Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, 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

Hello World

This is a test. If this works I will revert this shortly. Electrico96 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Book citation

If a user has cited an 800+ page reference book but has not included the page number(s)what is the appropriate way to handle this? Unconventional2 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Uploading pictures with copyright to Wikipedia

Hi, When trying to upload an image on Wikipedia I noticed there's a bunch of statuses you can give to a copyright to an image you upload on Wikipedia. I'm not sure which one to use for images you find online. For example, say you find this image online and you want to upload it on Wikipedia. Which copyright status do you put on there and why? How can I prevent having my images removed due to copyright? Do you have any tips for uploading images from online? Electrico96 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

On the access page, that image is clearly stated as "© 2016 www.aviewoncities.com" so you cannot upload it to Wikipedia under any license whatsoever. - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I tried submitting a question through the "Ask a Question" feature at the top of the page but it didn't work. I wrote the question, clicked on the "Ask My Question" button, then the page refreshed, the text I wrote disappeared and the question didn't submit. Is there a way to fix this? Electrico96 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

More difficult to answer, not having seen exactly what you did - did you click "Save page" rather than "show preview? What OS and browser are you using? - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on the big blue button at the top of the page that said "Ask a Question", filled out the question, clicked on the grey "Ask My Question" tab on the bottom left of the pop-up screen that comes up when you click the blue button, the screen refreshed, and the question disappeared. I'm using Chrome on Windows 10. I also tried on the iPad as well with the same results. Electrico96 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Odd. I don't get a "grey "Ask My Question" tab" - just a standard editing window with "Save page" "Show preview" and Show changes" buttons, but without the Minor edit and watch this page tick boxes - sorry I can't help - Arjayay (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay. You can only upload images to Commons if you own the copyright or they are already in the public domain.Charles (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Er yes, as I said "you cannot upload it to Wikipedia" - Arjayay (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Electrico96. When using the ask a question button, the internal button for "Ask my Question" at the bottom of the field presented to you will stay greyed-out until you sign your post by typing four tildes. The question field tells you this at the bottom:

On Wikipedia, you should sign all of your non-article posts by ending them with four tildes (~~~~)
(Note: this question submission form will not work without them.)

It sounds like lack of signing may have been the issue. Did you sign the post with four tildes? If you did, and the button was actually live but it just refreshed the page, that is very concerning.

As to images, the rule of thumb is that you normally you cannot upload any images unless you have affirmative proof that the image is under a suitably-free copyright license or is in the public domain. This can be explicit (at the location of hosting it displays a compatible free copyright license), or implicit (it is in the public domain because of age or status, e.g., respectively, it is an image published in the U.S. before 1923, or is a direct work of the U.S. Federal Government, prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties).

That is, if the image has no copyright tag (unlike the example one you pointed to above) we assume it's under a fully non-free copyrighted and can't be used. The one exception to this is when you are seeking to use a non-free copyrighted image under the fair use exception to the exclusion of copyright law. That is another complex subject area, but the use must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mistake in article thats private and I can't edit it.

There's only an audio commentary on two of the three Equestria Girls movies in the box set and the box set is the same movie as far as case and disk as some of the movies out there but some have extra stuff in the like a wrist band in one of the rainbow rocks movie dvd's. But Equestria Girls (one) doesn't have an audio commentary. It's a locked article and I can't edit it (it doesn't have an edit option) or I would have changed it .Starmoon1234 (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Starmoon1234. I'm not certain which article you are talking about, and none of My Little Pony: Equestria Girls, My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Rainbow Rocks and My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Friendship Games are protected from editing. (It always helps if you name and link the article you have a question about). Assuming it's some other article that is protected, you can make an edit-protected request for a change to be made on the article's talk page.

This can be done manually, by going to the talk page, making a new section and placing above your request {{Edit semi-protected}} or {{Edit fully-protected}} (depending on what level of protection the page has). There's also an automated option to do this that should be presented to you. When you are at a protected page instead of an edit button at the top you'll see "view source". If you click that the resulting view should present a blue button that says "submit an edit request". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources not applicable

Hello Teahouse, I have found that when on Wikipedia, I click on a source & find that the page is quite often not available. Today I tried to add a , but I am not sure how I would add it. Sorry, I am pretty new. I placed it in next to the source, so it was [17], but would I replace it? If anyone would help I would be very grateful. Thankyou, JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JoshMuirWikipedia. There is no requirement that a reliable source be available online in order to be used in a Wikipedia article. I have sometimes cited in detail old books that are not available online. That is OK. But if there is an offline source, and an equivalent online source of comparable reliability, we should cite the online source as a convenience to our readers.

A related problem is that a source once available online may no longer be available. See WP:LINKROT. Websites sometimes rearrange their URLs or trim old content. In some cases, a fresh URL can often be discovered by Googling the title and author. It is worthwhile to make an effort to rebuild outdated references. However, if you believe that a hoax or misrepresentation is taking place, then revert the content with an informative edit summary, and be prepared to explain your edits on the article's talk page if challenged. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Some items are not archiving using LCSB3. Why ?

Hello. While fixing some talk pages in order to empty Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded‎, I have encountered some items that are not archiving (while the rest of the page archives correctly).

link	?	last writer	date	kind
User talk:Crest of London	Done x	MediaWiki message delivery	2015-11-24T13:59:01Z
User talk:Darth Newdar	Done x	MediaWiki message delivery	2015-11-24T13:55:08Z
User talk:IBS101	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T10:53:37Z
User talk:MetzMaboo	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:01:12Z
User talk:Mrbutter	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:02:09Z
User talk:NoseNuggets	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:03:50Z
User talk:PodPedia	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:06:57Z
User talk:Recury	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:20:50Z

For many items, archiving could be forced by providing a date. And by rewriting this date according to "00:00, 00 Month 2000 (UTC)" with the right number of spaces. But the remaining ones are more resistant. What is wrong with them ? Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved atop to follow the local custom. Pldx1 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

inline web links

In Terrence Mallick there is a link to the IMDb page for the film The Unforeseen which appears to the reader thus: The Unforeseen, looking like a Wikilink when in reality it is a direct link to an external website but is not followed by the usual arrow. This seems to be a deception, unless it is the intention to "absorb" IMDb into Wikipedia? If not does anyone recommend that this link be changed into the more usual inline citation, or should I just leave it be? Jodosma (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This has now been corrected (VC beat me to it). The external link was to the wrong IMDb title anyway. Dbfirs 19:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It was actually done on more than one film. It seems the usual method is to either have red links, as there are now, or no links. But I would assume these films are notable and just don't have an article yet.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Category help!

