Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 469

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 465

←

Archive 467

→

External Sources and References

Hello, I created an article for Stevens Worldwide Van Lines. I didn't realize when I created it that it would not be submitted for review. I have included Referneces and External Sources, however the usual header is not appearing above them. Is there something I can do to get this fixed? Ottaway (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ottoway: Welcome and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I just checked out Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, and the references section is showing up just fine from what I can see. Can you elaborate on what you think is missing? --Jayron 32 18:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, this issue has been addressed. Thank you. Ottaway (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance Templates

My article, Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, has maintenance templates showing above it for multiple issues. I have gone through and made the necessary changes, however these messages are still showing. Is there something more that I need to do? Ottaway (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ottaway: As an editor with a conflict of interest, you are not allowed to remove conflict of interest tags from the page. Also, you shouldn't be removing the other tags either, an unconflicted editor should do it.

Also, it isn't your article, it's an article on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Images

What iamges should I upload? --Pachisu124 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pachisu124. This can be a complex subject because of copyright. It would be better if you told us what you want to upload. Some general rules of thumb:

If you took the picture yourself, with your own camera, and it does not capture something that is already copyrighted, you may upload it to the Wikimedia Commons for use here and at other projects. Pictures of animals and nature for example; candids of famous people; monuments in countries that have freedom of panorama. Be careful of capturing already copyrighted, derivative material. For example, your own photo of your dog might be fine for a dog breed article lacking an image, but your dog wearing a t-shirt with a copyrighted image on it, say of Spiderman, is not unless you were to blur that part of the image (that was just an example—a silly image of a dog wearing human clothing might be unacceptable as unencyclopedic);
Most images you find on the internet are not free and cannot be uploaded, and we assume an image is non-free copyrighted unless we have affirmative evidence of a public domain release or release under a suitably-free copyright license.
Some examples of public domain images are those that were verifiably published in the U.S. prior to 1923, or made by a U.S. Federal employee as part of their official duties;
Flickr can be a good resource. You might try this search (for images licensed under CC-By 2.0) and this search (for images licensed under CC-By-SA 2.0);
You can also search for free images using Google:

Perform a Google Images search, but place "-Wikimedia" in the search so you avoid Commons images;
Click on settings at the bottom right hand side of the screen and select Advanced Search;
Scroll to the usage rights: section and select from the dropdown "free to use, share, or modify even commercially";
Click the Advanced Search button.

There's also a free image search tool you might try called FIST. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Chinese nationalistic, sexist trolling on Yuan Dynasty page

Hello, I would like to have admins address the sexist and nationalistic tone of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty. Yuan dynasty is a Mongolian dynasty yet, Han Chinese nationalistic trolls fill it historical inaccuracies about females of other races. How can this be addressed?65.78.18.158 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not sexist or nationalistic at all. It's written from a neutral point of view. Peter Sam Fan 20:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What do these passages have to do with a Mongolian state? "Shi Tianze was married to two Jurchen women, a Han Chinese woman, and a Korean woman,"

"Korean women married Indian, Uyghur, and Turkic Semu men.[151] A rich merchant from the Ma'bar Sultanate, Abu Ali, was associated closely with the Ma'bar royal family. After falling out with them, he moved to Yuan dynasty China and received a Korean woman as his wife and a job from the Mongol Emperor"

Korea was not even completely conquered by the Mongols as the han Chinese were. Logically han Chinese slave girls would vastly outnumber slaves of any other race. That's not how the article reads. The article paints a distorted picture about the actual state of affairs from a sexist, nationalistic han Chinese point of view. These passages are out of place and have an anti-Korean, nationalistic Chinese tone. Even the topic of glorifying female slavery is out of place in a historical Wikipedia entry about a historical government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.18.158 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 March 2016‎ (UTC)

This is not the correct forum for reporting this. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. The place to discuss issues with the article is at its talk page in the first instance, and then at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if further input is necessary. If you have complaints about particular editors, then the place to discuss those is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, though beware WP:BOOMERANG. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

help

Can i edit articles of other brands and company's if he information is reliable?Mushobi54 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Anybody may edit (almost) any article as long as the information is cited to a reliable published source, preferably one independent of the subject of the article. However, if you have a close connection with the subject of an article, then you have a conflict of interest, and are strongly discouraged from editing that article directly. Furthermore, if you are connected with a company, then you may also have a conflict of interest in editing articles relating to rival companies and brands, so should be similarly circumspect.

Your question seems to imply that you expect to be editing articles relating to your own company or brand: that is a wrong expectation. Please read the article I linked to above for how to proceed. Also note that if you are in any way being paid to edit Wikipedia (eg by being an employee or contractor of a company which has asked you to edit articles) then you must disclose this fact. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Images

I want to upload an avatar made with the Mega Anime Avatar Creator game on RinmaruGames for my user page. But what license do I use for it?

