't see where the content is already in the other articles. And until there is a merger, there shouldn't be a redirect, so I have removed that until it has a purpose. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two articles Rishabha and Rishabha (Hinduism) which consists of content of Ikshvaku. Further Ikshvaku was just another name of Rishabha. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability Check

Greetings. I just completed my first article and was curious if someone could perform a notability check. I am fully aware of what the standards entail, but some of them seem a bit on the arbitrary side.

Article is here: John Ruffo

There are some other aspects of the article I would like to hash out in more detail, but I just want a little piece of mind that I am on the right track first. Cheers. Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I checked it out, and he seems easily notable enough for an article, per WP:BASIC. He's received significant coverage in a number of different major news outlets. That makes him inherently notable.

The issue about only being notable for a single event gave me pause for a moment, but he has been in the news for at least two events: the loan scandal itself, and his escape from custody. I don't think this is even borderline. Nice article, thank you for making it! --Ashenai (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree on notability, hosever, per WP:BLP and especailly WP:BLPCRIME sourcing needs to be particularly careful here. I removed the See Also link to Frank Abagnale, as three was no real connection. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Inline Citation

I am using sfn|last|year|p=# on Bharata Chakravarti for inline citation. On being clicked, it leads us to ref, but when we click any ref it does not lead us to bibliography. What is it I am doing wrong? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 15:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Capankajsmilyo. All fixed, with this edit. See Template:Sfn#How to use and Help:Shortened footnotes#References list. In short, unless you're using {{citation}}, you have to provide the parameter |ref=harv in the citation templates when using these types of shortened footnotes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 15:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

non zero code: 1

What's a "non zero code: 1", please? - my render keeps failingSueNightingale (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, SueNightingale: without more context, I can't even tell whether this is a question about Wikipedia or something else. It's like ringing up a garage and saying "The red light keeps coming on" and then hanging up.

Please specify what system you are using, what you were trying to do, what you did to get it, and and (precisely) what result you got. --ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@SueNightingale and ColinFine: Assuming that this question is related to Wikipedia, and seeing that SueNightingale's contributions are mostly book creations, I think this question has something to do with a rendering issue with Wikipedia's book creator. From what I've read in this discussion (as well as this one), it appears to be an old issue that hasn't been addressed yet. CabbagePotato (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

correction of entry for Sqdn Ldr the Rev Herbert Cecil Pugh, GC

There are several inaccuracies in this entry about my father - for instance, his mother's name, and how my mother received his posthumous George Cross. How can I correct these? 86.168.132.162 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. That is tricky one, I'm afraid. The problem is that Wikipedia requires everything to be cited to a reliable published source, and those details of Cecil Pugh are cited to a source - though it is evidently somebody's memory and may well be inaccurate.

The other problem is that, as his child, you have a conflict of interest, and so are discouraged from editing the article.

If you have a published source for the correct information, it is easy: add a section to the talk page Talk:Cecil Pugh, with a citation to your source, and somebody will make the change for you (there may not be many people looking at that page, so if you put {{request edit}} in - with the curly brackets - it will draw somebody's attention to it.

Alternatively, if you have not got evidence for the accurate information, you may be able to get the information in the article removed, on the basis that The Memory Project is not a reliable source.(I thought of removing it myself, but it needs careful editing, because that source is cited for a number of facts, many of which are probably correct). Again, I would suggest the changes on the article's talk page, remembering that we cannot insert information which does not have a published source. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft editing advice

Hi, I would like some advice on how I can edit my article, 'Draft: SMU School of Accountancy' to better address the reviewer's comments. Would appreciate help on identifying lines that have peacock terms or do not have a neutral tone and any advice you can give on how to change these. I have looked at other pages linked to SMU such as the page on 'Lee Kong Chian School of Business' and I feel like the tone and sources I've used are similar so I'm not sure why my draft has been rejected. I'm really new at this so any help would be appreciated.RachR310 (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@RachR310: Welcome to Wikipedia! The draft article was Draft:SMU School of Accountancy (edit this page to see how I made that a link). Your draft has been rejected as "Looks more like a brochure for the school than an encyclopedic article". I thunk that's harsh, and I am sorry that you have experienced such a response, but it's not untypical, sadly. Accordingly, I have now published it, at SMU School of Accountancy. You can continue to make improvements - it needs links both to other articles, and to it from other articles. Some of the paragraphs still lack a citation, and we don't really need a list of student events or societies. You should add an Infobox, in this case {{Infobox university}} is appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@RachR310: Wikipedia is not a directory of services/courses, and this school appears both non-notable, and your writing style is so promotional. I believe that this articles should be deleted as spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, RachR310, but in my view the article SMU School of Accountancy should be deleted for lack of notability. As far as I can see, it does not have one single reference that is both substantial, and independent of the school. Several are published by the school itself (Wikipedia has almost no interest in what an organisation chooses to say about itsef), and most of the rest are mere listings. The couple which are from newspapers are clearly written from press releases, and so not independent. What you need to find is places where people who have no connection with the school have written articles about it, and had them published in reliable places such as major newspapers. Then write the article entirely based on what these sources say.