Hi, I have added two categories to a page and it looks like I've done it correctly, but there is still a box saying it hasn't been added to a category. Would someone be able to check for me please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Jones_%28musician_and_poet%29 Thanks! Stripeyjane (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see him, both in the article and in two categories, as having been added to those categories. (Your question is not the only evidence I have seen that categories are propagating slowly today.) Maproom (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You just needed to remove the template {{uncategorized}} from the top of the edit window.  Done Jodosma (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you!! Stripeyjane (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

in line citations and referencing footnotes

Hello- I have submitted an article that needs cleaning up before being accepted. I have edited a page once before, but am unsure how to really set up the links correctly or reference the footnotes. I went in and used the link tool for in-line ciations (although when I look at the draft they do not look right- they look like web addresses rather than hypertext....) Could use some advice about that. Also, I'd like to reference articles/ footnotes I've included correctly. Can anyone please advise me on how to do that correctly. Thanks! NeuroproteXeon (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to embolden headings. An inline reference (citation) relates to the facts stated in the article and should immediately follow the sentence it backs up. Use "<ref>" tags for these (see your first example that needs moving to the sentence it backs up). The numbering is automatic. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for details. General references should be separate. Dbfirs 19:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with your username because it appears to relate to a commercial product. See Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional names for guidance. I think you might have to change your name. See Wikipedia:Changing username, or you might prefer to just forget about the promotional name and create a new account. If you mention on your new talk page that you unintentionally used a promotional name for your first edits, you will not be blamed for this mistake. Dbfirs 19:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Another mistake you made is that you prematurely created the article rather than improving the draft and resubmitting. If you fix the article quickly, you might be allowed that error. Dbfirs 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You ought to immediately declare your conflict of interest on your user page, and also be very careful to avoid any promotional language. You should also check that you have not copied any material that is copyright. Dbfirs 20:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Hello NeuroproteXeon and welcome to The Teahouse.

See WP:COI to learn everything required of you because of your conflict of interest.

The most important template for you is the one below. If you list everything that can be included in the following, with last being the author's last name and first being the author's first name, you would put that between <ref> and </ref> immediately after the information for which the source is used. For more than one author, use last1, last2, etc. instead of just last, and first1, first2, etc. {{cite journal | last = | first = | last2 = | first2 = | date = | title = | url = | journal = | publisher = | volume = | issue = | pages = | bibcode = | doi = | access-date= }} — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The article about your company is in danger of deletion because you have not included references where the company has been written about in WP:Reliable sources. You need to add these urgently, if they exist, to establish WP:notability. Dbfirs 21:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Dbfirs- I changed my username (originally used name of project, my first time doing this). I think I originally submitted a draft, but then deleted it.? Will re-work summary to not use copyrighted material. Any suggestions about re-formatting to make this work? Trying to link this local company, research/ technology, but may not meet notability criteria. Maybe retitle?

NeuroproteXeon (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macbflo (talk • contribs)

Dbfirs- Also, I don't really know how to start a conversation on my talk page.

NeuroproteXeon (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macbflo (talk • contribs)

I'll reply there. By the way, you can just sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~ immediately after your last sentence. We are happy with your new identity. Dbfirs 22:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

article declined

hello, I am writing as I would like to know why the article I posted was declined. Do you think you could provide some tips? LTarquino1975 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, your submission was declined because it did not adequately show the subject's notability, in fact it had no references at all. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to show notability. The article draft is here Draft:Julio Perez Sanz Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You can find sources in newspapers, magazines and the like if your subject is notable. :) Google's newspaper archives are a good place to search, and most of what you find there is considered reliable. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

replace a stub with a "go to" reference?

Two expressions are historically linked: instrumental action and value-rational action. I am revising the instrumental action article in a way that includes value-rational action. I think it makes sense to eliminate the old stub for the latter, but still want readers to know how to find that subject. If I eliminate the stub, how could that expression be found? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

By replacing the stub with a redirect. Maproom (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

how separate reference to author and editor?

Should I list the editor as author of article introducing real author's book? I see no other options. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed. I think you need to give more explanation. If you are talking about citing a Wikipedia article, then Wikipedia articles are usually the result of many people collaborating, most of whom may not be identifiable: see Citing Wikipedia. If you are talking about something else, then please explain what you are trying to do, and for what purpose. --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

IPMI specification

As a new boy on the block, can anyone assist with understanding of the following:but the username is mentioned as an assignee to the patent; hence, there appears to be a conflict of interest which should be examined. GreenReaper (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC). Adrian White 87.243.207.255 (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that the question is about Intelligent Platform Management Interface, and this Conflict Of Interest discussion. Maproom (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that I've had more time to look at it, I think I can answer 87.243.207.255's question. A user called Pchelpcentre has edited ten or so articles to insert mentions of a patent said to be in the name of Adrian White. It seems that someone (maybe GreenReaper?) suspects that Pchelpcentre is Adrian White, and therefore has a conflict of interest and ought not to making such edits. Maproom (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia.org provides where possible factual information and therefore my edits in the IPMI section was to address that INTEL was not the inventor of the technology (I will provide claims charts to validate) as I had first publish the patent pending in June 1996. This was two years before INTEL came out with the IPMI specification. I have not mentioned any other name than Adrian White as the author and inventor, so I am struggling why the edits that I have made are considered to be conflict of interest.87.243.207.255 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adrian White, actually Wikipedia provides neutral, verifiable information, which is not always the same as "factual" information. You didn't provide an independent reliable source to verify that a court has determined your patent covers the interface. And inserting a claim about yourself is certainly a conflict of interest. —teb728 t c 11:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Logged out

Today, I was logged out of my account two times. I didn't log out. There is some error. I had to log in again. --Captain Spark (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Teahouse host, but as I remember, one needs to tick a box when logging in if one wants to stay logged in for up to the maximum one month. Otherwise each time one leaves Wikipedia one will be logged out automatically and be required to log in again at the next visit, even if only minutes later. SovalValtos (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I do understand such simple things, but simply clicking on a page-link won't log out anybody as it happened today multiple times. Captain Spark (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you will have to give a clearer narrative describing how the problem occurred to attract a fruitful answer. I will leave answering you again to a proper host. SovalValtos (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Spark, welcome back to the Teahouse! Wikipedia uses Internet cookies to ensure that you remain logged in. Check to see if your browser has enabled cookies—if you're using Google Chrome, there is a tutorial here; if you're using a different browser, check that browser's preferences. Make sure your computer's date and time are set correctly, as that can interfere with the cookies as well. Additionally, according to Help:Logging in#Login issues and problems: Occasionally, a user may find him/herself "automatically" logged out between beginning an edit and saving it, or when switching between multiple wiki pages open in multiple windows or tabs. This can be a result of your browser's cookie, cache, or firewall settings, but sometimes, especially during heavy server load, the system can "glitch" and your login information will be lost, resulting in a logout. I hope this information helps. If the issue continues to occur, the folks at the technical village pump might have more knowledge to answer this question, so consider asking for additional help there. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Impersonator