--Pachisu124 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pachisu124. The Rinmaru Games site says "All rights reserved". I don't see any explicit statement on the copyright status of an avatar you create with it, but looking at other avatar generators, I find things like

Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following:
After Purchasing your Avatar you may redistribute at your discretion. For more info, please contact us directly at avatars@mybluerobot.com" (https://mybluerobot.com/create-your-own-avatar/)

Unless you can positively show that RinmaruGames licenses avatars made with the game under CC-BY-SA or similar, or that they assign you the copyright in an avatar that you make, then I do not believe that any avatars will have a suitable license for use on Wikipedia, and you may not upload them. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

But I've seen people uploading avatars made with that game on Wikia and Deviantart and nobody I've seen says you can't upload them. Pachisu124 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hii Pachisu. Those other sites you mention are not Wikipedia. Each website has its own set of rules (or lack thereof), so just seeing a image somewhere else on the Internet does not automatically mean that the same image can or should be uploaded to Wikipedia. As ColinFine posted above, Wikipedia generally only allows freely licensed content to be uploaded to it for use due to copyright concerns. There are some cases where copyrighted content is allowed to be uploaded and used in the article namespace, but the conditions for doing so are pretty restrictive and under no circumstances is non-free content allowed to be used on user pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Then what do I use for my avatar? Pachisu124 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Pachisu124. Why do you need an avatar? There are lots of editors who have user pages without any photos/images at all. You can find plenty of freely-licensed images on Wikimedia Commons which can be used on user pages, but it seems to me that you might be slightly misunderstanding the intended purpose of a Wikipedia user page. A user page is not a personal website. Wikipedia's user page guideline does allow editors to personalize their user pages to some degree, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a free web host for stuff not really relevant to improving Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

How to: Change a page name or redirect to a new page

I have a few questions about the page Bombardier Recreational Products. The company's name is no longer Bombardier Recreational Products; it is now BRP. I would love to have this changed as well as other facts that are also not accurate (most of the page as a matter of fact).

I do understand that the company or a person linked to the company should not be editing a page as it is a conflict of interest but what about incorrect information? How can I get rid of it or change it? I have read the CIPR Best Practices Guide and still cannot figure it out.

Similar case*:

We saw that the page Camoplast (now Camso) managed to be redirected to the page "Camso" as the company name changed. How could we achieve the same thing? We would love to create a BRP page, which could be the redirection for the actual "Bombardier Recreational Products" page.

Thank you for your help, Chloepayen (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chloepayen, and welcome to the Teahouse. BRP already exists as a disambiguation page, and it includes a link to Bombardier Recreational Products. It would be possible to move Bombardier Recreational Products to something like BRP (Company), but we would need some reliable sources showing that it is now generally known as BRP.

Please disclose your connection to the company in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

After disclosing, you may make corrections of clear factual errors, not involving any evaluation or opinion, but please cite a source for each correction -- it can be a company source if that is the only source available. For more complex changes or ones involving judgement, please suggest them on the article talk page for other editors to review and possibly apply. DES ^(talk) 16:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I provide reliable proof of the company name? Isn't the website proof of it? Who do I need to send proof to?Chloepayen (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The website is rather ambiguous, Chloepayen. Much of it uses "BRP", but other parts still feature "Bombardier Recreational Products" in full. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Citing Claims

I had a question regarding facts when writing an article. Lets take Michael Jordan as an example. Within the first paragraph, a sentence reads:

"He is also a businessman, and principal owner and chairman of the Charlotte Hornets. Jordan played 15 seasons in the National Basketball Association (NBA) for the Chicago Bulls and Washington Wizards."

Notice that there is no citation here. From what I understand, all fact based statements need to be cited to a reliable secondary source.

Is the above sentence (regarding Michael Jordan) in violation? Below is another sentence in the lead of Jim Cramer's page:

"James J. "Jim" Cramer (born February 10, 1955) is an American television personality, former hedge fund manager, and best-selling author. Cramer is the host of CNBC's Mad Money and a co-founder of TheStreet, Inc."

Again, there is no citation here backing up the claim that Cramer is in fact all the things stated that sentence.

My question is this: are sentence like this in violation of Wikipedia's policies? Or are sentences like these acceptable since they're just stating a fact about a person's profession?

Just as a final, hypothetical example to sum up: if I'm creating a new page on Adrian Peterson and say "Adrian Peterson is a running back in the National Football League for the Minnesota Vikings," does that sentence need a citation to a secondary source to back it up?

199.114.7.5 (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! In general, yes every statement needs a reliable source to back it up. In practice, there are some exceptions. For example, widely known and obvious facts are sometimes exempt. Of course, defining "widely known and obvious" is a mess for an online international encyclopedia read by a huge variety of people, so in general I only use that exception for things on the level of "water is liquid at room temperature" or "the sky is blue". Knowing that a certain person plays on a certain sports team is certainly not covered by this.