If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid it is impossible to write an acceptable article on the school at present. If you can, then take your draft and cross out every single statement than is not cited to an independent reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Unfortunately @Pigsonthewing: has rather hastily moved this to article space, IMO it should be moved back to draftspace, as it has 0 chance of being kept, unless it can demonstrate some notability and encyclopedic value. I'm AfDing it, since Pigsonthewing declined the speedy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on Article

Hi, I have attempted to submit my first article and would like some feedback on my submission. The article is available here and refers to a not for profit organisation in Australia. Code the Future

Beater1989 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beater1989: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contribution. The article is properly structured and reads well. The first consideration for a new article is notability. Your article is borderline in that regard, and additional sources, independent of it, would help. Please note how I have added some categories, and tagged its talk page, to bring it to the attention of relevant WikiProjects. You might also add an Infobox to the article; in this case, {{Infobox organisation}} would be the one to use; take a look at Association for Computing Machinery to see how it's done. I've also created a corresponding item on Wikidata, but that's not something you need to worry about at this stage, and I only mention it as it may be of interest if your background is in computing. Finally, I've changed the link to the article in your comment, above, to be an internal link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Andy Mabbett, thank you for your feedback. I have included a page from the Victorian State Government's that references the organisations work. I have also added the infobox, but could only repeat key facts from the body of the article. I have also addressed the issues around inward out and outward links. Do you think these changes are adequate? Beater1989 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beater1989: Those are good improvements; thank you. The infobox is meant to repeat key points from the article, so that people an easily find them, and to make them machine-readable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Four tildes. I can't seem to get the hang of it.

Sorry this is such a minor issue, but even though I put in the four tildes, I keep getting the unsigned message. See my discussion with myself right under the next question.6thgeneration 04:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

See what I mean? ARggggh!6thgeneration 04:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

@EricJWoodward: See User:SineBot#What it looks for. SineBot only recognizes signatures that have links in them, like mine (and many other users). Assuming you had changed your signature in your preferences page in the "Signature" section, you may have checked the box that says Treat the above as wiki markup. but forgotten to format your signature using brackets, like this: [[User talk:EricJWoodward|6thgeneration]]. (This example would link to your talk page). CabbagePotato (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful answer CabbagePotato! I will try to take it from there.6thgeneration 04:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

So, now I will try it again. Right here:6thgeneration 19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Newbie: How do I flag a dubious comment in an article?

Hello, In the article "Entheogen", in the second paragraph, this statement appears: "Entheogens have been used in a ritualized context for millions of years;" There is no reference cited for this, and in fact, I think it is probably not true. Humans have only existed for, at most, 2 or 3 million years. There is no evidence that I know of to put the use of entheogens back more that several thousand years. Indeed, the article itself refers to the archaeological record dating back several thousand years. I don't see anything that would justify the word "millions". So, as a newbie editor, and to make a long story short, what should I do about this? Thanks 6thgeneration 04:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EricJWoodward. In order to flag (or tag) a dubious assertion, you place a template into the wikicode right after the sentence in question. Templates are always surrounded by double curly brackets. The easiest way is to add {{Cn}} which produces a tag saying "citation needed".

Another approach is to boldly remove a dubious assertion, explaining why in your edit summary. In this particular case, you could also change "millions" to "thousands". That's what I would do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen!

Now here's a minor follow-up question: I did use the four tildes, and yet the question says my comment was "unsigned". I will now see if it does the same thing if I put in four tildes right here:6thgeneration 04:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

All right - it worked that time. Thanks Cullen!6thgeneration 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it didn't work. Am I doing the tilde thing wrong?6thgeneration 04:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

@EricJWoodward: Try leaving a space before the tildes ("here: ~~~~", not "here:~~~~"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Andi. Got it now, I think.6thgeneration 19:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, when I use the tag {{Cn}} the tag-maintenace-bot changes it to {{cn|date=August}} (notice the casing and date parameter) and if I use the tag {{cn|Date=August 2015}} it changes it to {{cn|date=August 2015}} (note the casing). IMHO, this is very pedantic. Checkingfax (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, that is normal. The form {{cn}} is the main name of the template, other capitalizations are aliases. The bot will add a date in the form of Month YYYY in a date= parameter. the "d" in date should be lower case (as it is a parameter name seen only in the edit window, not shown to readers) while the month name should start with a capital, as it is displayed in the article and should be in a proper date format (as per our manual of style). The bot is programmed to change all cn tags without a date or with non-standard dates to {{cn|date=Month YYYY}}, no matter what non-standard format they may be in. Any non-standard parameter name is simply ignored so "Date=August 2015" will have the same effect as "QXYZ=August 2015", that is, none. Computer programs can be very picky about formats. But since the CN tag is only for maintenance, and should be removed by replacing with a proper citation as soon as possible, this doesn't much matter in this case. DES ^(talk) 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting a comments subpage of a talk page