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to raise my issue. Tafeax 2 had a username which 99% identical to my username. His edits mostly from mobile phone and tend to vandals Wiki by adding unverified information. Is this considered WP:IMPERSONATOR? I'm afraid admin have a thought that I have two accounts. -- Tafeax (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tafeax: Yes it is. I'd recommend reporting them as a username violation at WP:UAA. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of giving sometime to the correction why delete

Dear editors Being myself a new into the wiki group . Trying to add an article with little effort from my end . And I just copied an small information and it's not a copy write also. And the article which was published in indipedia was copied & paste one small information and forget to delete the tag site and the editor thought it was copy paste and copy right violation . If the editor would have read the article very clearly the way the article been written is completely different . And being a new here I need Support not suppression from experts . If something wrong we need guidance of articles are deleted at any moment without even giving a chance of corrections I feel little discourage of what I m doing . Need support from experienced editors to publish my article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk1985 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! You might want to take a look here for advice on creating an article. Best of luck, GAB^Hello! 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert Naorem

How can I draft a new biography article . And please help me the format of writing a references along with the retrieved dates . And how to send the article for review ? As new here needed help & support from experienced editors . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk1985 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You have asked twice - I think this question is answered above, in the heading #Instead of giving sometime to the correction why delete. Once you have reviewed the information there, if you have specific questions then please ask again.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

blip

how do i edit my own sandbox? (Marrissa111 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Marrissa111 and welcome to the Teahouse. Go to User:Marrissa111/sandbox and click "Edit" in the top right corner. It seems to me that you have already managed to edit it before, so congratulations! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Station map related

Hi, i wanted to ask about how to add a railway mhgvap in station infobox. Before adding, i had made a template for the station, to which i deleted as per G7 criteria. The map sample can be found here. No matter i added many times, but it had shown me errors. Need a guidance. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Article rejection

Is there anyone who could help with an Article that I'm having difficulty creating? Specifically, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kirby_Allen_(Pittman) ) is an article about a person who was responsible for promotion of a musical artist. The work of Chaino is fairly well documented and that documentation usually credits Kirby Allen . My difficulty is in providing acceptable documentation for Allen. Curley Wolf (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Evisu,

Hi, I wonder why my editing on EVISU wiki content doesnt show up to public?

Thanks, LU Ohyeahcrowdlu (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ohyeahcrowdlu, welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits aren't showing up because they were reverted by another user. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project, and that means that sometimes, its contributors disagree on the way forward. Don't feel discouraged if your first contributions are reverted—treat it as part of the learning experience. If you feel that you are right, discuss it with the user by going to their talk page. The user who reverted your edit, Majora (talk · contribs), did so because they felt that your edit added content that was too promotional in nature—Wikipedia is not a means of promoting. Content on Wikipedia should be expressed from a neutral point of view and should refer to a variety of reliable sources that verify its content. With this in mind, try rewriting your edit, referring primarily to factual statements supported by reliable sources. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at this Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ohyeahcrowdlu, do you work for Evisu? If so, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. —teb728 t c 06:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an article with very bad formulation that has many problems. Wiki does not allow me to correct it.

I am new at Wiki but a little better doing things online than some of my friends. The article I was trying to fix, has some really long and unclear sentences because the person who wrote it is from Czech Republic. In fact there are three error messages on the page:

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
      This article has an unclear citation style. (February 2014)
      This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. (February 2014)

The person who is 'supervising" the changes, first thought i was vandalizing since I was deleting things and rewriting a lot of stuff. He became super suspicious when I said that I was making the changes for a friend who can't do it herself (not good with online work) then he came up with the conflict of interest issue. finally, having worked throughout the whole night and him reverting my changes over and over again, at 6am, I went through every sentence,carefully changed them so that I would not delete any content but really reformulate the grammar or put the sentence in more English way. I also tried to be more careful with explaining the changes. So now lo and behold, the article is reverted! I understand and appreciate controlling and making sure nobody is misusing or abusing this. I have tried in every step to comply and sent him examples of really bad sentences, but he just goes and reverts it. I think that this is now gone beyond control and have become a bully, just because he can. ... He is just blocking it although the sentences are super ridiculously incorrect! what would you do?SilviaNikoletti (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see two related problems. First, you made massive changes without discussing them on the article talk page. Then, when your changes were reverted, you made massive changes again, without discussing on the article page, which is edit-warring. This is fundamentally a content dispute, but it is complicated by your failure to discuss. Go to the article talk page, Talk:Celeste Buckingham and discuss your changes. Also, read the dispute resolution policy. If discussion is inconclusive, follow one of the procedures described in the policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article was written by a variety of people, and where any of the authors are from doesn't matter.

In several places, you removed reliably sourced information, sometimes claiming that you were adding information (as was the case here) -- that is extremely suspicious and does appear extremely dishonest.

Your behavior is similar the WP:COI editor ArtistsplazaUSA. Plus, you admit that you are making the changes "on behalf of Celeste Buckingham", so that means you are editing with a conflict of interest.

When you tried to add material instead of removing it, you didn't cite any reliable sources, you altered reliably sourced information to statements unsupported by the sources (including altering quotes).

All we do here is neutrally summarize professionally published mainstream academic and journalistic sources, with no addition, elaboration, or interpretation. We're not a PR forum or fan site. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating new article

I have a draft of an article in my homepage. It needs a bit more work, but when done, I would like to make it a regular article. How can I move the contents, references, et. al.? Is there a way of just linking the current page to the Article namespace? Thanks.Suredev (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Suredev hello and welcome to The Teahouse. When the article is ready, you would move it. I'm not certain where the move tab is for you, and I would advise you to wait until someone else has given the draft a look. For me the move tab is at the top of the page to the right of "history", but for you I think there is the word "more" instead and you would get a list of actions, which I believe includes "move".

Regarding User:Suredev/Sheila Stewart (Author), it looks like a good effort to me, but I would be too quick to accept articles, so I don't review them. You would move the link above "References" under "External links", which you would add this way: ==External links==. And you would move the descriptive text to the right and enclose the entire line between brackets [...].