The exception that is probably at play here is that information only needs to be backed up one place in the article. The lead (section above the table of contents) is meant to be a summary of the article. So, if we have a whole section about Michael Jordan's basketball career, with plenty of refs, it can be summarised in the lead without cluttering everything up by copying all the references. Essentially, every piece of information has to be cited, not every sentence. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is not the case that "...every statement needs a reliable source to back it up." Direct quotes and paraphrased quotes must be attributed in text and supported by an inline citation. (the source of the quote need not be reliable provided it is relevant to the article and reliable to show that the quote is accurate.) Controversial statements, statements that have been challenged or are likely to be challenged, and negative or controversial content about a living person must be supported by an inline cite to a reliable source. Other surprising or non-obvious statements should be cited if at all possible. Obvious statements need not be cited, as per WP:BLUE. Statements cited in the body need not be re-cited in the lead section, except for quotes, which must be cited wherever they appear. DES ^(talk) 16:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocking vandalism

I can't figure out how to alert an admin or anyone else that an editor has been doing repeated vandalism. Or how to send them a warning that they may be blocked. Help please, it's getting kind of frustrating to not be able to do anything about them.*Treker (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, *Treker. There is a table of warning templates that you can post on user talk pages at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. If the vandalism continues after appropriate warning has been given, then the place to report it is at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. You're great. This place is awesome.*Treker (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

reference problem

Hello I have added references to my article but still its showing a warning tag. Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmp28 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to use references to support the statements made about the person in the article. You haven't done that. Please read Help:Footnotes and WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead section change and Google description

Somebody made a change to an article's lead section a couple of days ago. I undid the change the same day (by using the "undo" feature of course). However, it's now been 3 days and when I Google the article's title, Google still shows the lead section description as it was before I undid the change. Is there a way to get the Google description to reflect what the article's lead section currently says?Lupine453 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I just checked Google, and the Google description has already been changed. :) Lupine453 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lupine453. Google's computers need to search massive numbers of web pages to keep their summaries current. This is fast, but not an instant process. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia has no direct influence on how Google reuses our content. The only thing we can do is to work to maintain Wikipedia as the world's most comprehensive free information resource. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating an article

I am new, but I know exactly what article I want to create. The only problem is, I don't feel confident enough to create one. I tried to ask for it to be created, but that didn't work out. What do I do? Sparkling Waters (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sparkling Waters. I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and then using Wikipedia:Article wizard to create your article. That way, you can get feedback from experienced editors on a draft before the article goes live. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

im thirsty Cuthalf (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I run a non profit organisation and would like its name available on the wikipedia. I posted two articles about it with very very basic information but yet it was deleted. Can anyone help ?

I run a non profit organisation and would like its name available on the wikipedia. I posted two articles about it with very very basic information but yet it was deleted. Can anyone help ? Fahansiddiqui (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Fahansiddiqui, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have a very common misconception, that Wikipedia is a way to promote or publicise your organisation: it is not, and attempts to use it that way are likely to be strongly resisted. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that people who have no connection with the subject have already written about, at length, in reliable published places. If there exist substantial published sources about the United Pakistan Foundation, published in reliable places (not blogs, forums, social media, or self-published sites) and written and published by people who have no connection with the Foundation (which excludes anything from your own website, and anything based on interviews or press releases from you) then Wikipedia may have an article on the Foundation. However, this will need to based almost 100% on what these independent people have published about it, good or bad. Almost nothing that you or the Foundation have said or published will be relevant to it; and because of your connection you are regarded as having a conflict of interest, and are discouraged from writing or contributing to such an article.

My advice to you is, first, to read your first article, and then to search for independent reliable sources. If you find several (and they must be substantial, not just mentions) then either post a request at requested articles (but there is a long backlog there), or ask for a collaborator at WT:WikiProject Pakistan. Alternatively, having read the links above, you may try to write an article which meets Wikipedia's rules; but you should declare your conflict of interest (and you must do so if you are in any way paid for your work - see Paid editing, and I strongly advise you to use the Article wizard, which will create your draft in Draft space, so that you can then submit it for review.

I will comment that my attempt to find published sources about the Foundation has drawn a blank; unless you can find some (which do not have to be online, or in English, but must be published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking) you should give up. --ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Making Articles About Albums

I'm trying to add a track listing to an article about an album. I can't really figure out how to make a track listing. Can someone help me? Lo-fimusiclover (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed your question on the talk page and thought I would move it to the main forum to make it more likely to be noticed. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lo-fimusiclover: Greetings. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you look at MOS:ALBUM#Track listing, you will see several different ways to format the track listing for an album. What most editors do is use the first way, which is a numbered list. To help you do this, I started creating the track listing, for The Future Is Worse Than The Past article. Another thing about creating a new Wikipedia article about an album, or about anything: You need to have a few references, to show that the album is notable, in the special Wikipedia sense of the term -- that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Otherwise it'll be considered not well-known enough to warrant a separate article. I'm going to try to help you with that too. — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to add track listing to an album article?

I've made an article (The Future Is Worse Than The Past), and I can't figure out how to make a subcategory for the track listing or the receiption for the album. Can you please help me? Lo-fimusiclover (talk) 12:28, April 2016 (UTC).

