Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, 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

Copyright Issue

The text below appears on the logo page when the logo is 'clicked on'. the description is exactly the same as the other photos on the Wiki entry and this message does not appear for them. The logo was created by Roger Hansell using a photograph of an original drawing by Roger Hansell. How can we resolve this. The entry is in draft format at the moment. Thanks.

'This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. Edit the file description page to add source information.

Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added (21 January 2016).

Usage of this tag: For categorisation purposes, always use {{di-no source}}. If you didn't use an automated tool, notify the uploader manually.' Stuartlindsaymorle (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Stuartlindsaymorle. That notice has been added to commons:File:Hansell Violins Ltd.pdf, the page in Commons where you uploaded the file. Commons is a separate project from Wikipedia, and you really need to be asking there. But if you look at the text of the message, you will see that "source information" is a wikilink, and if you pick it it will take you to commons:Commons:Essential information, which begins "In order to make sure that the claimed copyright status is accurate, the file description page needs to mention not only who generated the file/ image (which should already have been provided in the author= field) but where the file in question came from."

I also observe that you have asserted in uploading it that you are the copyright holder of the work, and that you have irrevocably licensed it under CC-BY-SA 4.0, which allows anybody to use or alter it for any purpose, including commercial: is that really what you intended?

Usually, owners of logos do not choose to license their logos under such a licence, and so they are used in Wikipedia only under the WP:non-free content criteria, in which case they are uploaded to Wikipedia, not to commons, and may be used only in articles, not in drafts. Please see WP:LOGO. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Article on NGO

Hi, I would love some advice! I'm trying this for the time and my article was declined because there are not enough 'reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The NGO (Global Action Plan International) that my article is about is a swedish organisation, so my question is: can those other sources be links to swedish articles/websites? And also: the name of the page is now GAP International but I would like to change it to Global Action Plan International in full. How do I do that? Thanks!

User:LenaVd/GAP_International LenaVd (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello LenaVd (I took the liberty of converting the URL to a Wikilink in your question above). Yes, sources in Swedish are perfectly acceptable. Sources in English are preferred, if they exist, but high quality sources in any language are acceptable. As for the name: I suggest not worrying about it for the moment, as it is just in your user space. When you resubmit it and somebody accepts it, the accepting reviewer will move it to main space, and they will move it to the appropriate name in mainspace. But if you are concerned, you can move it to a different name in your user space any time. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Pages

Who can create a new Wikipedia page? Invisible Swordsman (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Invisible Swordsman:: In a sense, anyone who can edit can make a page -- see Wikipedia:Your first article. I'm guessing that you might mean "who can create an article without assistance," which would really be autoconfirmed users. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jeanmichel.sellier - OR?

This is a very different question than I usually ask about AFC articles. User:Jeanmichel.sellier is a user page, but is designated as an AFC draft. User:Onel5969 reviewed it and declined it as original research. It was then resubmitted as is, with no changes, which I find to be tendentious, but I disagree as to whether it is original research. My interpretation is that isn’t original research, because it has multiple citations to published papers by Dr. Jean Michel Sellier in peer-reviewed journals, and a few papers by other researchers. It isn’t clear what the title of the article is supposed to be, and other improvements would be in order. However, my question is: Am I correct that Wikipedia may accept articles that rely primarily on peer-reviewed papers by a Wikipedia editor who is their author and a scientist?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

When evaluating biographies of academics, Robert McClenon, we take a different approach than we do with most other biographies, where we require significant reliable source coverage of the person as a person. In the special case of academics, we are looking (at least in part) for the influence of their research and ideas on the work of other academics, which is reflected in how often their research is cited by peer reviewed work published by others. As WP:ACADEMIC says, a person is considered notable if "the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." There are formal tests for evaluating the influence of academics which should be carried out by editors with expertise in such evaluations. I am not among the editors with that expertise, so urge caution in carrying out those evaluations. Please keep in mind that one of the declared purposes of Articles for Creation is to allow new editors with a declared conflict of interest an acceptable venue to write drafts of potential articles, including autobiographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC) My intention was simply to put a page about the Signed Particle Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. But it seems that it was sumbitted as some sort of biography about me or something like that. The problem is that I honestly do not understand the Wikipedia platform very well, I find it very confusing. Therefore, could someone help me in the process of submitting the article in the correct way? I very honestly think that this new formulation of quantum mechanics should be on Wikipedia. This could help a whole community to access a new theory which has shown, in the last three years, to solve MANY of the problems around the topic of simulating/understanding quantum systems in intuitive terms. Many thanks to whoever is willing to help me (and Science ultimately)!

Hello, Jeanmichel.sellier. Most of the sources that you've cited in the draft are primary sources (i.e. your own published research). Are there secondary sources that have picked up on your work on this, and reported on it? That is really what we require here. See WP:PSTS for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Jeanmichel.sellier, it would help if you could add some peer-reviewed journals where your theory has been published, and articles about it that are not written by you. There do seem to be some more available, so, although your research is original, our article about it would not be original research. I'm not an expert on this, but is your theory a Phase space formulation? Dbfirs 08:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Hello Cordless Larry and Dbfirs, thanks for helping! I could add the following papers for instance: "On the relationship between the Wigner–Moyal approach and the quantum operator algebra of von Neumann", Journal of Computational Electronics, 2015, by B.J. Hiley who is one historical collaborator of David Bohm (i.e. an EXTREMELY big authority in the field is citing my work, that's why I am so surprised by the reviewers behavior towards my Wikipedia article) but also "Dissipative transport in superlattices within the Wigner function formalism", Journal of Computational Electronics, 2015, by O. Jonasson and I. Knezevic for a more applied (but authorative) source. But I could add other independent papers citing my work if necessary. The thing is that I do not know how to resubmit the whole thing properly at this point. This platform is difficult to understand honestly. To conclude, yes, my theory is a phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics (a new one). I tried a while ago to add some reference to the corresponding wiki page but was deleted almost immediately (I dont even remember why). This is honestly VERY frustrating since my only aim here is to share something useful with the community. Thanks A LOT in advance for helping me!

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Update: The User Theroadislong told me that I have a conflict of interests now.. Would someone try to submit my article independently? Thanks to whoever wants to help!

In my view (I studied physics at university, but not enough to understand the draft) the subject may well be worthy of an article, but the current draft should certainly not be submitted. Two of the things it lacks are

• a lead section from which a non-specialist can gain some idea of what the article is about
• references to publications independent of Sellier, showing that physicists take the theory seriously.

It will need someone with a good understanding of quantum physics and of Wikipedia policies to work on the draft. I suggest you ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. Maproom (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your very good advice Maproom. Unfortunately, once Wikipedia reviewers (see above) are telling me that I have a conflict of interests I am not sure I can do anything anymore. I hope someone will try to submit my theory anyway. In the meanwhile I will use technical journals as usual and forget about Wikipedia.

More on Henri Hauser

Dear All,

I am very shocked and dispapointed as someone called "Voceditenore" took my article and improved her article without any permission Copy/Past from my own sandbox the draft-Henry-Hauser and to her last current crappy article and let all the mistakes such as Henri Hauser was an agragarian !

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Henri_Hauser&action=history

Then, she wrote this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Aron

"On the contary, Atalante88, this article had zero references. I have now re-written it and added three references which verify the material and establish his notability. Please do not add further material to this article unless you provide an inline citation to verify it and please do not include information from genealogy websites or similar self-published sources. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)"

It appears that Voceditenore is the author of the last crappy article and what she could do is stealing articles from others and insulting people. And she left only three references and she erased the article from my own sandbox.

I don't understand that you declined a correct article honestly written and you prefer to let dishonest people stealing articles from the work of others. I accepted the rules of submission and anyone can do anything, do you accepted it ? Did you give this right ?

My feeling is that Voceditenore knows nothing about the work of Henry Hauser, in addition she knows nothing about Economy and she read practically nothing about or from HH. She displayed the picts from the book of Severine-Antigone Marin w/o any permission. I'm trying to contact Mrs Marin and Mr Soutou.