Where can i ask to delete the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hyperbolic_geometry/Comments

A lot of links! This is an important topic, and the article should be expanded, so that these links can be incorporated into the text. Geometry guy 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I only want o delete the page above, (the comments sub page of the talk page ) not the article or the talk page. But I don't know where where I can propose it. WillemienH (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I just tagged it for deletion so you dont hve to do anything now. Read WP:How to delete a page for the future. If you need anymore help, please comment on my talk page. Nice meeting you. Tortle (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks , but I am not the creator of that page so the reason is incorrect WillemienH (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the erroneous tag. If you read the link that Tortle gave you I think you'll find that WP:MFD is the process in this case. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

user:TheRedPenOfDoom added another speedy deletion template, (with better reason, although again not completely correct) . The WP:MFD procedure seems to complicated for this I think not contested request, it is no more than just a bit of cleanup . WillemienH (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have asked the deleting admin to undelete this. Failing that, I will either undelete it myself, or take the matter to deletion review. This was not "patent nonsense" and indeed did not fit any speedy deletion criterion. In fact, I see no valid reason to delete it at all. If it is to beb delted, it is my view that an MFD is required. @TheRedPenOfDoom, WillemienH, Biddulph, and Tortle: DES ^(talk) 13:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is not patent nonsense, please explain what it non-nonsensically means? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, It means that the person making the comment thought that the article should be expanded using information from the links, presumably external links, and that fewer links should be included. "patent nonsense" needs to be really incomprehensible, not just poorly worded, to be deletable. This seems like a reasonable comment to me, although it should have been made on the regular article talk page. DES ^(talk) 14:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

it has now been undeleted (thank you). I copied the content into the regular talk page, using the template {{copied}} to indicate the source, and converted the "comments" page into a redir to preserve the history for attribution. DES ^(talk) 14:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Amália Rodrigues - first name or surname?

WP policies state that "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only..." The article on Amália Rodrigues uses first (given name), Amália, instead, according to Portugeuse tradition per talk page: "... to use the first name for females when just one name is used..". Is this OK country-specific use or should we stick to the standard surname only? Erik den yngre (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre, use the surname, this is the English Wikipedia, not Portuguese, so the rules and conventions of English apply. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This great artist deserves a better article, I am struggling to improve it, to conform to WP standards. Erik den yngre (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploading vedios

Sir i want to upload a vedio with is in ".MP4"format.how can I do it? Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan 08:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan hindustan (talk • contribs)

Hi @Aryan hindustan: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia only takes videos in the WebM and Ogg formats. This is because these formats or more free, open, and unencumbered by patents than other video formats. You can find info on converting video here.

Note that videos typically need to be freely licensed for anyone to use. What video are you hoping to upload? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan 10:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan hindustan (talk • contribs)

new article question

Hi - I have one article already on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_G._Gerteiny Now I have a new one that I need a bit of help submitting. It's about Keith Schooley - who, as a former stockbroker with Merrill Lynch in Oklahoma, sued the firm all the way to the Supreme Court and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, after he blew the whistle on corruption there and was fired as a result. He wrote and published a book about his account there and the book was later translated and republished in China. SO my question is: under which category would this be submitted and what are the steps to do this as a second-time submitter? Thanks so much, Hillary Chase - (email redacted) Hillary Chase (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Same as last time - use the Article Wizard to create a draft and then submit it for review. --ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Keith A. Schooley

Don't worry about categories yet, Hillary Chase, get the draft into good shape and notability clearly established.

For one thing, citations such as "Tell-tale risks." Chicago Tribune. 18 August. 2002. are incomplete. Add the page and column in the print edition, or a link to an online edition, or both. Add n author if a byline was published.

A citation such as "Building Effective Whistleblowing Programs." Control Solutions International. June 2003. is significantly incomplete. Where can a reader find this to verify it? Was it published? A link would help, or some data which indicates how it might be found in print, or both. Other citations have similar issues.

Turn these into proper inline citations, either using ref tags or one of the other acceptable methods discussed in WP:CITE.

Wikipedia does not normally cite public records such as marriage and birth certificates, but rather mentions of such events in reliable sources, which may be primary (such as the subject's own web site or autobiography) or secondary (such as a published news or magazine account).

I have broken the draft into sections for you. Of course you may rearrange or rename these if you choose.