You mean sections for track listing/reception, I assume. That's easy enough. Take a look at the source code for this album, for instance. Eman235/talk 18:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lo-fimusiclover: Scroll ~~down~~up on this page a little bit, to the section called "Making Articles About Albums", where you will see the original version of your question, and a reply from me. I've also posted on your user talk page.

— Mudwater^(Talk) 19:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Saving preferences

How does one save the user preferences to a file on my local computer? Bytesock (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bytesock, I'm not sure I ~~answer~~ *understand* your question. Your user preferences on Wikipedia are saved on the Wikipedia servers, and will be in effect the next time you log on, no matter what computer you log on from. What information do you want to save to your local computer? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

An XML file or list of keyword-value that I can save. And then preferably upload, especially if when messing up the settings but not wishing to reset them ALL (the only choice). There's no safe points version management. Bytesock (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure there is a way to do this. Screenshots would work, though. Eman235/talk 19:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How long should a user wait before putting a CSD?

I created a short article (Castle of Lindoso) with one line of text on it. I was gonna add alot more but..... Almost immediately an IP address put a CSD on it, wrecking my progress on it. How many minutes should s/he have waited? isn't it 10-15 minutes? Winterysteppe (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Winterysteppe. Yes, that IP editor was very quick to tag your one line article for speedy deletion. But there is a very easy way to avoid such problems: do not add one line articles to the encyclopedia. Instead, use your sandbox space or draft space to write an article, at least to the point where it is a couple of paragraphs long and has at least two solid references showing notability. Then move it to main space.

I see that you have already expanded the article, so nothing was really wrecked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There has long been discussion about whether very short unsourced articles in article space should be immediately tagged for speedy deletion. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no policy on the subject, which means that there is no rule against "speedy nomination for speedy deletion". It is in particular a little unusual for an unregistered editor to do a "speedy tagging", because that often results from New Page Patrol, which is done by experienced editors. However, although many Wikipedians think that a very new very incomplete article should be given 15 minutes or so, there is no reason why an editor needs to build their article in article space. For that reason, I would advise against codifying such a restriction, and I concur with User:Cullen328 that the article could have been developed in user space or draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears on reading the histories of your article that, when you added additional information to the article, you removed the speedy deletion tag. Since you removed the tag, first, your statement that this "wrecked" your progress does not stand up. Second, speedy deletion templates should not be removed by the creator of an article. You should instead contest the speedy deletion template. So it doesn't appear that you have a real complaint. First, your progress was not "wrecked". Second, there is no rule against "speedy nomination for speedy deletion", only a provision that you can contest it if you are still working on it. Third, you apparently made a good-faith error in removing the template, which you should not do. In the future, do not remove templates that say not to remove them. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Translating an article from english to finnish

Hi! I've been editing in wikipedia for a while, but only now encountered a little problem. As you can already see from the summary, I want to translate an article. The article is already created but its only translated on a couple of languages. Could somebody help me, please?Onionring (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You can probably find answers to some of your questions at Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Translate us, Onionring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:McCloy Fellowship

I reviewed Draft:McCloy Fellowship and declined it based on the sources not substantiating notability, because the references were all associated with the program. Its author User:Pk1416 then updated it and resubmitted it, and I declined it again, saying that it didn’t have a proper Reference List, and that sources appeared to have been added, but not as footnotes, and that the added references were run together, and there was a redundant heading. The author then posted to my talk page:

Dar Robert, thanks for reviewing my post. Your comments are great to help me improve my post. Could you kindly elaborate on what to do. How to format the references? Why footnotes, which header? This is my first wikipedia entry and I am clearly struggling but eager to learn and approve. So I'd really appreciate you taking the time to eplain in more detail what needs to be changes in order to get approved. thanks and have a good Sunday

The author put an additional heading at the bottom of the draft. I am not sure why. I have removed it. As to how to format the references, I see that the author was able to format the references and put them in-line in the earlier draft. My advice is to re-read Referencing for Beginners again.

Do other experienced editors have any advice? Should the additional references (in German) be considered independent? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon - I usually refer them to WP:CIT, which gives them the actual formats for citations. Depending on how much effort the other editor is putting in, sometimes I'll correct one or two of the citations, to give them a concrete example of how it's done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding A Subtitle

File:Screenshot Sayori Bhadra-01.jpeg
This is a screenshot of Wikipedia (app-Android) search results. As one can see, it has got a subtitle "Indian Classical vocalist" below the name Kaushiki Chakraborty. I want to put the same on a page Shyam Sundar Goswami which is created by me myself. Need your kind help for this matter as soon as possible. Sayori Bhadra (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate image for a Wikipedia biographical article, Sayori Bhadra. You can discuss it on the article talk page at Talk:Shyam Sundar Goswami. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sayori Bhadra. I believe that information comes from the corresponding record in Wikidata, Kaushiki Chakraborti. I have added it to his Wikidata record, and I believe that will cause it to appear in the App (but I don't know how long it will take to appear). --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Mobile search results do indeed use Wikidata descriptions. The results can also be seen in desktop browsers at the mobile Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org. The existing Wikidata item was actually about somebody else, an Indian yogi with a Swedish article at sv:Shyam Sundar Goswami. Sayori Bhadra has sorted it out by reverting you and creating a new Wikidata item wikidata:Q23697714 about the Indian classical vocalist. The description now appears in mobile search. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops! didn't look and see whether it was the right person. Thanks Sayori Bhadra for correcting it (I got notified that you'd added a message here, but then I found you'd removed it again - I didn't realise there was actually a problem with my edit and that you had fixed it). Thanks PrimeHunter for explaining it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine and PrimeHunter thanks to both of you. I have solved the problem on myself. Would refer to you for other problems in future.