I hope you will be as severe as you previously were with me and the difference is I did the job by myself I did not steal work from anyone !

Please I request for Justice ! Thank you, Atalante88Atalante88 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Atalante88: Voceditenore has not stolen anything. And, unlike you, she has not insulted anyone. If you are looking for allies in this argument, you need a better strategy. Maproom (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw two flawed articles, a very incomplete article in mainspace, and a longer article in draft space with non-neutral language and not in good English. User:Atalante88 submitted their draft twice, and it was twice declined because there was already an article in article space. Atalante88 then complained at length, having a partly valid point but no understanding of Wikipedia process. I tried to discuss, and then decided to be bold, and insert the longer but flawed article into article space, knowing that this would be criticized. I was criticized. I didn't think that the author of the draft that was promoted into article space was going into engage in conduct disputes, such as article ownership and personal attacks. I see two issues, a content issue, about improving an article that has two sources, one of them incomplete, one of them flawed, and conduct issues centered around one person, who isn't a collaborative editor. In their partial defense, they may have competency issues and maybe should not be in the English Wikipedia except for translating articles. As to the article, we can do one of two things. We can revert the article to its original state, or can try collaboratively to improve it. Should I canc]] cel my copy-and-paste, reverting the article? I would rather not, but will if the author insists that they own it. Otherwise, we can discuss article content at the talk page, and, if conduct issues, such as personal attacks, continue, User:Atalante88 can leave the article alone (absolutely alone), or we can pursue conduct issues at WP:ANI. I thought that maybe being bold might help. I was apparently mistaken. In any case, one editor is engaging in conduct issues, such as personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Atalante88, the next time you make an edit, please read the text at the top of the edit window, where it says: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Therefore, it is utterly false for you to describe any reuse or modification of your work as "stealing" and as for your accusations of "insulting people", I am sad to say that you are the only one guilty of that.

We simply do not accept new articles about topics where we have an existing article. Instead, we edit the existing article. We remove erroneous content, explaining why. We add new content and citations to reliable sources backing up that new content. We restructure the articles, copy edit them, wikify them, and add images as appropriate. As for the portrait of Hauser, we allow fair use low resolution non-free portraits of people who have died, as described at WP:NFCI #10. My sincere advice to you is to drop your confrontational attitude and instead start collaborating with more experienced editors in a cooperative fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Atalante88, while discussion about the actual content of Henri Hauser belongs on Talk:Henri Hauser, I want to clear up a couple of remaining misconceptions you have about the general process which have not been covered by Cullenb328, Robert McClenon, and Maproom. I know all this seems very complicated, but please take the time to read it carefully.
  • First, I am not the author of Henri Hauser. That article was created in 2006 by a different person [1] and had subsequently been worked on by at least 15 different editors before you started adding material to it on January 9, subsequently reverted by yet another editor (not me) because you had provided no references whatsoever [2]. I only began editing it on January 11 when it had been nominated for deletion (and looked like this). I did that to provide some basic biographical facts and sufficient sourcing which could be used to further improve, expand, and reference it [3]. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri Hauser for an understanding of why existing articles cannot simply be deleted outright and then replaced with a new draft. To preserve attribution, improvement must be made to the existing article using material from the draft (if appropriate).
  • Secondly, I did not paste the material you had written in the draft into the article. Another editor did that [4]. One could argue that the pasted content was inappropriate in its current state, but that is not "stealing". Everything you write on Wikipedia belongs to Wikipedia and may be freely edited by all other editors. All that is required is that attribution be provided to all authors, via the article's history. The draft space is not "your own sandbox". It belongs to Wikipedia. For that matter, your sandbox also belongs to Wikipedia, but as a courtesy, other editors do not generally edit personal sandboxes unless invited or unless they contain seriously inappropriate content such as copyright violations. attacks, or libel.
  • Thirdly, I did not "erase your work". I redirected your draft to preserve attribution for what you had written and the content. I have explained that in detail in the section below. You may recover that material at any time and paste it in your sandbox to improve it before placing it in the article. You will find all the material in this version . Your sandbox, User:Atalante88/sandbox, is now available for that use. It had previously been automatically redirected to Draft:Henri Hauser when Robert moved it there after your submission to Articles for Ceation. I have now removed the redirect.

Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Three questions to learn more...help, please!

Hello teahouse advisers, I wrote my first article in Weekipedia just three weeks ago [Nemetics], and I think I have already received all the red flags possible. It's somehow embarrassing, but I'm really learning a lot: thanks for the feedback and the comments to everyone who has been there. - Special thanks to Snowdeed, for his enormous patience with all this! At this particular moment, I received a proposal for deletion (and I understand why, just seeing the final collective result of the added collaborations. It's worse, now!)

But I still have three questions, for any expert editor:

1- How or where can I send the "author's permission" of an image? I inserted two images mentioning this permission, but they were erased anyway.

2- How can I undo an external edition on the original text? Is there a tutorial for "Hitory" page? Some of the erased references needed a change of URL, but were legitimate published sources (for example: Dena, C. (2009), Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Expressing a Fictional World across Distinct Media and Environments. University of Sydney... it was pointing to a pdf in a dropbox, and it should be pointing to a pdf at CIRET, instead. But the full paragraph about tansmedia was erased, and all sources disappeared)

3- How can I see the discussion on "nomination for deletion"? I just see the list of changes in the History page... is there another page to see the debate? Can I participate and give my reasons? Some of the alerts are not correct, and I think I can solve them with more information. I appreciate some help in here! my next entry will be better, I promise! :-) NewsNeus (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@NewsNeus: With regard to the deletion discussion, it is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemetics. The discussion is linked from the articles for deletion notices at the top of Nemetics and on your user talk page. —teb728 t c 22:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My comment on the deletion discussion is simply that I don't understand the article at all. My issue isn't with the references. I haven't checked them. I don't understand the article at all. Just because text is in good syntactical English doesn't mean that it conveys an overall understanding to an English reader. Unfortunately, I consider the article to be incomprehensible. That is my comment. I don't understand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, NewsNeus. Your question has come out formatted oddly because you started lines with spaces - that's what happens whenever you start with a space. To answer your questions:

1. If the copyright holder of an image is willing to license it under a suitable licence (which will allow anybody to use it for any purpose, including commercially: permission just for Wikipedia is not enough), they (not you) should follow the procedure in donating copyright materials.
2. I don't entirely understand this question. You can look at any version in the history by picking it; and it is possible to save that version as the new one, but this will overwrite any changes that have been made since, so it is not usually a good idea. To restore part of an older version, I suggest opening that version in another browser tab, editing it, and copying the relevant content from the edit window to the edit window of the current version.
3. In the notice at the top of Nemetics, there is a line "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." in which "this article's entry" is blue, showing that it is a link to the deletion discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers, Robert McClenon and ColinFine!

Both helpful! :-))

NewsNeus (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations to remove advertisementness of Draft:Carolyn Pollack Jewelry

Does anyone have any recommendations to help this article read more like an encyclopedic entry rather than an advertisement? First time submission so any suggestions will help to understand how articles cross into that area. The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carolyn_Pollack_Jewelry Shenlyism (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shenlyism, you'll have to cut down on the adjectives a little and get rid of words like "coveted", "beautiful", and other peacock wording--we prefer fairly dry, dull encyclopedic wording. Other than that, the draft is fairly good. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Simple edit rejected as spam, yet is factual

Hello, I'm trying this for the first time, and wanted to get my "feet wet" so to speak, editing a factually incorrect part on my company's Wikipedia page. I work for Afilias, a company that helps the Internet function, and we recently went from being "Afilias Limited" to "Afilias, PLC" as we changed our Irish incorporation. I went in to update the page from Afilias Limited to Afilias PLC and it was rejected. Any reason why this accurate change was automatically rejected? The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afilias

Thanks for your help! Brett954 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Brett954, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were reverted by ClueBot NG, which, as the name suggests, is a bot rather than a person. I reckon that what triggered the bot to think that your contributions were vandalism probably wasn't the change you describe here, but rather this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Brett954: When bots revert suspicious edits, they revert all edits by the same editor without intervening edits by the other editors, assuming they have the same intent. So the bot reverted both of your edits. I have reasserted your plc edit. —teb728 t c 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

How to add musician page

How can i add new musician wikipedia Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpoo Peleha (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Hello, Mpoo Peleha. Rather than typing a long answer, I direct you to the suggestions I made at #Company Pages below. That was about a company rather than a musician; and you might not have a conflict of interest (though if you are the musician or are associated with them, you have one); but otherwise the advice I give there is the same I would give you. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

vadalism infomation traffic light.