Information and citations over a period of time would help to establish notability. Otherwise it might be argued that our one event rule disqualifies this subject.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 23:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel. The reference section was incomplete and I had yet to get the authors, page numbers, etc. In some cases I don't have the page numbers but I do have the authors. All of these references were published except for his marriage-- and he doesn't seem to have anything other than a marriage license to prove it. Can I just say that he was married but give no wife name and offer no proof? I don't seem to be able to find the draft you said you broke down-- how would I access it? As for information and citations (are you referring to what was written about him in the press?) there are dozens of published articles about his case over 10 or more years. Thanks so much for your help. Hillary Hillary Chase (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Chase, please add whatever information you can to the references, when you can. There is no deadline or due date. That a bio subject was married is usually considered uncontroversial and can be left uncited, the same with the fact that he has children. Details about the children such as names should usually be omitted unless they are themselves independently notable or very significant to the article.

by "citations" i mean the notes in the article that cite specific sources to support the facts of the article. These also serve to establish notability.

When you "started over" you overwrote the changes I had made including dividing the draft into sections, and a number of formatting changes. I have now restored these.

Online citations can do with just the link, although full or fuller data is better. Offline print publications need enough information to allow a reader to verify the citation -- it is not fair to expect a reader to read an entire book, say, to verify one reference.

I hope this is helpful. If I have been confusing, or if you want further information on any point, feel free to ask again here, or to ask me specifically on my talk page. I look forward to seeing the fully developed article. DES ^(talk) 02:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't see your changes. I had just gone back and deleted everything I'd cut & pasted because I had been told that cutting and pasting from my word doc would result in the entry vanishing... that's what happened with my first submission but I didn't know why. Also there I had to prove the subject had been married (so I guess it depends on the fussiness of the editor). I haven't yet looked at your changes but will I have to rewrite everything again from scratch if I modify or change it? And if everything has to be written on Wiki (without using the conversion program) will I be able to at least cut & paste the long, confusing web links? 67.86.10.100 (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Chase, there should be no need to delete everything and start over in future. It is a poor idea to 'move pages by using cut&paste, use the move feature instead. But if you have links or plain text in a word document, or links in a web page, it should be fine to copy and paste them into a Wikipedia edit box. Check for special quote marks -- Wikipedia uses straight quotes. Check for %s and other escape codes in URLs. but otherwise that sort of pasting should cause no problems. A Wikipedia entry never just vanishes. It must be deleted or changed by someone, or some mis-formed code may hide its content. You should go forward by working from the current version, now at Draft:Keith A. Schooley. If you click "view history" you can see the edits made so far. If you write using Word extensively, save your work as plain text and then copy from the plain text file, this should avoid most conversion issues. Feel free to ask anyu further questions. DES ^(talk) 16:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That was very helpful. Thanks. I didn't even know about the Move feature. And you are also saying that you don't have to download a conversion program -- just convert into plain text? Wow. No, the last Wiki entry got all kinds of misinformation in Talk. That was why I copied the same style (from the finally-accepted Wiki) for this new entry. Haven't looked at your draft yet, will in a while. Thanks again. 67.86.10.100 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay-- I have tweaked the draft using your helpful suggestions. I also entered the references in Reference section at bottom but did not use the system to automatically insert the references with numbers. Therefore, I have written numbers in the draft edit that correspond to the numbers in the reference section, which may be wrong. Is it? 67.86.10.100 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Help!! I can't seem to get the ref marks to Wiki's liking. Can't figure out what I did wrong. (I did reference section by hand without using the program) Hillary Chase (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a P&G search box?

Is there a quick and simple way to search through WIkipedia’s myriad policy and guideline pages, like the search box at WP:MOS that enables us to quickly search through the myriad style-related pages? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Although I am not aware of a specific search function limited only to policies and guidelines, I do recommend Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines which is structured in a pretty logical fashion. Another suggestion is to use the "WP:" prefix in the search box, followed by a relevant key word. So, for example, entering WP:NOTABILITY into the search box takes you to our "General notability guideline". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The MOS pages are all subpages of WP:MOS, so it is easy to implement a search button. The policy pages are not so conveniently organized. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that a thing that is possible? Feasible? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist? @Cullen328? Or anyone else? Is a better (and more searchable) organization of policies and guidelines something we could do? (Something that wouldn’t include every random essay and AFD page.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) might be a good place to discuss this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What, just propose some half-baked idea of my own? I was hoping there was already something floating around, if not already implemented. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So could someone suggest something to propose? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lacking an actual thing to propose, I submitted basically the original request to WP:VPR#Efficient search for policies and guidelines as suggested. So this discussion can probably be considered closed now. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting suggestions for uplifting and old existing article to GA level.

Please help in reviewing and finding out / tagging weak areas to uplift this article Mahavira to GA level.

Please Note: I used the button on top of this article to post this question and it automatically got added at the end. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)