Sayori Bhadra (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

How to ad-block the voting ads ?

How does one disable this advertisement? "Help choose the best image of the year. View the candidates and vote for your favorite" Bytesock (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bytesock. Clicking x in the corner worked for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but they re-appear quite soon. Need a more sustainable solution. Bytesock (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Vote for something. I did, & I don't see them any more. ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox

What is the Sandbox for? Is the sandbox a personal item, like a userpage, or is it a community page for discussion? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know the Sandbox is for trying out making articles. Before you post them.*Treker (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Elsa Enchanted, welcome to the Teahouse. Sandbox is actually for testing purposes. It can be used for drafting; before literally making changes to mainspace—that is, where "live" Wikipedia articles reside. So, yeah, it's more of a personal item. See Wikipedia:About the Sandbox for more details. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, there are different types of sandbox, Elsa Enchanted. There is a page at Wikipedia:Sandbox, which is public and is explained at Wikipedia:About the Sandbox, but you can also create your own sandbox or sandboxes in your userspace. For example, you might draft articles or test things out at User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox, User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox2, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A small correction to the answer above. For user subpages including user sandboxes you should use forward slashes, not backslashes, so User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox, User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox2, etc. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, David Biddulph. Now fixed, to avoid any mishaps! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answers! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ella. I haven't written any articles - I do grammar tidying, spelling/typo corrections, rearrange things for better flow, pop in *citation needed* tags if I know nothing/don't have any handy, & take on some poor article that desperately needs source material. This is where the sandbox comes in VERY handy. Wikicode for citations ain't your mother's HTML! My sandbox is full of code testing for references. This way I can make sure I didn't mess something up before I stick it in the article. It's a lot easier on your eyes to do it on a pg that isn't cluttered with text. I also save code for templates I think I might need in there, too. It's a useful little attic full of junk for me. ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Stub still

How do I get an article's status changed. I have worked on several articles for some time and I feel like I have improved them but they are still considered to be stubs. Is there any way that I can have that changed?

Exaples

Before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Harry_Smith_(athlete)&oldid=606220037

After.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Smith_(athlete)

Before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Under_the_Mat&oldid=604394987

After.

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

Ofcourse I want to also say that obviously not all of the improvement has been made by me.*Treker (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The various stub templates, like other tag templates, are added and removed manually by editors who think that this is appropriate: there is nothing automatic about any of them. If you think you have enlarged an article so that it is no longer a stub, you can remove the template. Make sure you put something meaningful in your ~~error~~edit summary, so that nobody will mistake the deletion for vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean to put something meaningful in the edit summary. Referring to it as an error summary is an error, but we know what was meant. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. Rather good, though, wasn't it! --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Same source cite

When you use the same source more than once in an article, how do you make it do that a b c thing in front of it, rather than repeating the whole thing in different spots? Evidently I'm not using the correct search term(s) to find it. TYVM in advance. ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

O, wait....it was in the Teahouse ques right below mine! WP:CIT, who'd've thunk it?

Using the same footnote multiple times[edit]

For more details on this topic, see WP:REFNAME. Add a name attribute when creating a footnote <ref name="name">citation text</ref>. Thereafter, the footnote may be referenced by just using the following expression <ref name="name" />.

So it's that last tag, yes? Do I need to backspace the last 2 characters for it to work, or is it OK as is? ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, it LOOKS like it works as is.... (space deliberate so the revered Teahouse elders can see it this time) < ref name=name (obvs newspaper article name?) space fw slash>? ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's right. Wikimarkup uses the HTML convention that tags are usually in pairs <thing> ... </thing>; but when there is no content (nothing between the opening and closing tag, you use the different syntax <thing/>. By the way, if you want to present something here that the Wiki software is going to scramble, put it between <nowiki> and </nowiki>. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

On vandalism

How can a page be protected from vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Peterson 753 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Hello, Robert Peterson 753. Please sign your contributions on talk and project pages with four tildes (~~~~). The answer is that you can request protection at WP:RPP; but the page needs to have been subject to persistent and recent vandalism. If you are talking about Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian Civil War, you need to read the Wikipedia definition of Vandalism: editing that you disagree with is not vandalism. You are having a content dispute with Gala19000, and you both need to stop edit warring and start discussing on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach agreement, follow dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