Also, I don't think you would use the second line where you say the article relies heavily on those sources.

And references go after punctuation, not before, but that's just our preference. And everything in the article should be referenced at this stage.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I read up on hints to a newbie (suggested by one of the experts here) and learnt about the move tab. I will move it when it is ready and passes muster. I have removed the blog reference all together -- I did get some feedback on that -- and instead substituted a more robust doctoral thesis.

As for the referece to the newspaper obits, I will wait for more feedback. I do not mind getting rid of it, but the truth is that all my knowledge of Sheila Stewart comes from the obits and Jo Parnell's blog! Unfortunately, her memoir is out of print and not easy to get -- I have just placed an interlibrary request and hope to have it in a fortnight. I intend to do some more work on the draft before moving it. In this way I can incorporate the suggestions.Suredev (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have moved it from your sandbox to Draft:Sheila Stewart (author). In my view, it is good enough for an article already – but it might be best to leave it as a draft for a day or two, and while it's a draft I will try to make some minor improvements to it. (I had hoped that making it into a draft would cause a "Submit" button to appear on it. It didn't. I find it odd that clueless new users can easily summon up "Submit" buttons, and use them freely to submit pages of garbage, whereas the very competent Suredev, and I who have been editing for years, can't figure out how to get hold of one.) Maproom (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Maproom: Thanks for the kind words! No, I am most defintely NOT competent. But, I intend to get there. Look at my reply to Vchimpanzee above; I intend to let the draft brew for a few weeks as I think that I may have more descriptive material after I have read the memoir. Thanks.Suredev (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Wikipedia has no deadline. But I've seen a lot of first-time article submissions, and I can confidently assure you . . . Maproom (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

When you're ready to submit it for review, Suredev, simply insert {{subst:submit}} in the top of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's ready to be moved now so I am going to be bold and do so.--ukexpat (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - shiny new article at Sheila Stewart (author).--ukexpat (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be adding some other things (not large!) in the coming weeks. I need to track down the reference to the BBC Radio play that she wrote and her memoir should yield some interesting information.

In any case, thanks to all of you. Suredev (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain to new editor whose English is not good?

I reviewed User:Jitso Keizer/sandbox and declined it. I didn’t understand whether it was a request for assistance in editing Wikipedia, or a request to change existing articles. I said that if it was a request to change articles, it needed to be supported by reliable sources. I noted that most scientists think that general relativity is the best explanation of gravitation, and that any theory that excludes black holes needs to address apparent evidence of the existence of black holes. User:Jitso Keizer then posted to my talk page:

Mr McClenon maintains that there is proven evidence of black holes. Such is not true, but very concentrated big masses obviously do exist. Note that near a black hole time stops, which contradicts fast processes around the Big Bang. The origin of the latter is not understood: a point does not exist in physics because it has no dimensions. Mr McClenon should read Yanchilin's book instead of adhering to a proven wrong theory, namely the general theory of relativity on which black holes, negative energy, accellerated expansion of the universe, inflation rest. Remark that potential is a scalar and adds, thus causing its delta positive in the denominator of the formula for an interval.

Aside from the fact that I didn’t say that there is proven evidence of black holes, only that there is apparent evidence of black holes that needs to be addressed, which is a content issue, there is a language problem that this editor admits. Does someone know what this editor’s first language is? Can someone explain that Wikipedia states the consensus of the scientific community, and that most scientists still accept general relativity (as well as quantum mechanics, and recognize that there is a known problem that there is no known way to integrate general relativity with quantum mechanics)?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Kundan Srivastava

Hi,

I created Article about Kundan Srivastava (http://www.kundansrivastava.com/news/) in sandbox here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Techguy91/sandbox Robert McClenon tried to move this sandbox to Draft: Kundan Srivastava, and was unable to do so. There have been two Miscellany for Deletion drafts of biographies of this individual, both of which resulted in deletion, and the title is now salted against re-creation. Please discuss this with the salting administrator, He Said.

May Draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kundan_Srivastava was deleted many times but i believe this article reliable sources are enough to publish.

IMP Sources - http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Scary-video-Indian-woman-beats-chokes-mother-in-6758996.php http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Shocking-video-of-woman-assaulting-mother-in-law-emerges-online/articleshow/50537993.cms

Google News Source - https://www.google.co.in/search?q=kundan+srivastava&rlz=1C1CHWA_enIN677IN677&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjboeLPvZPLAhUIGo4KHR_VDTgQ_AUIBygB

Please resolve the issue.

Thanks

Techguy91 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see the note I left on your talk page. Mkdw^talk 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Igorsemenov1993 (talk)

Thank you for your quick response. What I want to do is to add exactly three articles that will narrate about international students in the US. In order to do that all I have to do it to click "new section" and start editing, is that correct I just want to make sureIgorsemenov1993 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your question has already been answered below. Maproom (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

How to delete a draft?

Hello Editors.

I was going to restart on an article so I cleared out my sandbox and started over however I decided I wanted to try again at the article. I keep a copy of the wikicode in a google doc so I just copied and pasted it back in. I received a comment telling me not to make multiple near identical drafts. How can I delete my old draft in order to prevent this in the future?

Chariot Rider (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Chariot Rider. As long as you are the only editor who has made any substantial contribution to the page, stick {{db-author}} at the top of the source, and an admin will be along to delete it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Chariot Rider, it would probably make more sense to request the deletion of the more recent version (in your sandbox) and then to continue to work on the original version at Draft:Subterfuge (game). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting an article

How do I go about suggesting an article be written about someone? I tried writing one about an artist Dirk Palmer Bach, but it was deleted. I know him personally which may be a conflict of interest. Thank you in advance Ecourtc (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ecourtc and welcome to The Teahouse. Wikipedia:Requested articles is the place to ask that an article be written. However, it can take a long time for that to be done. It would help if you provided independent reliable sources written from a neutral point of view. You need these anyway if you attempt to write an article yourself. You could also follow the advice at WP:AFC and write a userspace draft. Other editors will be more patient with you there as long as you don't violate copyright or do anything else really serious. Be sure to read about conflict of interest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

upload image issue

I have a Wikipedia account. My username is: shadbakht I was trying to upload an image to this page:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/科学

This page is the Chinese page equivalent of the Wiki article on “Science” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

I modified the image found on the Science page called “The hierarchy of science” and translated all the titles into Chinese. I have the image saved as a png file (attached here in this email) and was trying to upload it to the Chinese Science page. Every time I tried it said that my file name already exists. I think there is an problem. How can I upload this image? Thank you

Shahrooz Shadbakht (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Shadbakht. You don't upload images to pages: they are first uploaded, either to Wikipedia, or to Wikimedia Commons, and then can be used in an article simply by name. If the image is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, then every Wikipedia can access it, but if it is uploaded to a particular Wikipedia, only that Wikipedia can access it. This is why it is preferable to upload images to Commons if possible.