I have placed a vandalism information traffic light on my My UserPage however it is to connected correctly, could someone tell me where I'm going wrong please. Best regards.Hot Pork Pie 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I've gone ahead and fixed it for you. The issue was that you were just copying the static code of the template which doesn't update as the template merely displays the current information as it is updated by a bot at the central Template:Vandalism Information. Hope that helps. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

it does indeed, thank-you very much @Winner 42: much appreciated. Best Regards. Hot Pork Pie 21:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A. C. C. Cigars page

Just wanted to say thank you for the information and feedback on the article. I think I have a better understanding of the way to craft the article for this cigar manufacturer and will be making changes for a hopeful approval.

19:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaschaIllyvich (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 January 2016‎ (UTC)

context & abilitly to describe

how can i describe a concept of a mechanical & mythikcal & spiritual -philisophilcal circumstance- that is -not- at all well documented-yet- at my desk - & bring to light misconceptions about things i know i can set right , but due to "vierifiable" criteria cannot do so , no matter how i word it..:? or my lack of ability to o so.:? Eavere (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Eavere. If the concept of the "ruling ring" has not been written about in reliable sources, then it cannot be covered in Wikipedia. Maybe you can write about it in Facebook. —teb728 t c 21:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Samuel F. Hodge & Company, adding website links, changing file info of image

Hi. I have made edits to the Samuel F. Hodge & Company page and added website links. I don't believe I added the links correctly and would appreciate help on how to do so. I also added images from my collection but erred in the file title. There was one image that had appeared in the Magazine for Western History but all images uploaded have that file title. I did something wrong, apparently, and don't know how to correct. I did leave a statement on the image Discussion that I had made the error. I am new to Wikipedia editing.Ladycamera (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Title change for article -- how to do it or how to recommend?

How do I recommend (or go ahead and make change myself) a title change for an article? I made a comment on the Talk page for that article, but no response so far. Here's the article and my comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thermal_management_of_electronic_devices_and_systems

Thanks!

Apspowerengineer (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Apspowerengineer, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing to do is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. If you do that, your proposed move will be listed in a centralised discussion, rather than only on the talk page of an article that might not be watched by many editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I replied at the article talkpage, Talk:Thermal_management_of_electronic_devices_and_systems already, but I'll post here as well. Thermal management already exists as a disambiguation page, so I doubt people would accept the move. You can try if you want though, by following the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you can shorten the title without causing problems. Why should your particular field of interest take precedence? Dbfirs 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't propose that "my field of interest" take precedence over anything (not sure what made you think that?). Instead, I think it would be better organized to have one article titled "Thermal Management". The other articles about this topic are, in fact, also about "Thermal Management of electronic devices and systems." The other two articles including "Thermal Management" in the title are about thermal management of LEDs and spacecraft, both of which are electronic devices. And actually, the spacecraft article redirects to a more accurate page about Thermal Control. So, let's just make one article about Thermal Management with various types of devices and their cooling needs.

Apspowerengineer (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Apspowerengineer. The other articles are already quite well developed and significant in their own right, with significantly different issues and mechanisms to discuss. High power LEDs have quite different thermal management issues to general electronics, and quite different methods to address them. I don't see a strong synergy between the two topics. N.B. you are now talking about a WP:MERGE, not a move / rename. I see it as not broken, therefore I oppose attempts to fix it. You are naturally welcome to propose a merge, but I really can't see it being likely to get consensus approval. Murph9000 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I delete previous image upload ? How many pixels are too much ?

Hi,

Scroll down for the actual question; I recently scanned a few rare CDs artworks of mine, and thought I could help by uploading them on Wikipedia, considering only bad quality uploads are currently online;

I only did it for the "Live in Anaheim" CD by Simple Plan, but I believe I went "overkill" on image resolution, so I restored the previous revision, although it did not, obviously, deleted my previous upload;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Live_in_Anaheim.jpg

I did read on the first upload photo (too late): The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork.

So that would mean my upload resolution is too high, and so can we delete my last upload?

I would be more than happy about updating a few photos from other CDs of this artist, as these photos are already uploaded, but only in bad quality you can barely see the artwork. I own the original media, and scanned these artworks and done color correction in Photoshop later on.

Although, how much pixels is too much, since we also want to prevent piracy? Is 500x500 pixels considering "small" and so 750x750 considering "too big" ?

I would say 500x500 is the way to go, since Wikipedia is NOT some sort of "artworks archive" (And we want to respect Copyright too) but just an encyclopedia ?

Thanks for confirming GameX2 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the reference at the moment, but fair use for album covers normally requires < 300 Px on one side, whereas Infobox album cover needs > 200 Px. Most retailers, e.g. Amazon, use 240 x 240 or 250 x 250, which are ideal, so most people just copy one of those - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Key facts" section

Hello Teahouse,

Are there any guidelines on Wikipedia for an article's "Key facts" section, or was that just something the editor of Euphoria (Indian_band)#Key facts made up? Regarding that article, I don't know how to otherwise sort that information. If you could look it over or suggest a better format for the information in that section, that'd help.

Thanks, all Mechanic1c (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a poorly structured article in many ways. The whole article needs a complete re-organisation, and likely a lot of the non-referenced material to be removed. The article should have a "history" section, perhaps with subsections for different periods in the band's history. A "band members" section should list the band's lineup, and could have perhaps some of the "key facts" information included within it. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Company Pages

Is it possible to create a wikipedia page of my company?115.238.94.26 (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia does not have "pages of or for companies". It does have articles about companies, that should be neutrally written, and based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the company have published about it: what the company says or wants to say about itself is of very little relevance to Wikipedia.

So, if there is substantial material (not just directory entries or brief mentions) about your company, written by people unconnected with your company (so not from your company's website, or from interviews or press releases) and published in reliable places such as major newspapers (not blogs or user-generated sources such as social media) then Wikipedia will regard the company as notable (in its own special sense) and we can have an article about it. You are discouraged from writing such an article, because your conflict of interest may make it difficult for you to write in a sufficiently neutral manner; but you are not forbidden. If you wish to go ahead with it, I would advise the following:

1. Spend some time improving existing articles, both to get experience of editing, and to demonstrate that you are here to improve Wikipedia, not just to promote your company.
2. Read your first article and conflict of interest
3. Spend some time finding substantial indeendent reliable sources about your company.
4. Use the Article wizard to create a draft
5. Be open about your conflict of interest
6. Write a draft entirely based on what the independent sources say.