See What is not vandalism. The use of hostile edit summaries, such as "revert vandalism", in a content dispute that is not vandalism, can be construed as a personal attack. It is, if anything, more serious than such statements on a talk page, because personal attacks on talk pages can be deleted, but personal attacks in edit summaries cannot be deleted. In extreme cases they can be redacted by an administrator. In looking over the specific content issue, it appears to me that the best way to resolve the content dispute, which appears to be over how to characterize the result of the battles, would be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Uchu RRFisher and an apparent requirement for applicants to be in Wikipedia

I reviewed Draft:Richard R. Fisher. I custom-declined it, stating that the author should fix reference errors, should not use Wikipedia as a reference (because it is either a wikilink or a See Also), and should provide wkilinks to relevant articles whose title appear in the draft. I also templated the author with the autobiography caution. I then received the following from User:Uchu RRFisher:

I applied to the AIAA for consideration for an advisory committee position, and without approval or disapproval I did get the comment that my bio was not visible in the Wikipedia, Exact ontemproaries, Edward Weiler, Chris Scolese, James Green, - all of the same department and serving the same agency are listed with basic bactual information. Using these examples I have tried to create a parallel bio free from value adjetives contining only verifiable information concerning period of intense and notable developmdnt for the NASA scientifc research program. I was completely unaware of the policy concerning autobiography - so I stuck to the facts only. I would like to be identifable and factually documented, but do not participate, out of preference, in various forrms of social media. If I have made an error of procedure that disqualifies the addition of my bio, perhaps you could help me make appropriate changes to th ms to make it more acceptable. Thank you for your attention in this matter,

Maybe I miss something? I consider it troubling that apparently a review committee is stating that the presence of a biography in Wikipedia is desired for applicants. While there is something to be said that a biography in Wikipedia is evidence of notability, peculiarly defined, I think that Wikipedia agrees that the absence of a biography does not mean that a person is notable. Also, as we can see, this sort of policy does push applicants into creating autobiographies. As autobiographies go, it is a good one, and appears to me to be free of peacock language. However, does anyone want to comment either on the draft or on the comment by the review committee? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Part of the reason that the Articles for Creation process was implemented is to allow new editors with a conflict of interest to create a draft for review by experienced editors. Drafting an autobiography and submitting it to AFC (as opposed to adding it to main space) is an entirely appropriate thing for someone to do, especially a retired NASA senior scientist with a very long career. After a few minor tweaks, I see this as a good improvement to the encyclopedia. I see no need to template someone who is following our recommended procedure in good faith.

On the other matter, some committee somewhere saying that someone ought to have a Wikipedia biography should have no effect on our decisions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY: "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself into Wikipedia if you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article, is to make a proposal at Articles for creation containing the text you want, instead of just putting it into the encyclopedia directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a conflict of interest." Therefore, this editor is behaving in the "proper way" and in "good faith". What more can we ask? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I know it can be difficult dealing with COI editors. Interestingly enough the autobiographies are some of the easiest to deal with. But Cullen is spot on about AfC being the appropriate route to take. I rarely use the autobiography template, I think only once, and that was with someone who was simply intransigent. That said, I've only dealt with three autobiographies (in developing them into mainspace articles - don't know how many I've declined due to POV and the editor simply walked away), and they have all been pretty interesting and pleasant experiences. The results on simply COI issues are decidedly more mixed. I do place a COI template on the draft, however, since I feel it's important during the draft process that other editors know about the COI, and once moved to mainspace, I'll place a template on the talk page - for the same reason. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My take-away is that I should seldom use the autobiography template on AFC autobiographies. I agree in particular in this case, which was a good-faith effort by a marginally non-notable person to write an autobiography about his career, which is the usual basis of notability for notable people. Most of the autobiographies that I encounter in sandboxes that are submitted to AFC are a different matter, in that most of them either are really social media profiles (for which we probably need a special decline reason) or are complete junk (for which we have a few decline reasons). I agree that I shouldn't use the autobiography template on good-faith AFC submissions of autobiographies by people who have a marginal case for career notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this autobiography is that only one of the cited sources even mentions Fisher, his employee profile on the NASA website. The rest are simply links to college websites or pages about projects he claims to have been involved in, but these pages don't mention him. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Never going to be notable, and it isn't our problem if he can't get on at work because there isn't a Wikipedia article about him. Started MfD here. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have !voted Keep as a valid use of draft space to try to establish notability for a non-notable person. I only !vote Delete on non-notable persons and companies if the draft is being tendentiously resubmitted, and this is not. (If the draft meets any of the speedy deletion criteria, it should be speedied, not nominated for MFD, and this draft does not need speedy deletion.) Joseph2302 and I can agree to disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the articles for his colleagues, and not a one of them has sufficient sources (I did some tagging). Christopher_Scolese has one reference, a press release. James L. Green's article looks like the one we are discussing here, with lots of primary sources but no secondary sources, as is the case with the article for Edward_J._Weiler. So, to be fair, all three of these should get the same treatment, and quite honestly they probably do not meet GNG. That said, I find it to be VERY unfortunate that someone is using Wikipedia to make this kind of judgment, especially as they do not understand that WP is not authoritative, and that these particular articles are quite flawed. LaMona (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LaMona and I are in complete agreement that it is deeply unfortunate that an organization (AIAA) is using Wikipedia as a step in their judgments. Not only is Wikipedia not authoritative, but this sort of setting it up as an authority will make it even less authoritative by encouraging applicants to create autobiographies to serve their own agendas. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Uchu RRFisher says that "without approval or disapproval I did get the comment that my bio was not visible in the Wikipedia". Without further evidence, let's not read into that that the organisation concerned is taking the existence or otherwise of Wikipedia biographies into account in its decisions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Correcting links when no link information appears on the editing page