The restriction on doing this is that Commons only accepts images that are free for use: either public domain, or licensed under a licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA. If the image tha you started with, from Science, is from commons, then it is permitted for you to make a derivative work (such as by translating the text), and you can then upload it to Commons with copyright information stating that you are the creator of this derivative work, giving the source of the original. You need to upload it with a different title from the original, of course.

So, what is the image (give us the name of the original in the form [[:File:(exact name, with the right case)]] (remember the colon before 'File:', or it will display it here instead of giving us the link), and where are you trying to upload it? --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To make my own page should I just click "new section link" and begin editing or is there a different method to do so?

To make my own page should I just click "new section link" and begin editing or is there a different method to do so?Igorsemenov1993 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Igorsemenov1993. The answer to your question is probably No; but the best advice for you depends on exactly what you want to do, which isn't clear from your question, because "make my own page" has no meaning in Wikipedia.

• I you mean you want to write something on your user page, then yes, since User:Igorsemenov1993 already exists, "New section link" is the way to add to it. Be aware that your user page is for sharing information about you as a Wikpedia editor: a little external information about you is acceptable, but it must be primarily about what you do or intend to do on Wikipedia.
• If you mean you want to create an article, I strongly advise that, after reading Your first article, you use the Article wizard to create a draft in draft space.
• If you mean you want to create an article about yourself, then please don't. See autobiography for why not. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk reproduced on article

An editor has posted material from my user talk on the Talk section of the completed (uploaded) article. I wish to have this 'talk' removed. It was my first attempt and I had considerable bother at preparing an article. That dialogue has been transferred from my user talk and is now posted with the article. I maintain that it shouldn't be - it reflects my inexperience and not anything to do with the subject. The editor in question claims I have to contact and administrator. How do I do this? Thank you? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of doing things I have not done. The content that you removed and I replaced was NOT on your talk page it was the talk page of an article here Talk:Feargus Hetherington. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's an unusual request, and you have given no particular reason for it. Many articles have such discussions on their talk pages, particularly if created or worked on by new editors. And frankly, in this case it's so boring to an outsider that no-one is ever likely to read it. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013, there is probably evidence of most editors' initial inexperience lurking on talk pages. It's not something to worry about - you won't be judged by its existence once you have gained more experience. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not notable?

My draft for the dutch band Draft:Julius_(band) got declined because of notability, but I don't really understand why. I've included references to dutch mainstream radiostations and the dutch billboard. I see other dutch bands on Wikipedia with only one or two references, and some of those references seem to be less notable then what I have provided.

I would like to know why Julius isn't notable enough, and what I can do.

Thanks in advance! Iris Bloem (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No-one has said that the band Julius is not notable. But three reviewers have said that the draft does not include references that establish its notability. If you believe otherwise, can you please tell us (as many of us can't read Dutch) which of the current references do establish its notability? They must be to reliable independent published sources which contain significant discussion of the band. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Maproom.

http://www.janbletz.nl/julius-plezierige-powerpop-van-nederlandse-bodem/ (julius enjoyable powerpop from dutch soil) An interview with the lead singer done by journalist Jan Bletz

http://www.maxazine.nl/2014/09/30/nederlandse-popband-julius-gaat-internationaal/ (dutch popband julius goes international) Maxazine is an independent magazine aimed towards music.

http://www.nporadio2.nl/nieuws/6386/radio-2-talent-julius NPO radio 2 (dutch public broadcasting radio 2) item on Julius becoming a Radio 2 talent with their single Give it Up.

http://www.3fm.nl/serioustalent/artiesten/detail/359075/JULIUS NPO (dutch public broadcasting radio 3) item on Julius becoming a NPO 3FM Serious Talent with their single Back to the Days.

http://www.kro-ncrv.nl/helemaalhaandrikman/seizoenen/helemaal-haandrikman-2015/30-140374-08-09-2015/290-103627-julius-vanavond-in-ziggo-dome-als-aftershow-u2 (julius tonight in ziggo dome as aftershow U2) KRO-NCRV is part of the dutch public broadcasting. This is a radio interview with lead singer Koen Brouwer about playing the aftershow for U2 in the Ziggo Dome.

And I've recently added the two following links to the article: http://www.noordhollandsdagblad.nl/stadstreek/alkmaar/article27563572.ece/Erik-Meereboer-over-Popronde-Alkmaar-Het-is-gaan-met-die-banaan_ Noordhollands Dagblad is a local newspaper with an interview with guitarist Erik Meereboer.

http://www.gitarist.nl/nieuws/artikel/2-14000/julius-in-china-21-shows-in-vijf-dagen (julius in china 21 shows in 5 days) Gitarist is a monthly magazine, with an interview with guitarist Erik Meereboer.

These are independent and published sources that are about the band. I hope my explanation helps. Thanks in advance! Iris Bloem (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Iris Bloem. Four of these are interviews, and so are not independent, and so do not contribute to notability at all. The other three are all the right sort of thing, but they are all rather short. You have not established that anybody has yet taken enough note of Julius to write at length about them. If you can find a substantial and independent article, that, together with these, would do it. At present I think it is borderline.