If you follow all these, you stand a much better chance that your article will be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes

Why aren't more pages protected under the pending changes feature? 92.10.226.159 (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi 92.10.226.159 and welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anybody can edit". If pages were locked down with protection that would not be the case. Pending Changes is one of the harshest protections short of full-protection and is only reserved for the nearly worst of the worst. Many pages are overdue from being unchained from Pending Changes as their Pending Changes status has been going on so long that it is untested if they could survive without the PC protection. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: To offer another perspective, I frequently cast an eye over the site-wide pending changes, and the queue is typically quite small and I don't think I've seen anything go past 24 hours (and rare it would go that long). I think it's a useful alternative to traditional protection, as people can still edit and contribute quite freely. At the lower level it just doesn't get published until a reviewer accepts the changes, or an autoconfirmed person makes a change. At the upper level (not widely used, as far as I know), it's reviewer and admin only for publishing. If the pages were semi-protected, IPs and new people would not be able to even submit edits through the normal interface. For high profile, frequently targeted articles, it seems like an excellent way to completely deny immediate publishing of unconstructive edits. I.e. it helps stop Wikipedia making the headlines for the wrong reasons. Anyone can edit, it is just publishing that is restricted to people with a more proven record. It's entirely possible that there should be a big discussion around its use, possibly a regular review process for pages using the feature, I'm not denying that (and equally I'm not calling for it, just leaving that door unlocked for others to open). Murph9000 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes can work better than semi-protection, as the genuine editor can make very detailed or multiple changes, which would be very difficult to explain in a semi-protected edit request, whilst the vandal is frustrated by not seeing the result of their "handiwork". To amplify User:Murph9000's point - there are currently 16 pending changes at Special:PendingChanges the oldest of which is only 12 hours old, whereas there are 37 Semi-protected edit requests the oldest of which is 29 days old. The difficult call is, balancing the work created by vandalism, against the work created by numerous pending changes or semi-protected requests.
The problem is deciding which articles are just subject to random vandalism, e.g. a bored schoolkid, and which to more organized, long term, problems. Many articles have dual protection - short-term semi-protection and longer term pending changes, which gives a "feel" for what might happen if the pending changes are removed.- Arjayay (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear (Arjayay—Murph9000—92.10.226.159) Right now there are 8048 pending changes reviewers to step on the ants. Yes, usually PC protected pages only stay in the PC queue for a few minutes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax - "As of 1 August 2014, there were approximately 1.4 million autoconfirmed users on English Wikipedia" (I can't find a more recent figure) all of whom can answer a semi-protected edit request. So I wonder why, with well over 200 times as many potential editors, do semi-protected edit requests have a larger, and very much longer, backlog? - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Could be that 1.399 million either don't know about the semi request queue, or are scared to touch it, or are inactive.  ;-) Murph9000 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000 and Arjayay:Speaking for myself I made it easy by putting a clickable link at the top of every page that takes me right to the Pending Changes queue. I check it a few times a day, whereas I don't go looking for semi-protected edit requests, but maybe I will get in the habit. Looks like this on top of every page for me:

Checkingfax | 0 | 0 | Talk | Sandbox | Preferences | Beta | Watchlist | Pending changes | Contributions | Log out

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Yeah, good idea. Now, for bonus credit, retrieve the queue size and age via the API and display that as well.  ;-) Murph9000 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merge

Is there any way by which I can track the articles proposed for merger tagged with a particular WP tag, say for example WP Jainism? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

repeat submission of Draft:West_Indies_Yacht_Club by WIYC

I am at loss to understand what will make the editor understand the real issues with the article. Any advise/help will be really appreciated Devopam (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Devopam - It appears that you may have made a good-faith error in one of your declines. You declined the submission as a test edit. It is not a test edit and has never been. As a result, you didn't give the author a chance to get new feedback as to the need for additional references. You probably didn't mean to select test edit. I agree that the author appears to be making minor improvements in order to satisfy the absolute minimum that is requested, which tends to annoy both the reviewers and the author. In such cases, discussion here is far better than continued resubmission, which is a form of slow-motion edit-warring. I am sure that additional sources can be found. (The fact that the club is non-profit is not important. Not every non-profit is notable. Some non-profits, like such businesses, are very small.) As it is, the club is almost certainly notable, but more sources to that effect are better than fewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What sort of extra information do you need to consider this article worthy of being on Wikipedia ??? This club has a significant importance as this is the home of a very rare collection of antique marine photographs some of them unique and few of the rare surviving works of Louis Daguerre. This club also hosts a fleet of 43 classic wooden sailing vessels built before WW2. I could appreciate you might not be interested in yachting but for those who do, this is important. Furthermore this club is a non-profit organisation.

If you could assist in the creation of the article by adding the information you thought missing or to improve it in any manner, please do. I would be most grateful. Thanks. Terry 2A02:A03F:1414:5400:DD19:AB3E:6495:987 (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Well, you were right, I felt a bit frustrated, but the most important things is we sort it out in a way that everyone is happy. Sure that Devopam did not mean it when the action on the test edit deprived me from reading further comments.

My concerns is that I am sure extra information would be found on the web, and I would be most grateful if one of you could help in making this articles meeting the wikipedia standards. As you said, it already meets the minimum standards but I agree with you for the good sake of enlightenment of readers, we could improve it and make it much better. Maybe publishing it would attract attention so other people could share more details, links, sources, related to the topic, don't you think ? Thanks for your help. WIYC (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealing With Translated Redlinks, Wiktionary Editing

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this question. I am trying to clear out a bunch of redlinks on the Wiktionary Israel page. I don't know how to unlink translated n-grams without untranslating them. Help?TheCensorFencer (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You will probably get a better response at wikt:Wiktionary:Information desk.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Company Advertisement?

Can someone with more experience take a look at Enders Analysis? To me, it looks mostly like an advertisement. Many of the sources are the companies own website. Most of the others are just trivial mentions of the company. There are no links to it except one in a list of companies based in England. I think it should be flagged with {advert} and {Orphan} and maybe some others, or possibly nominated for deletion? According to the history, there appears to have been some review when it was created by {Wikipedia:AFC}Mb66w (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mb66w. I agree with your assessment. I looked at about half the sources, several of which look impressive at first glance. But very brief passing mentions in the New York Times or The Economist or the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times do not establish notability. We need significant coverage, which provides context and detail about the company as a topic, instead of just briefly mentioning the company while quoting one of their reports. So, please feel free to try to improve the article (always the first choice), or to tag the article if you see no easy path to improvement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in improving this article myself; I have many other projects I would like to work on. I was looking for guidance on what tags would be appropriate {advert}, {orphan}, {notability}, {refimprov}, etc. or if even it should be nominated for deletion.Mb66w (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

first time I write an article, als for help Draft:Darya_Safai

It's the first time I want to write somethingl, my draft: Draft:Darya_Safai can somebody help me a little bit and get me on the wayStannieke (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stannieke. There is an article about Darya Safai on the Dutch Wikipedia that may be of some use, though the references are poorly formatted. When I do a Google News search, I see lots of coverage in Dutch language reliable sources, mostly published in Belgium where she now lives. It is OK to cite reliable sources in other languages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:HighVolMusic

I reviewed Draft:HighVolMusic and declined it as needing more references to the subject’s notability. User:WRC3 then asked me the following: “Hi Robert, My article submission for my company was not approved citing my references do not adequately show the subject's notability. I am not sure I fully understand then what type of references are needed to provide significant coverage about the subject COI(HighVolMusic) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have looked at 3 of our competitors Wiki pages and essentially mirrored what they have done using our own data and press that is on the internet about it. Are you able to assist me so that I can get our article approved? Thank you, Bill Chavis” I hadn’t understood, until this question was asked, that this is a conflict of interest article. The real problem that I have now is that it is clear that the author doesn’t understand Wikipedia, because he refers to “our competitors”. The author doesn’t seem to understand that Wikipedia takes a very dim view of any mindset that articles about a corporation belong to the corporation. Can someone either give the author friendly advice on how to write a COI draft that is properly sourced and doesn’t look COI, up to our standards, or not to write a COI draft at all? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried asking your questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation? I think there might be more expertise about AfC procedures and processes there. Of course, if anyone here wants to respond, that's great! I just noticed that you have a lot of questions about AFC matters and not general editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

{User:Liz - Maybe I wasn't clear in my questions. I wasn't asking for AFC advice for myself, but for an AFC author, and I have found that AFC authors get better advice here than at AFC talk (even though that is one of the places that they are advised they can go for review. I didn't think that I needed advice in whether this was a COI article, especially after the author referred to "his competitors". I was asking for advice for the author. My own advice would be not to try to submit COI drafts, but that is my own advice. Some reviewers are more friendly than I am about being willing to help COI editors clean up their drafts. I didn't see evidence of notability, and I personally don't think that I have an obligation to help find evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