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highs_in_the_Mid-Sixties,_Volume_18, two of the names of tracks appear incorrectly as links. "The Poor" points to a band by that name in Australia, not Colorado. "The Doppler Effect" points to the page for the physical phenomenon by that name, not a band at all. When I go to edit them, though, I do not see anything I can remove. There are a couple bot actions in this page's history. Were these links added by bots, and that's why I can't see them? How can I fix this? Dgndenver (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the square brackets to unlink. Possibly you might be able to find an appropriate link, but, if not, just leave the text unlinked. Dbfirs 07:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What characterizes a respectable source?

Hi, im a bit of a newbie on here. I was just wondering what would be classed as a respectable source for quoting in changes? I understand that something with fact is required, but what about websites or forums that discuss facts but aren't the actual source?BuildersBelt (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BuildersBelt, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has lots of information on this. As a rule, forums are not considered reliable sources as their content is user-generated and is not subject to editorial control. Sources can be used to support opinions and interpretations as well as facts, though - our wording should make clear that that is the case and attribute the opinion clearly to its source, however. Some examples of sources that are generally considered reliable include scholarly journal articles, quality newspapers, books published by well-established publishers and specialist websites and magazines. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry BuildersBelt (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@BuildersBelt: The above re forums is correct. That said, some forums can be useful sources of reliable sources - e.g. links to news items posted in forums. They shouldn't be dismissed outright as a tool for research. Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@BuildersBelt: -I just want to expand a bit on Cordless Larry's advice: "Sources can be used to support opinions and interpretations as well as facts..." We write about opinions and interpretations at "arms length" by reporting the fact of existence of the opinion, rather than directly stating the opinion itself in Wikipedia's voice: Critic A described the event as "a day that we will remember",(reference Critic A's article) while critic B said in an interview "the event did not live up to the hype".(reference for Critic B's interview) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your further help Mjroots & Dodger67. I will have a look and try and understand Forum usage on pages. Presumably i am OK to contract you direct should i have any further questions? Thanks BuildersBelt (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia page not made correctly

I made my Wikipedia page as I'm an actor and I'm being told that it will be taken down.Junior Paul Chiedozie (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly discourages anyone from creating or editing articles that they are the subject of -- see WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO.

All articles must meet our notability guidelines (see WP:GNG). Basically, an article needs multiple professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with the subject. Of the sources currently in the article about you, the Voice Online article is the only one that meets our reliable sourcing standards, and that only mentions you in passing. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Junior Paul Chiedozie. I appreciate that it is hard to make a career as an actor, and you are looking for every opportunity to publicise yourself. But Wikipedia may not be used for promotion, no matter who you are. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

can I publish the lead section of an article and later publish the complete article

My lead section of the article is ready to go. The remainder will take me quite a bit more time. Can I publish the lead section for now and the body of the article later? Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Carrieruggieri, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not if you create the article directly in main space (because an article without references will probably get deleted rapidly); but you can create it as a draft, and write it bit by bit. As long as you don't do anything naughty, like infringing copyright, or personal attacks, nobody will interfere with what you have in a draft. I suggest you use the article wizard to create it.

However, more generally I would suggest that the lead should not be the first part you write. The reason I say this is that the lead should summarise what is in the article, and what is in the article should be 100% based on the reliable sources you have found. Unless you have already found and studied the sources, you won't know exactly what can go into the article, and so what can go into the lead. --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For added context, the draft is Draft:AEDP: Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy Your lead is long enough to submit on its own, yes. Once it is accepted, you can keep working on it and add more sections. However, as an AfC reviewer, there are two things I can see right away that you could do to increase your chances of a quick review and accepting. First of all, the vocabulary and style used will make it very difficult for people not in your field to read and understand your submission. It will also make your article less accessible and useful to most people. Try to strive for increased readability by explaining what you mean with less jargon. Another thing is that looking up journal articles can be time consuming. Providing links to your references can help reviewers check your sources faster and readers get more background more easily. Good luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you colin, I do have all the references and I have written the entire article. The lead paragraph is a summary of the article. I have to do a lot of re-writing because I lost track of my copy/pasting method of note-taking. So here and there a copyrite infringement may be picked up - So it needs a complete overhaul. Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carrieruggieri, the draft is already an acceptable article, it just has a few "style" issues that should be fixed. The excessive referencing (as already pointed out) - no claim needs ten references, a maximum of three should be sufficient for all but the most complex claims. Secondly, this is a website not a printed book, so please add ISBN numbers to the book citations and DOI or PMID codes for the journal references - these codes automatically become weblinks that enable readers to quickly find the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you Happy Squirrel and Roger Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanbox

Help, i am trying to work several articles on an upcoming story, but i cannot find the option to add more pages to my sandbox. By accident two test articles went live. Anyone know what to do? Arcmind (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Arcmind. You can create pages in your userspace with any name you want, such as User:Arcmind/Sandbox, User:Arcmind/Sandbox2, etc. You seem to have created User:Arcmind/Vekrion, which works too. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But that is just the thing, i did not create it, a nice person who knew about this stuff did. what i mean is how do i open a new subpage from the start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Yes, I just came back here to comment again having noticed that AddWittyNameHere moved the page for you. You can created them by typing "User:Arcmind/Example name" into the search box. The software will tell you that no such page exists, and give you the option to create one. You could also just type the desired URL into your browser's address bar and the same thing will happen. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have got the hang of it with User:Arcmind/sandbox Solar System, Arcmind. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that sounds pretty easy, thanks!

Please help me! :)

Hello Team,

Can you please help me with a article I created a few hours ago? My page was denied and I don't know how I can fix the issue. Please help me.

The page I worked on is titled "Tony Rose (Author).

Thx

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHSnow (talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi WHSnow, you can start by replacing all the Youtube references in Draft:Tony Rose (author) with references from reputable publications such as mainstream newspapers, magazines, or websites with a responsible editorial reputation - so no blogs or social media. If they exist, academic sources are the most valued. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit capitalization of page title

I have created a page for the author Clara Bingham, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to capitalize her last name in the page title. Kristophermonroe (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the page. -- GB fan 17:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Kristophermonroe (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox

I just want to know for what purpose are the sandboxes used for? I am not still cleared even after reading the article.(SmrutiakaMemories (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There are various sandboxes such as the main sandbox which are used for practicing editing (e.g. getting used to how to use wikipedia's markup language), and are periodically reverted to their initial state. There is also the user sandbox, which is used similarly but which other people do not edit; you can also use that for keeping notes or drafts that you are working on. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Pay

How can I get paid to update sports teams statistics, recruiting, records, etc? Lschapk (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lschapk. If this question is about getting paid to update that information at Wikipedia, we have no such facility; articles are edited and updated by volunteers donating their time, and we view any type of paid editing as very bad form. If this question was more general – not about Wikipedia – then you might try asking at the miscellaneous section of the reference desk. This page is only for questions about Wikipedia itself. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Proofreading, etc.

Hi, Could someone please look over this article before I submit it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Congregation_Emanu-El_Bn%27e_Jeshurun Thanks!Jennaxel (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jennaxel: The first major problem I see is that you're using a self-published book from AuthorHouse as a source. A self-published book can occasionally be reliable for certain things, but it will likely not contribute to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll look for other sources.Jennaxel (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

how to access my references to add URL

Hello, I have been asked to add URL's to my references. I can't figure out how to review my references for editing so that I can add the url.Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, using the regular editing window, go to the citation template (the thing of the form <ref>{{cite book|first=foo|last=bar|title=something|some_other_fields=something else}}</ref>) and add the url like so <ref>{{cite book|first=foo|last=bar|title=something|url=www.thatwebsitewhereifoundit.edu|some_other_fields=something else}}</ref> Basically, you add a new field called URL and give it the desired value.

Another option is to use visual editor. Click on the pen at the top right of the editing window. Select the option to discard changes (those are just the changes from this editing session). Wait for the interface to load. Then click a reference, press edit on the tag that appears, press add more information and add the url from there. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you happy squirrel Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of a company is a staff member

Hi there. What can be done, if a company decides to get their company un wikipedia. First it`s company page read like an advertisment, the main contributer is working with the company. The Wikipedia page is called Internatonal Volunteer HQ as well as Daniel John Radcliffe.

Thanks (Responsible volunteering (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look at International Volunteer HQ (IVHQ). It wasn't as blatant as other stuff I've seen (long lists of offered services, complete with a link to order), but clearly needed a realignment to become an encyclopedia article. The topic is maybe notable as it appears their organisation has some media coverage and has won a prize, so I didn't feel comfortable nominating for deletion. Opinions vary, but the solution I prefer (and have used) in these cases is just to go ahead and chop out anything irrelevant or improperly sourced. Then I watchlist the page to keep an eye on how the article progresses. Other editors may have other approaches.

In general, many issues of this type also run afoul of copyright and speedy deletion can be requested by placing {{Db-copyvio|url=source URL}} at the top of the article (fill in the url field). For absolutely outrageous blatant promotion, you can request speedy deletion using {{Db-promo}}. Thank you for bringing this issue up. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)