By the way, pointing at other articles is never an argument of any weight in Wikipedia: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately many of our five million articles are substandard: the thing to do is to improve them (or delete them if they can't be improved), not to add other articles at the same poor level. --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine "Four of these are interviews, and so are not independent, and so do not contribute to notability at all". This is not necessarily correct. For instance, if Rolling Stone run an interview, they do not print the entire transcript verbatim; they will pick and choose what parts to print and exercise editorial judgement independently of the subject. Furthermore, they limit interviews to a select group they think will attract attention to the journal. Therefore they are "reliable" in that they can generally be trusted to be factually accurate, and notable because the text printed was created spontaneously and independently by a third party that the article's subject had no control over. I seem to recall a significant amount of citations for our article on the album Something/Anything? were interviews directly conducted with Todd Rundgren; yet these did not stop the article from being awarded good article status. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine. Thank you for explaining. I now know what I need to do to improve my article and will keep working on it. Iris Bloem (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iris Bloem, I see that Draft:Julius (band) appears to have had a duplicate of it created at Julius (band) which another editor tagged for speedy deletion. I declined the deletion request as the article claims the band has supported U2, which is a reasonably significant claim for a band. Drmies may be able to assist further with reading Dutch sources (see Rubberen Robbie). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie333! The new page got created after translating the Dutch version. The Dutch page is currently under consideration as I hadn't added the discography and record label info yet, which I've now added, so hopefully that shall be sorted soon. I've just found this item from their label with mention of their support show for U2 concerts, which is unfortunately once again in Dutch :) http://www.innercoremusic.nl/?p=1157

I'd be very greatful if anyone can help me sort this thing out! I'm still very new to editing. Thanks in advance! Iris Bloem (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Adaptive Sound Technologies

I reviewed Draft:Adaptive Sound Technologies and declined it, saying that it read like an advertisement. I then got the following on my talk page from User: Asoundtech ]]

Curious as to why this article was rejected. The reason given is because it reads like a promotional piece, however I don't see (line by line) how it is different from other business entries here. Do you not readily accept entries from small businesses? Is it because there are links to the corporate website included in the copy (a common practice with many entries I see here). Can you please give me an example from the copy, of what you mean when you say that it reads like a promotional piece? Please advise.

Can some other experienced editor please advise the author that using Wikipedia to promote their business is not the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work? (Alternatively, can some experienced editor please advise me that I was mistaken?) It appears to me that the author doesn’t understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, and that small businesses are only listed if they are somehow notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. However, I welcome comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Asoundtech, phrases like "redefine the science of sleep" and "their innovations in the areas of ..." and all similar terminology are overtly promotional unless cited to a highly reliable independent source. For example, the first should be cited to a peer-reviewed scientific journal specializing in sleep. Otherwise, it must be removed. The content sounds like it was written for a marketing brochure, not an encyclopedia. Every single evaluative statement must be referenced to an independent, reliable source. This is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328: Thank you for your review and response. Based on your definition of appropriate materials for Wikipedia, "redefine the science of sleep" should and will be removed. Also, "innovations in the area of..." can be replaced with "patented technologies to help with sleep.." or such, which we can verify and have accurately sourced in this document.

If these strongly evaluative statements are removed, can we resubmit for review and hopefully approval? Asoundtech (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Asoundtech, every evaluative statement or claim in your draft article must be cited to a reliable, independent source. By independent, I mean entirely unconnected with the company. Your username indicates affiliation with the company, which is a conflict of interest. You are obligated to openly declare any financial conflict of interest, and this is mandatory. Your username may be in violation of policy. See WP:USERNAME and consider changing the name. Please be aware that this is a neutral encyclopedia, not a promotional vehicle for your company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As an update, the draft has been speedily deleted as blatantly promotional. There was a comment, with which I agree, that the draft read like it was taken from a marketing brochure. If this was true (and it too often is true), then the draft also was a copyright violation (although many new editors don't realize that you can't post your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia without releasing the copyright to all in the world). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Robert McClendon. Thanks for your insight. Regardless of its size, this company is built from influential Silicon Valley legacy and should have an entry on this site.

The entry was not taken from a marketing brochure (horrible marketing if it was), and will be resubmitted with the items addressed in previous review. Asoundtech (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

content

How can I add a content table on my wikipedia page? thank youAlma760 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alma760. The wiki software will automatically generate a Table of Contents in any article that has four or more sections. Please see WP:TOC for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone please fix the "please report this error" functionality?

Someone please fix the "Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports&action=submit" functionality of Wikipedia. A false "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." occurred. When attempting to use the "report this error", pasting the text into the page as per the "}}" , the "please report this error" was disallowed with the same message. If it is impossible to paste the text that triggers false positives, how will the false positives ever be eliminated?138.163.106.71 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse anonymous user. According to the edit filter log, you were trying to add ASCII art to Talk:Heart Rhythm Society. If that is what you were trying to do, it is not allowed. If that is not what you were doing, describe what you were doing: describe it—don't enter it. —teb728 t c 09:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert Naorem

The page of the biography article for Robert Naorem has been created but it's not been up on the wiki yet and it's not available on the search area . Why is that ? And it has reliable source n information .—–—– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk1985 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rk1985. You have been working on Draft:Robert Naorem, but have not yet submitted it for review. Please do not submit it at this time as it will not be accepted. The draft is full of promotional language, so please read about the neutral point of view and rewrite accordingly. I have highlighted examples of promotional language in bold in the following passages from your draft:

"a renowned designer, stylist and makeup artist in India."

"Psychologist by education & by passion turn into a renowned fashion designer HIS dedication towards promoting his region across the country & overseas. His path has only been upward since the launch of his career."

Also, your references are not formatted properly. Please read Referencing for beginners and format them correctly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Rk1985. The technical reason it's not in the article mainspace is because it was created in the draft namespace and would have to be moved to the mainspace by someone (you could not do so because you are not yet autoconfirmed, i.e., you have not made more than ten edits edits and your account is not yet four days old). But if it was moved to the mainspace, I would expect and would support it being speedy deleted as blatant advertising. In short, it reads like a commercial for him, and very much not like a neutral encyclopedia article about him. It also is an article on a living person, with the enhanced expectations for citations to reliable sources that status requires, but it has very meager sourcing. Reliable sources that are secondary in nature and independent of the subject are also required to demonstrate notability. You might find reading Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Your first article helpful. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Rk1985: after writing this I discovered the article was a copyright violation of the preexisting article on indpaedia, which does not appear to be a site with any type of free copyright license compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. I will also post a canned message about this to your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Cannot a copyright violation of a Draft be handled short of deleting the page? Since it was in Draft space there is not as much urgency to delete the page. This template gives the creator 7-days to fix the page:

{{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}}

Then you can notify them on their Talk page. Blank the copyrighted text → set the template → notify the violator on their Talk page.

Regarding creating Drafts or Articles, I like you thought the user had to be autoconfirmed, but that is not the case: They only have to be registered. I tested it after I figured that one out Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax. Copyright violations (and attack pages) are deleted immediately upon confirmation (or reverted to a non-infringing version and the history redacted, where relevant) in all namespaces. This is infringement; a violation of law that potentially exposes Wikipedia to liability. It is our obligation to delete these as fast as possible, with prejudice. We get many of these, though we don't catch nearly as many as we should, especially early on, because people do not prioritize it as the very first check on any article review process (where it should be in the triage).Because of the numbers involved, it is simply not possible for administrators, those who can delete and redact pages, to review each complex case or edge case requiring investigation, which is what the {{copyvio}} template is for.