We did read the COI info. And to clarify the article was written by the publicist of our company I posted it under my account. Secondly, to again clarify, we looked at some competitors that have published pages to see what specific information was included and then we did the same. Who would know more about a successful company then the person who built it? The references used is info published by other sources to verify what was stated. I am looking for help to get the article posted. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WRC3 (talk • contribs)

You say that the article was written by the publicist of your company. Many inexperienced editors and many publicists don't understand that writing for Wikipedia is not like writing publicity. The focus must be on neutrality, not on promotion. Your draft was less promotional and more nearly neutral than many COI drafts that I have seen, just inadequately sourced. However, not every company is notable, and there may not be available independent third-party sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

hello WRC3, you may actually get more help at WP:COMPANIES. Currently I see that the article lacks proper references from reliable sources. Each 'fact' asserted needs to be supported by a suitable reference. Also, company articles are scrutinized more for WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT. You will need to work on the tone as well to avoid getting under the scanner. Hope this helps to improve the next version.Devopam (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi WRC3. Please note that tying to compare your page with "your competitors' " pages, is not a valid argument at Wikipedia - please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the explanation.
We know that, in our over 5 Million articles, there are poorly written ones, but we aim to copy the best, not the worst. Find a similar article at List of Good Articles or even List of featured articles and base your article on that.
Very few editors can write an article about something they are involved in from a neutral point of view, which is one reason we try to dissuade people with a confliuct of interest, like you have, from editing such articles. - Arjayay (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will expand on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that your competitors have articles doesn't meant that you should, but it doesn't mean that they should. Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe no one has yet bothered to to nominate them for deletion. Some of our articles are crap. That doesn't mean that more crap is encouraged. It means that we should get rid of some of the crap. (It is true that reasonable Wikipedians can disagree on what is crap.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. I understand that great informational content is key at Wikipedia with verifiable content. Again the point trying to be made was that before we started to write our article we reviewed similar companies in the same business that have published pages. What content they included, what references. With that info in hand our article was written and submitted yet not approved. HighVolMusic is an independent record label not covered by mainstream media yet in the our field we are known and have worked with several well known artists. There is press on the company so I am not sure what exactly is clarified as verifiable references or if our article was not written by a "neutral" party. Our article isn't fluff or biased its a time table of facts. We've gotten many links of info to read making it all the more confusing. We will go back today and work on the article. If there is someone who can assist me in getting our article approved it is greatly appreciated. I want nothing more than our page to be accurate for those who read it giving insight in to our company. Thank you.

You write that you aren't covered by mainstream media. That may indicate a lack of notability. You say that there is press on your company. Is that neutral trade press on the music industry? If so, that may establish notablity. If it is your own press releases, it doesn't establish notability. Not every independent record label is notable. I thank you for trying to comply with our policies and guidelines, but sometimes a subject isn't notable. In any case, you do have a conflict of interest. At least, you are now asking rather than tediously resubmitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pings and alerts

Not sure if this has to do with editing but here goes.

When and how should pings be used?

Also, are users notified when something is added to their Talk page?

-- JamesPoulson (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again James. Pings are used to notify a user of a reply on a talk page. Also yes, they are notified. I responded to you on my TP recently, did you get my message? Kindest regards, Chesnaught (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: <= So this would be a correct use :)? Yes, I read your message. Thanks for getting back to me. --JamesPoulson (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

JamesPoulson Indeed! Chesnaught (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Procedure to suggest the modification of a redirection?

Hi all,

I just came across the page Popular science which Vulgarisation also points to.

I have already posted on the Talk page about the Wiktionary definition indicating that one could be seen as a subset of another.

Is there anything to be done beyond that?

--JamesPoulson (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that anyone wanting to know about popular presentation of science would start by typing "vulgarisation". The redirect, originally to "vulgarism", was created by CALR. You could ask him why he created it. Maproom (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I was searching for vulgarisation as a ressource to explain the approach used to simplifying technical material but the current page doesn't answer that. Going to post on his Talk page now. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you review the article and help me make it adhere to all wiki pedia guidelines

Can you review the article and help me make it adhere to all wiki pedia guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nadaa_Dee%5CDubai_Plus

Nadaa Dee (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your userspace draft was wrongly named by the editor who moved it. I have moved it from User:Nadaa Dee\Dubai Plus to User:Nadaa Dee/Dubai Plus. I will leave other editors to comment on the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft does not start by explaining what it's about. It variously calls its subject "a first City Privilege Card program", "a smart card", and a "City Privilege Card". It seems that it's about a discount card: this ought to be explained in the first sentence. Also, I strongly suspect that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. Maproom (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Clumsy Disambiguation

Hello, is there any advice about what to do with the disambiguation at the top of this page Qarai Turks I tried to cover all possibilities but it started to look clumsy and unnecessary. Is it best to just remove it? Basically these Turks are also known as Qarai and Qaray and Qaraylar or Qarailar and Qaraei etc. but some of those terms e.g. Qarailar Qaraylar Qarai also refer to some of the cities where they live in Iran and Azerbaijan. I am thinking that since the title has been changed to specify it is about the Turks and not the cities then there is no need to mention the cities in the disambiguation now right? So maybe just remove them and put links to the cities in a links section at he bottom of the page? All advise welcome. YuHuw (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, having had a cup of tea, I think I answered above my own question. If anyone wants to take a look anyway, that would be nice. YuHuw (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

How to get speedy deletion content re-reviewed again?

Wish this were easier. Sorry to bother you. Could you give me instructions on two options? 1) Content I've generated was not finalized, simply saved, and then it was exposed to a reviewer and given "speedy deletion" stamp. How can it get the new copy evaluated for appropriateness? 2) If not appropriate, how do I simply get out of this mess and have everything deleted? Lyn StanleyAllTimeMusic (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse AllTimeMusic. Lyn Stanley (vocalist) has only been nominated for deletion; in a few minutes an administrator will decide whether it should be deleted. In the mean time you have an opportunity to make it less promotional. If it is deleted you can start over using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. There you can create an article in Draft namespace, where it will be less at risk of speedy deletion, and when it is ready, you can submit it for review by an experienced editor. —teb728 t c 04:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Is AllTimeMusic the name of a company? Please see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lyn Stanley. I just noticed that you are writing about yourself. Although that is not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. —teb728 t c 04:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please read the Conflict of interest guideline. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to get out of this all together. Many of "fans" have asked that a submission be created about me. I followed one done by Tierney Sutton, an American Jazz singer, where she includes her website as well. I have asked for help in getting this task done, but professional writers are discouraged as well from submissions. A.T. Music LLC is the legal name of the entity owning my music. Would appreciate knowing how to DELETE this submission entirely and move on...can any one of you do this??AllTimeMusic (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

AllTimeMusic, the speedy deletion tag on Lyn Stanley (vocalist) was refused and it was not deleted. Since you created the article, other editors have been working on the page, adding references to it.

Do you still wish for it to be deleted? If so, you can add the tag {{Db-author}} to the top of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As disambigutaion isn't required in this case, I have moved the article to Lyn Stanley. At this point it's too late for {{db-author}}.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A chain of redirects and what to do with them?

Hej! I was looking something up on here a few moments ago; information about a skin condition called "Bullae" - now, the term Bullae, redirects to Bulla, which in turn has the redirect to Bulla (dermatology), which then further redirects to Cutaneous condition. Is there some way to simplify this process? All of these redirects must be slowing people down. Can someone please advise me on what could be done with this? Thank you. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Bulla does not have a redirect to Bulla (dermatology). Bulla is a disambiguation page, and Bulla (dermatology) is one of the choices available from that page. If there had been a double redirect it would probably have been fixed by a bot. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you could show that "bullae" is used exclusively for the skin condition, then you would have a case for a more direct link, but Wikipedia has to allow for other meanings, including three alternative medical usages. Dbfirs 09:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

New editors and AfDs

I was looking through a list of new articles recently and came across one that had been AfD'd. I thought the references adequately supported the notability of the subject, so I left a !vote on the AfD page. However, I checked back the next day and discovered that a new editor had made a comment like: "Delete Sources Do Not Show Notability". Their contribs showed that they had commented on 5 or 6 other AfDs (in the exact same manner) and other than maybe a couple of article edits and a comment on a user's talk asking if creating GAs brought perks, have done nothing. I'm sort of concerned that they are not really eligible to make judgment calls on what makes a reliable source or not. (The AfD I commented on and first saw them on had a lot more voting for keep than for delete.) I left them a welcome message with a note about the GAs, but I'm wondering if maybe the policy should be changed to keep brand new people from the AfDs. (Like not letting them edit the pages until they're autoconfirmed.) I do get that a lot of newbies know the basic rules and some that edited as IPs are very knowledgeable, but it seems like people without knowledge of the rules could screw up the AfD process--getting bad articles kept and valuable ones deleted. I don't know. I'm just sort of wondering if anyone else has seen this and is concerned by it. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, White Arabian Filly. Experienced administrators who close Articles for Deletion debates will disregard any "keeps" or "deletes" that are not based on policies and guidelines. I agree with you that this editor is not starting out well. We can hope that they will learn. The biggest problem at AfD right now, in my opinion, is a shortage of active participants. It is a very important maintenance function and any editor with a basic understanding of our content policies and guidelines is invited to help out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Henri Hauser and Henri Hauser

I reviewed Draft: Henri Hauser and declined it as being about the same person as Henri Hauser. I observed that the draft was much better than the article; but AFC is not a procedure to replace an existing article with a new improved article about the same person. User:Atalante88 then expanded the article and resubmitted it, and it was declined by reviewer User:Onel5969 because it duplicates an existing article. User:Atalante88 then posted: Dear Robert, I carefully reviewed my draft Henri Hauser I made many corrections, added many precisions, references and links and then I submitted my version and it was declined once again by because a current article Henri Hauser was existing. But, this current one is full of mistakes such as Henri Hauser is an agrarian that he is not at all, this is Walter Hauser. Many great steps of his influential life are missing. I really don't understand that someone can write such a poor quality article and mine was made with a lot of research and readings, it took a huge time and someone can refuse just for this poor reason without any reading of my version. You refer keep an incorrect article and decline mine ? I could admit that my article could be still improved or request an assistance but declining without taking into account the quality of the contents is incredible... At least, does someone read the draft article at the end ? I did an honest article and someone who obviously know nothing about HH can keep his article ? Thank you beforehand for providing an understandable explanation. Atalante88Atalante88 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So my question to other experienced editors is what is the best procedure to help the author move the submitted article forward. Basically, Articles for Creation has always been for the creation of articles, not for the improvement of articles by normal editing, nor the replacement of articles. The usual advice to class projects is to edit the articles via the edit process. However, the issue here is an existing draft, still needing a lot of work, but already much better than the existing article. I can see several ways that may be either in order or marginally in order. First, Atalante88 or someone else can do a copy-and-paste, replacing the entire article in one copy, with an edit summary of replace article. What do we do, and what do we advise Atalante88? Second, the existing article can be deleted to make way for replacement. If so, by which of the three procedures? Third, an RFC can be used to ask whether to replace the existing article with a draft. On the one hand, the AFC declines were correct. On the other hand, AFC shouldn’t block replacement of the article. What do we do? Also, can someone please explain to User:Atalante88, preferably in French, on their talk page, that we do understand their concern and we are just figuring out how to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon - and thanks for the ping. Based on the results at AfD, I think the only way is to edit the current article. The question then becomes, what is the best method? The easiest way is to do a wholesale cut and paste, which, while easier, I would not recommend. The original article was created back in 2006, and other than minor infrequent tweaks, has been virtually unchanged until this past December, when Atalante88 took an interest in it. So you might simply be bold and do that. If no one has an issue with it, your good. If they do, then Atalante can begin to go through the article section by section and edit it. This is by no means the first time this issue has come up at AfC. There have been several that I've been involved in where the draft is much better than the mainspace article, and the editor simply begins to edit the current article. With the changes Atalante has already made, I don't see an issue with simply cutting and pasting the stuff from his draft and replacing what is currently there. However, I wouldn't put the lengthy literary list in, and there are large issues of formatting both the literary sources and the references. The references in the current article are well formatted. And I think that the cited material in the current article would need to stay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced the body of the article in a single paste. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not wise to have done that before sorting out the referencing. The new text has heaps of misplaced external links but not footnotes. Those should have been sorted out before replacing the old, properly referenced, article. See the reply from User:onel5969 before yours. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert No need an explaination in French I fully understand your concern about what could be the best method to publish my article. But the current article on Henri Hauser contains many errors. At the beginning, I tried to expand the current article and it was reverted, then I put it in my sandbox and it was declined twice. So, it could seem weird to propose me to expand once again the current article. I would not appreciate to work once again in this article and then it would be reverted again. I think this is a huge work to write a correct article and anyone can easily quickly decline or revert it. Thank you for your consideration and hope you will soon find a good solution for Draft-Henri-Hauser . Atalante88Atalante88 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Atalante88: Thank you for your efforts. The reason for the reversion of your previous changes to the current article was that your new material contained no references at all. You need to realise that a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is verifiability, and that material needs to be supported by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. The need for references was explained in maintenance tags on the article, in edit summaries, and in a message on your user talk page. If your new material is based on published material, then it will be a welcome addition to the Wikipedia article, but if it is based entirely on original research of your own then it belongs somewhere other than Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a real mess now after Robert McClenon's cut and paste merge. I have re-directed Draft:Henri Hauser to Henri Hauser to preserve the attribution history. Atalante88, please continue to make improvements directly to Henri Hauser. Do not work on the draft as it will make an eventual history merge virtually impossible. Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Voceditenore. What is the procedure to do a history merge after a cut and paste job? Is it an admin toolbox thing?

Also, Robert McClenon there is a template you need to put on the Talk pages of the target and source. It is called {{copied}} and is a bit tricky to fill out. Do a lot of previews and right-click open-page-in-new-tab page-views until the template parameters are solid. You can click on the template link in this reply to see the parameters you need to use. Let me know if I can assist. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax. A history merge needs to be done by an administrator (which I'm not). However, it is sometimes not possible to do one if both the original and the target have been edited simultaneously, as I suspect is the case here. An administrator would have to assess that at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. In cases where a history merge is no longer possible, the original must be kept as a redirect to provide attribution. This is why I have re-directed Draft:Henri Hauser to Henri Hauser and tagged it with {{R from merge}} to prevent deletion. As for {{copied}}, it doesn't seem to work with cross-namespace merges, i.e. Draft to Article. I've tried Voceditenore (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

referencing different editions of a source

I'm working to expand an article, and as part of this, I found a source that had been used in the article, Lucrezia Tornabuoni. Unfortunately, it seems I found a different edition than the one used previously, as the page numbers don't seem to line up. What's the best way within the reference structure of that article to add more information from the source? Do I adjust the pages and reference to match the edition I have, or is there a good way to reference two editions of the same book? 1bandsaw (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The {{cite book}} template has a parameter for edition, so you would create two separate refs, one for each edition which would be identical apart from the edition parameter.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: David Reimer

I reviewed Draft: David Reimer and declined it as having insufficient in-line citations for a BLP, and said to remove the external link from the lede sentence. I also noted a conflict of interest, because the author of the draft, User:Palm Village, appears to be the same as the company of which the subject is the CEO. User:Palm Village, then wrote:

"Robert, as this is my first Wikipedia article, I assumed after reading about best practices that I needed to cite where the information I used came from. But I am a professional magazine writer, and the entire article is original. So based on what I read now about what needs citing, would the best way to get this article about David Reimer be to simply remove the citations throughout the article and leave the external links at the end, which gives much fuller descriptions of his work?"