That is, that template is not for blatant copyright violations but for potential infringements, not easy CSD G12 candidate (from the Copyvio template's documentation: if the page "is a blatant copyright violation, do not use this template"). The template is, rather, properly used for cases like intertwined infringement from multiple sources where separating it all out would be a huge undertaking; pages having many hallmarks of a copyyright violation but the source cannot be located; possible backwards copyvio but it's difficult to tell, etc.—cases that make a G12 tag or a revert to a prior version and tagging with {{copyvio-revdel}}, not possible to do in a reasonable time, not possible to determine at all, or beyond many user's knowledge to investigate.

Quite unlike other processes where a time window such as seven days is a feature, a sort of promise to all that the normal process length is some term, this template seven day window essentially functions as a warning that one week after posting, in the absence of action, the page may be deleted without further investigation but on the original tagging basis. But if we investigate and discover it is a blatant copyright infringement, we delete right away.

To answer your questions directly, no this cannot be handled in that way. This was a blatant copyright violation and needed to be deleted right way, for which the copyvio tag is unsuitable. We do not host known copyright violations.

Lastly, you're right that thinking you need to be autoconfirmed to create pages is a common mistake. I make plenty of mistakes! But this was not one. If you read my post again you'll see I was talking about autoconfirmation in relation to moving a page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I am still not seeing why on a Draft you did not: Blank the copyrighted text → set the template → notify the violator on their Talk page. Then let things happen organically. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else I can say as I consider the above a rather complete explanation. Maybe TL;DR? To reiterate. We do not host illegal copyright violations for one second longer than is needed. They should be deleted immediately and in any namespace. The {{copyvio}} template is not intended for blatant copyright violations, which the page was, for which the template's documentation explicitly says it is inapplicable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My talkpage

I have a lot of content piling up on my talk page (18 sections). I would like to know how to add the archive template seen on other editor's talk pages. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joel.Miles925. You can find detailed instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Joel.Miles925 (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Help with a link

Hey guys, I tried to cite a new source on an article because of a dead link but I made things a bit wonky. Could someone help me out and clean this up a bit?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=La_Rumeur&oldid=706707382#cite_note-2

Thanks Asmigelski (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Hi @Asmigelski: and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed this reference, the issue was that the url had a . before the address. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Asmigelski (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Unable to access more than two names for editing before I am stopped

have been adding award information to personal pages for people who are laureates of The Lincoln Academy of Illinois. The Lincoln Academy of Illinois is a not for profit, nonpartisan organization which honors outstanding Illinoisans each year. In the award notation added to the Wikipedia page, there is a link that goes to the Lincoln Academy website where the laureate is listed. This addition should be useful for people who are researching an individual and using Wikipedia as a historical resource. After adding the Lincoln Academy award to several of the recipients’ Wikipedia pages, I received a warning and was subsequently prevented from adding information to additional pages. Apparently that was because the Wikipedia system thought my additions might be spam. If someone could help, I would like to continue adding the award notation for Lincoln Academy of Illinois laureates to their existing Wikipedia pagesThurstonD63 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @ThurstonD63: and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question was already answered when you asked it at the help desk yesterday. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners on how to reference articles better. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@ThurstonD63: I sampled a few cases where your edits triggered the “link spamming” filter, and in each case you were attempting to add a link to your website both as a reference and as an external link. I cannot imagine why anyone would do that, for external links are for sites which are not used as references. Also the fact that you are adding links to your organization’s website to multiple articles looks like Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming to me. My advice is that you do not add any external links to your organization’s website. —teb728 t c 01:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking more closely, I see that your references were not enclosed in ref tags and that some of your link spamming slipped past the filter. I have fixed one article by inserting the ref tags and deleting the link spamming. —teb728 t c 01:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the rest of your edits as well. —teb728 t c 09:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Help understanding Neutral point of view

An article titled Ashutosh Kotwal initially was proposed for deletion becos I forgot to add a reference. I'ver added a reference and the proposed deletion notice went away. Now I'ver got the following tag added to the article ... “This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. It may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There may be relevant discussion on the talk page.” I looked through the Teahouse discussion bit was not clear what this really means. It was written by Ashutosh Kotwal about himself and so is subjectively oriented but is factually accurate. Can you explain how I can take care of this matter. Avatwiki (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Avatwiki. I think that it is likely that Ashutosh Kotwal meets our notability standard WP:ACADEMIC as the holder of a "named chair" professorship in physics. However, the current version of the article is in very poor condition. Consider the unreferenced promotional words highlighted in this passage:

"Kotwal has performed repeatedly performed world's most precise measurements of the mass of the W boson, precise measurements of the top quark mass, led the most incisive searches for new forces mediated by a Zprime boson, and been instrumental in observing the Higgs boson in one of its crucial production modes. His research group is currently spearheading the analysis of data from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC to look for evidence of a second, heavier Higgs boson."

The lengthy article has only one source, his own faculty page. Every single assertion of importance or accomplishment needs to be properly referenced, and the article is in danger of deletion until it is properly sourced. The article must summarize what independent sources say about Kotwal, not what Kotwal says about himself. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi @Avatwiki: and welcome to the Teahouse. You say that the article "was written by Ashutosh Kotwal about himself and so is subjectively oriented"- this is exactly why it isn't considered neutral point of view. All Wikipedia articles should be objectively orientated, and Wikipedia is a place for biographies of notable people, not autobiographies

In addition, you have a clear conflict of interest as you know/are Ashutosh Kotwal. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This article presents something of a corner case that is occasionally encountered in Wikipedia, an autobiography of a person that does establish notability based on a well-defined notability guideline, such as an autobiography of a professor who holds a named chair (in this case) or of a state legislator. One approach might be to stubbify the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Avatwiki and Robert McClenon: I've removed some of the puffery and unsourced claims, it's now considerably shorter but well sourced and more neutral tone. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the meaning of to stubbily the page?22:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatwiki (talk • contribs)

Robert Mcclendon wrote the following: I've removed some of the puffery and unsourced claims, it's now considerably shorter but well sourced and more neutral tone. I have seen and viewed the sources he has added as well. I am not A Kotwal but am helping get his BIO set up on Wikipedia. In the present form the article is acceptable to me. If it now follows the Wikipedia guidelines can the tag:"This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. It may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There may be relevant discussion on the talk page", at the top of the page now be removed?Avatwiki (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write that I had removed the puffery and unsourced claims. Joseph2302 did. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Removed @Avatwiki: I've removed the autobiography tag. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References in a translated article