Either the standard decline templates are not helpful (and they have been criticized), or my additional remarks confused the author, or the author just doesn’t understand. Can someone else please explain to the author that I said that draft needed more in-line citations, not fewer? Can someone else please explain that we can’t rely on what David Reimer says about himself, or what his ghost-writer says about him, only what independent third-party sources say about him? Maybe I should have said that the overall tone of the draft was hagiographic. Is the author of the draft being paid by David Reimer? Can anyone comment further? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Palm Village. Can I suggest that you have a read of Wikipedia:No original research? Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original writing. Everything here has to be based on what reliable sources say about the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Wilhering College

I reviewed Draft: Wilhering College and declined it as needing more independent third-party sources, saying that it was probably notable but that its notability needed to be verifiable. User:Jean Eti replied on my talk page, saying: “Thank you for reviewing Wilhering College. I forgot to mention, that my article is based on the German Version of "Stiftsgymnasium Wilhering". The notability has never been doubted there. Unfortunately I technically cannot cite an article that would proof its notability very well. The archive of nachrichten.at, the website of the well-known (in Upper-Austria) OÖNachrichten, doesn't allow links. However, this site calls the school "renowned". What shall I do?” The draft has now been resubmitted with additional references and is waiting for re-review. I would comment that any German-language sources may be used in addition to English sources. I don’t understand the comment that nachrichten.at doesn’t allow links. Can other editors comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jean Eti. Normally in English "notable" does mean something close to "famous" or "renowned"; but it has a special meaning in English Wikipedia, which has very little to do with renown. If a source unconnected with the school has writted about it and called it renowned this might help, but only if that is in the course of a substantial piece of writing - a mere mention, even describing it as "famous", would not help.

I too don't understand the comment about OÖNachrichte; but even if there is some reason why it cannot be linked, references do not need to be online, as long as sufficient bibilographic information is given so that a reader can in principle find the resource. --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As you have written, I have added the source nachrichten.at without giving the exact link (which I can't give, as this article can only be opened by users who are logged in and even then without link (really strange, the title has to be typed in the search box, then it works), but anyway, the article was published in the printed edition, this must be enough). I hope that the sources that I have added give sufficient information about the notability of Wilhering College. Thank you very much for your help! Jean Eti (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

How repair a zip fastener

109.77.18.33 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Try asking at the Reference desk. This is for questions about editing. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

New psychology articles

Where can I find a list of newly created psychology articles? Min al Khadr (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Min al Khadr, welcome to the Teahouse. A good starting point is probably WikiProject Psychology, the central coordination project for articles relating to psychology. Please have a look at what is there, and ask further questions either on their talk page, or back here. Murph9000 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Min al Khadr, welcome to Teahouse. Index of psychology articles might help you too. It's a list of psychology articles. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

But it hasn't been updated since the 6th November. --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Min al Khadr If by chance you're looking for "new" articles because you want to find psychology articles needing development, then you could search for articles tagged with {{psych-stub}} using the what links here feature: direct link I don't know of any way to generate a list of new ones, but using User:Ais523/catwatch.js, you could also set it up so that when articles are first added to certain categories, such as Category:Psychology and subcategories shown through that page, the category pops up on your watchlist, with the name of the newly-added article. To do so, go to your personal JS and add the code importScript('User:ais523/catwatch.js');, but then you need to create the separate page Min al Khadr/WatchedCategories.js. Place there:

var WatchedCategories=new Array(
 
 // Place categories in this list. There should be a comma in all rows
 // but the last; make sure the names start with a capital letter, have
 // the correct case for all other letters, and don't have Category:
 // before them. This watchlist cannot be kept private (that is, other
 // users will be able to tell which categories you are watching).
 //
 // After editing this list (either for the first time or if you change
 // it later on) you will need to bypass your cache.
 
 "Name of category (do not prefix "category")",
 "Next category name",
 "Last category name has no comma"

 );

Make sure to then bypass your cache. Note that many user who have tried this needed to log out and restart their browsers before it would work, even after bypassing the cache. I find the feature invaluable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion from Ponduru and Jadcherla

Ponduru page was edited by Vin09 in 2014. He has deleted the complete information about Ponduru khadi with references. Similarly he has deleted bulk of information from Jadcherla also. May I know any specific reason.Rajasekhar1961 04:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rajasekhar1961, welcome to the Teahouse. All we can tell you is what is in the page history, the same place that you looked up the date of the change and the editor's name. The summary says that it was WP:OR, which is the Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Please visit the WP:OR link to see the full policy, but I will include the "nutshell" summary of the policy here:

Jadcherla was trimmed down both for WP:OR, and WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia is not a directory). As far as I can tell from an extremely quick scan of the page histories, Vin09's edits were legitimate, consistent with official policy. I note that you have already left a message for him, so he might add more, but I suspect that there's not really much more to say about it. Often when you see "WP:something" in an edit summary, the editor will have linked it to the policy or guideline in question, so you can click it for a detailed explanation. It's always possible that he may have trimmed something which should have remained, while removing other problematic material, but he may have judged the references you mentioned to not be reliable sources. I've not looked at the content in detail, so I am not offering judgement on that right now.

Murph9000 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just done a little more investigation, and there was only one reference in the "Ponduru Khadi" section, as far as I could see. It has become invalid due to "link rot", which is when a bare URL is used as a reference, instead of a full citation recording the title, author, date, etc of the article. This is why it is important to construct citations in full detail, as a bare URL can very easily transition from a verifiable source to unsourced, making the related content eligible for deletion. Murph9000 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000: I'll improve it with more genuine reference very quickly on both pages. Any more issues, please ping me.--Vin09 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question satisfactorily.--Rajasekhar1961 06:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for tips to improve Fife Contemporary Art & Craft page

Hello, I would really appreciate some specific tips as to how to improve this page I have been working on Draft:Fife Contemporary Art & Craft. I've been adding references and trying to improve it since it was declined on 7 Jan. I think I have got as many useable news references as I can find. It's been awaiting review for quite a bit more than a week now and I can see the number of articles to review is increasing so I want to do whatever I can to help it to be easier to review again.

I don't want to necessarily add more text in case that causes more problems. But if there's anything you can see that I should do I'd love to know, thanks! Loolah

Loolah (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Loolah. I haven't studied this in any depth (and these are more a surface than depth issues) but if you're looking to make some obvious improvements, in all places where you're using {{cite news}}, and the source is an actual newspaper (that is not secondarily using content provided by a new wire service like Reuters or AP), replace agency= with newspaper= and get rid of the publisher entirely (and if you keep the publisher for others, get rid of "ltd"). See the template's documentation. For places where you've used cite news and the source is a magazine or journal article (like Ceramic Review), replace with {{cite journal}} and see its documentation for what to include. For places where you're citing a video, see {{cite av media}}. All punctuation, commas, periods, semi-colons, etc., should appear before the citation(s), so fix every instance of that, e.g., of " ^[1]; " with " ;^[1] " Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit that gives me a good few things to work on in terms of the format. Loolah (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Photography

Hello, I wanted to ask, if I might become administrator, as I had to check out the pictures they are not damaged, and so on? How to recognize?--Lukaslt13 --Talk 17:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no chance of you becoming an administrator in the forseeable future. Your command of English is inadequate and you don't understand many of the basics of Wikipedia (which led to comments on your user talk page regarding your competence to act as a Teahouse host). The guidance is at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Could someone look at his recent afd's too please, they are either incorrect or incoherent, his editing is becoming disruptive. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A user called Lukaslt13 was indefinitely blocked on lt.wikipedia a week ago. I think that was for being a "clone" (which I suspect means a sock-puppet) but I haven't investigated further. --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Google Translate FTW. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've actually wondered for a while whether this editor's poor English is a result of them using Google Translate for their contributions here. Lukaslt13, you are likely to stand a better chance of becoming an administrator once you are a bit older and your ability to contribute and communicate in English improves. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I know that I need the skills, but I'm not blind Copying! I check every word that he translated well! And Lithuanian Wikipedia did not understand me. And when I sent Welcome! templates, hence that was anyway, and some users made contributions. And I really beg your pardon, but anyway I am happy that many articles created! The adoption of criticism as I could, so do not be surprised. I hope that in the future even improve. I want to do today 700 amendments, and as soon as you help me, because only then we will be friendly rather than "stupid." Sorry, for the expression, but it sometimes happens. Thanks!.--Lukaslt13 --Talk 09:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Lukaslt13: Your edits to article on Lithuanian villages are good contributions to Wikipedia. So are your edits to articles generally, as far as I can tell. They contain grammatical errors, but these are easy to correct. But posting welcome messages to new users which contain the words "If you need help ... ask me on my talk page" is not so helpful. If a new user does ask for help on your talk page, your English may not yet be good enough to give a useful answer. Maproom (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well mistake, but did corrected, as you say yourself, because you can do? The Lithuanian VIkipedijoj for example, a user just register, just talk to him a greeting page, but here everywhere: Thanks for the changes... I really wanted to work at the heart here. And do not get me wrong. I do not know what would happen if you block me here, maybe "die" because as Wikipedia told me there are others like Counter Strike, so I am here Wikipedia, day and night to let here. Thanks you.--Lukaslt13 --Talk 11:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

I put a date into the journal reference and still get an error message.