Hi,

I wrote an article in french and I would like to translate it. Do I need to have english references or can I keep my french references? Olivier.dilain (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

the original references will do, but English references in additional are highly desirable. (And you cannot copy over the French references templates as they are--they will give error messages in the English Wikipedia, but the data will need to be re-entered into our templates). Also, when you do use French references, it helps very much least to give a translation of the article title in parentheses). DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite my efforts, the only response I received was:

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

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

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

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

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

Read the dispute resolution policy and take content disputes to article talk pages. If discussion is inconclusive, follow one of the dispute resolution procedures. Also, do not create subpages of WP:ANI. No one sees them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amvan2002. I have removed the wording claiming a conviction from the article. Our critically important policy on biographies of living people states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." One mention in an Indian publication is not reliable sourcing for a supposed conviction in California. The burden is on whoever tries to add this "convicted" language back into the article to furnish an impeccable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have two more comments. First, the heading of this thread is incorrect. The misuse of the word "convicted", while problematic, is not vandalism, which has a specific meaning of malicious edits intended to harm Wikipedia. Not all incorrect edits are vandalism. Second, please discuss content disputes on article talk pages before seeking other forms of dispute resolution. While discussion on user talk pages is better than no discussion, it is even better to have the discussion on the article talk page. That is what the article talk page is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

cropped img d n display

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

Kwamikagami hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm not familiar with this issue but Redrose64 helped me with an image problem once.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried downloading it, but only got 6100 bytes back, which is far too small. I suspect that the file was corrupted at some point. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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

User:WillKomen is a fictional user, part of the Wikipedia Adventure. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Lionel Messi

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

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

Same applies to Paul Scholes/Roy Keane in 1999

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

Please discuss the content of an article at the article's talk page (where you will probably get read by editors who have heard of the subject). --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

why ?

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

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

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

change Company Picture

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

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

There shouldn't be a copyright issue as that image is clearly {{PD-simple}}.--ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Merging Pages

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

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

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

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

Article needs more to be published

Hello,

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

Thank you.

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

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

Draft:Frank Garvan

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Unquestionably notable by WP:PROF. 2 papers with citations over 100 are normally enough for notability in any field, even biomedicine, and he has 3. Furthermore, this is mathematics where citation counts aren normally much lower than in biomedicine. I accepted the article. The list of most cited eapers needs to be added. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Since DGG has already accepted, it might be better to move the discussion to WP:PROF Talk or to the article itself in case Onel5696 or others want to contest/PROD, etc., but I'll say that I'd definitely support DGG's assessment that there's not a single discipline I can think of (maybe some medicine fields? but probably not) where two papers w/ over 100 citations wouldn't be enough to keep, and there are many fields where far less would be enough. As Garvan is a living person, there does need to be one reliable source no matter what (BLP), but I think that what is there is enough. Thanks for the ping. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Allumer Jewellery London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Robert McClenon, I think it very unlikely the firm is notable. The charities are trivial, and the award minor.

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

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

I have no idea what step I'm omitting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I should have realized that. Used to code html, but that was a decade ago. Thanks. NeverLift (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nude Photo?

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

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

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

How to Correctly Make a Wiki Page for a Business?

Hello Wikipedia representatives,

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

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

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

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

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

Please advise! Thank you.

Cameron Smith

<Contact info redacted>

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

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

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

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

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

Replacement of a stub/short article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your various responses. I am sure that there would be no real resistance to my article. The existing article in Wikipedia contains nothing of real interest. I am sure that it was written by somebody who has never met the subject (James F-L) and seems to know little about him. The first paragraph contains inaccurate and incomplete information. The second paragraph has two sentences, both totally inadequate. The third is misleading and again quite incomplete. The fourth paragraph (a single short sentence) is woefully incomplete. The final paragraph (just 7 words) is fairly meaningless and contains inaccurate information. The poor references, a mere two, lead me to suspect that the author(s) of this brief stub has(have) no knowledge of James F-L, who is in fact a world-renowned ornithologist. The biography which I have prepared is fully referenced and includes none of my own publications. In addition, I have listed all major publications by James F-L, as well as positions held by him at different times, awards, expeditions, and so on. It is a complete biography in which all facts can be verified very easily. Would it not be best if I replace the present article with my own, full article? Raptorchap (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Raptorchap the advice from Maproom in the second paragraph answers your question. It is likely that the authors of the article never did meet the subject, because Wikipedia articles tend to be written by people who did not know the subject personally. And what we know is less important than what we can find documented in independent reliable sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Any tips for finding historical importance?

Hello Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not create multiple copies of drafts on the same subject. Your sandbox is no longer a redirect but contains another copy of the draft of the game. You should work on the one at Draft:Subterfuge (game) rather than creating another draft in your sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

about geocaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@User:Rich Farmbrough, an article about such a ruined priory will stand or fall on the merits of its sources; the history of the priory, architectural significance of the structure, tourism value, etc. The fact that it may incidentally be used as a geocache is utterly trivial and devoid of any relevance to the notability of the ruin and barely worth mentioning - unless geocaching suddenly becomes a hot topic in mainstream news or academia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. But typically there will be a clue in the previous step (sometimes there are a series of caches, sometimes there is a something written for each step where you need information from each location to complete the next clue). So imagine the text from outside Wikipedia said "Find what I wrote in the reference site, and go there - search under the east pillar that corresponds to Master Tyler's ordinal." The hunter has to figure out "the reference site" is Wikipedia, look for User:Stormcrow50, find the article they created. They can then go to the co-ords from the article, and from the list of of priors, figure that "Master Tyler" is the fifth, and search under the fifth east pillar.

Nothing in the article mentions the geocache, nothing in the article is irrelevant to the article. The co-ords are correct, the sources are fine, the article is created/imporved.

And the geocachers have some extra fun as well.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

I'll look out for your new article and new cache to add to your 136 already hidden, though unfortunately I'm unlikely to be able to look for it. Congratulations on your 15352 finds! Dbfirs 22:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

How to delete AFC draft article

Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add an entry which is absent from the biography of an actress

I looked at the code involved to make an edit to an entry but do not understand the technique.

The entry needs to be updated for the individual rather than the content.

The entry has to contain the title, episode number and year (I guess) for Joyce Jameson-- well know tv performer in the 1950's. I hve that information as does the IMDb. How is it added?

The citation is here:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0417055/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Episode title : The Human circuit"

Also here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction_Theatre#Season_1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.4.64 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)