How do I trouble shoot? I read the help:date FAQ and my formatting is correct. 173.51.205.65 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, 173. Perhaps I could help if I knew the specifics of the problem; what page is it occurring on, and what is the error message? If I can see the broken syntax, I could take a stab at fixing it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Very much appreciate the offer. I wound up fixing the issue by deleting the reference and reinserting the information. There may have been a typo I did not see, or it may not have liked the date I had for the journal ("Spring-Summer 1985"). Anyhow, I appreciate the response and wish you well. 173.51.205.65 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cladogram

I'm trying to make a cladogram for Odontoceti, but I can't quite figure it out.

Odontoceti Short-beaked common dolphin Long-beaked common dolphin Fraser's dolphin Atlantic humpback dolphin Indian humpback dolphin Chinese white dolphin Pantropical spotted dolphin Atlantic spotted dolphin Spinner dolphin Clymene dolphin Striped dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Indo-pacific bottlenose dolphin Burrunan dolphin Commerson's dolphin Chilean dolphin Heaviside's dolphin Hector's dolphin Pygmy killer whale Short-finned pilot whale Long-finned pilot whale Risso's dolphin Irrawaddy dolphin Australian snubfin dolphin Killer whale Melon-headed whale False killer whale Tucuxi Costero Rough-toothed dolphin White-beaked dolphin Atlantic white-sided dolphin Pacific white-sided dolphin Dusky dolphin Black-chinned dolphin Hourglass dolphin Beluga whale Narwhal Arnoux's beaked whale Baird's beaked whale Hector's beaked whale True's beaked whale Gervais' beaked whale Sowerby's beaked whale Gray's beaked whale Pygmy beaked whale Andrew's beaked whale Bahamonde's beaked whale Hubb's beaked whale Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale Stejneger's beaked whale Strap-toothed beaked whale Blainville's beaked whale Perrin's beaked whale Deraniyagala's beaked whale Sheperd's beaked whale Cuvier's beaked whale Tropical bottlenose whale Indo-pacific finless porpoise Yangtze finless porpoise Harbour porpoise Vaquita Spectacled porpoise Burmeister's porpoise Dall's porpoise Amazon river dolphin Araguaian river dolphin

Most of the cladogram doesn't even show up. I need help on this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Oh wow, I've never seen one of these before. It seems that Template:Clade#Large_cladograms may provide some information on the limitations in size, though I'm not sure if that's what's going on here with the truncation. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Something like this may be what you want. —teb728 t c 09:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC) @Dunkleosteus77: —teb728 t c 09:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dunkleosteus77 and welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. My eyes crossed trying to count the number of entries. How many are missing? I did remove a spare set of curly braces from the end to make it render better. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Dunkleosteus77. See also: {{clade}}, {{cladex}}, {{cladogram}}, {{barlabel}} and

Large cladograms:

There are limitations on the size and complexity of the cladograms which can be drawn:

• A maximum of 17 children is allowed per node. It may seem that this could easily be increased by editing the template, but see the next point.
• Cladograms can only be expanded up to a certain level of complexity because the MediaWiki software limits the resources available for template expansion. The cladogram at APG III system#Phylogeny has had to be broken into three parts, because the entire cladogram exhausts the allowed resources (in this case the allowed expansion depth). Any change to the template could result in large cladograms failing to display correctly. In general, don't exceed a depth of 19, i.e. don't nest one {{[[Template:#ifeq:|#ifeq:]]|cladex|cladex|clade}} template inside another more than 19 times.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on Deletion of Jamais Cascio article

Sorry to bother folks but I wonder if anyone would care to comment on the proposed deletion of the article about Jamais Cascio. The discussion currently stands at one comment for, one against, with no activity for several days (yes, I have put up a bio rfc). I get that this is about document quality, and have been trying to maintain and update it to BLP standards. I would appreciate a little support, or constructive comments on why it's so terrible. Thanks. Arfisk (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically, at this point the article has been nominated for deletion, and is the subject of community discussion. Your are welcome to improve the draft during the seven days that the deletion discussion runs. In the future, it might be advisable to use Articles for Creation. Many enthusiastic inexperienced editors consider WP:AFC to be a painful process, but it isn't as painful as Articles for Deletion. It does appear that this article was proposed for deletion and then deleted, but that doesn't matter. The current AFD can run its seven-day course. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think AFC is for new articles. Unless I am missing something, this is a 2005 article. —teb728 t c 09:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

True. This is an AFD of an old article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, going through the afc process would have been better. This is one of those cases where a long established but underpowered article has caught the eye of an editor who has decided to summarily delete it under blp guidelines. To the uninitiated, this looks a lot like vandalism (it isn't). I came in 4-5 months ago to reinstate and update it. The same editor is again pushing for its removal. Arfisk (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: How to upload user picture

How do I upload my picture on my profile? Where do I provide my profile details?

Thank you and have a lovely day.

Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeyepierce68 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Neil. Wikipedia is not the kind of website that has profiles: what we have are encyclopedic biographies of notable people (i.e. the kind of people who have biographies in encyclopedias (like Alan Alda)). We also have "user pages" which allow limited person information about editors. Your user page is User:Hawkeyepierce68. See WP:UPYES for what you may put on your user page. —teb728 t c 05:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Neil. I am sorry to say there is no place on Wikipedia for blog content like what you entered at User:Neil's journey through life 2015. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 06:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Neil. As for pictures, see Help:Files for an overview of how to upload and use pictures. —teb728 t c 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: [Ticket#2015112310008338] Requesting a correction on Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) entry.

To Whom it may concern

This is to inform you that the Islamic Development Bank has come across its page in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Development_Bank and found a great deal of untrue and disturbing information. You are kindly requested to provide the Islamic Development Bank direct access to edit and submit the institution's corporate profile as soon as possible.

Regards,

Khaled Nazer Group Communications Division Bank Secretariat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.42.235.250 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Hello, Khaled Nazer. Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anybody may edit. There is not an editorial staff which can respond to such requests: instead, there are thousands of volunteers.

In principle, anybody in the world can edit that article - in particular, you are physically able to go in and edit it. However, before you do so, please read about our policy on conflict of interest - because of your connection with the the subject of the article, you are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. Instead, what you should do is post your concerns on the the article's talk page. Start a new section, by picking '+' or 'new section' at the top, and explain the changes you want to see. Please be as specific as you can, and accompany any changes you propose with citations to reliable published sources (if possible, sources independent of the bank). If you add {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) to your submission, this will put it on a list of requests.

Please note that the reason for discouraging you from editing the article is that a Wikipedia article is required to be neutral, based predominantly on independent sources. On the face of it, the current article looks as if it is well-sourced (though I have not looked at the sources in detail). If your proposed edits include deleting material that is well-sourced, they are unlikely to be accepted; and similarly, material will only be added if it is referenced to reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)