Wikipedia:Teahouse

CiaPan, 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

Request for comment on Deletion of Jamais Cascio article

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

Honda NSX

Hello I want to create an article on the upcoming Supercar the Honda. I belive that thie upcoming generation of cars should be in a separate page than the original generation. Can this be done?

WindySteppe (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Winterysteppe Welcome to Teahouse. Yes, we can create article on each model of car if it passes general notability. There is Category:Honda vehicles which lists various Honda vehicles. If the article you wanted to create is just variant of Honda NSX car then it will be better to add it to main article. If it has enough sources and matter then we can create separate article on it.--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  19:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Human3015 Mind if i ask if you can look at my sandbox at this link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Winterysteppe/sandbox. It is directly copied from the Honda NSX page and it has 27 sources. Would this count under the general notability?

security of wikipedia

Do facts written about regimes that violate human rights or commit crimes against humanity lead to hacking of the site by those regimes' rulers or governments? Worse, do such authoritarian rulers come after the authors or editors of the articles, in terms of their personal profiles on the records of Wikipedia? ThomasCLee (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia lists certain notable incidents. Some of these have been governmental agencies and representatives. --Jayron32 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Censorship of Wikipedia also has some information on this topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Emma Lovett

I reviewed Draft:Emma Lovett and declined it as non-neutral and lacking a proper lede sentence. User:Gmw4313 asked me: “You declined my submission, but thank you for the speedy review. I have entered a lede statement, and adjusted the naming convention (though when the page referred to her husband, it became awkward.) I removed most of the peacock language. I am sure some remains. I am not sure what to do about references. I believe an award winner in an entertainment field that just recently started presenting awards is worthy of a page. Some of the material I put on the draft page, I looked up her e-mail address and asked her. What specifically can I do to make the references stronger, yet maintain the interesting features of putting the page together at all? ” I am not quite sure what the question is about references. The draft does have references. I have notability questions about the subject of the article, but not questions about references. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To address notability concerns, I observe that the page "LittleRedBunny" was sufficiently notable to go live.Gmw4313 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Just Bee Drinks

I reviewed Draft: Just Bee Drinks and declined it as reading like an advertisement. An IP, probably User:Pasturelanddelis logged out, asked me on my talk page: “Hi Robert - thanks for reviewing the article I wrote on Just Bee Drinks. I wanted to write this page as the company is a supplier to my Deli and the first drinks company of its kind in the UK. I believe this makes it very notable and the background to Just Bee Drinks has been reported in many leading publications in the UK (The Daily Telegraph, the Manchester Evening News just to name a few). I have tried to write it in as neutral way as possible and certainly don't want it to appear as an advertisement. Please can you suggest which parts you think makes it sound bias or like an advertisement so that I can amend and resubmit for review. Thanks so much for your help!” The history shows that copyright violation material has been removed. Can some other experienced editor please advise the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Another reviewer declined the draft again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Adriana Sanford

I received the following inquiry from User679699sof

"Robert---One of the photos I uploaded was deleted. How do I find that photo on wiki so that I can email [email protected] ? Is there a place on Wiki where I can see the images that I have uploaded and those that are being considered or were deleted? Please advise." Can someone who is more familiar with Commons and images advise this editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking image from Wikimedia to draft article

I'm having trouble linking this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Johannes_Theodor_Baargeld to a Wiki page draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dadaglobe. Any assistance would be appreciated. Gaw54 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gaw54. Here is the easy method. The link you provided takes me to a category containing three related images at Wikimedia Commons. Click on the image you prefer. At the top of the image page, there will be a menu bar, and one of the choices will have the Wikipedia "W" logo and "Use this file". Click that and the appropriate wikicode will be generated. Copy that line of code and return to the Wikipedia article, and paste it into the correct place in the wikicode for the article. The final section of the code after the last "|" generates the caption. By default, the file name appears there. You can edit that final part to create a more explanatory caption. Save your changes, and the image will display in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Article ready. What next

An article on "Victor Zelman, Australian Artist" has been prepared and is now ready. What needs to be done now please? mc dillon 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillon.benalla (talk • contribs)

Hi Dillon.benalla, if the article is in draft you can do a move on it and put it in mainspace. I really can't tell what you're asking from the question though, unless it's that. If you have a different question, let us know. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Add: I see that it's in your userpage. I guess you will have to copy-paste it. It's also not quite ready; it could use an infobox, wikilinks and some wikifying first. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WAF. I am finding this process somewhat baffling and have no understanding of the process. I have created an account and in my user space created an article (at least that is what I think has been done). I do not see how to "put it into mainspace". Thanks for your additional useful comments. Is an infobox a brief summary? mc dillon 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillon.benalla (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dillon.benalla. I recommend that you read and study Your first article. Please be aware that drafts of articles should be written in your sandbox, or draft space. However, I think that I drafted my first article in my user space, so your assumption is understandable. Your draft article is nowhere near ready to be moved to the encyclopedia main space, in my opinion. There are obvious holes in your draft where you have indicated missing information with underlining. This is fine for a draft, but the missing information must be resolved, one way or another, before this becomes part of the encyclopedia. There are many unreferenced assertions in your draft, and confusing abbreviations. Your draft needs to be readable and understandable for anyone who understands English, without specialized knowledge. Every substantive assertion should be referenced to a reliable source. Some of your references seem to be referring to two sources. Please think in terms of one reference = one source. Please do a complete rewrite in meticulous accordance with "Your first article" , tighten it up, remove all unreferenced assertions, and ask again for input from experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dillon.benalla. I see you pasted your draft into article space at Victor Zelman but it seems to be mixing up several people. It starts out "Alberto Zelman (1832 – 1907) was a violinist, painter and etcher originally from Trieste, mostly known for his art created after he moved to Australia in 1871." But Victor Zelman (1877-1960) was the artist. He was the brother of Alberto Zelman (violinist and founder of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra) and they were both the sons of the lesser known musician Alberto Zelman (senior) who born in Trieste. Neither Alberto Senior nor Alberto Junior was an artist. I'm not sure what sources you are using, but it still needs an enormous amount of work to make it coherent and verifiable. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Complete article

I am not sure if this is a question that I can even ask, but I will try asking it. I have been struggling with an article for a while. I do not have the experience or patience to correctly create the page. It is possible to ask if one of the seasoned editors might be able to correct the issues with my article so that I can submit it and have it accepted?

Sincerely, Heather

Re: Andreas Borgeas Article

Helkins (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Heather. Considering that you have never edited here before, you have done a very good job of creating a candidate article in Draft:Andreas Borgeas. I realise that having it rejected three times must be discouraging, but I don't think you should feel discouraged. The only problem, I suspect, is that Mr. Borgeas is not in fact notable, despite your excellent efforts. I hope you will remain as an editor, you have shown that you have skills which can be put to good use here. But I would advise you to stick to routine editing of existing articles for a while, there are many things you could do which are much easier than creating a new article. Maproom (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing an article you know to be wrong

Good Day I have a simple question. In the section on the Falklands war the attribution of the message which begins WE HAVE LOTS OF NEW FRIENDS is wrong. It was not the governers telex operator who typed this it was me. My name is Charles Keenleyside and I worked as an Engineer at the Cable and Wireless at the time. Can anyone help with this as the citations are wrong Charlesk1953 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Charlesk1953
As you can see in the article, that information is based upon an article in the New York Times, which we deem as a reliable source. Before that can be removed, or even qualified, you will need another, equally reliable, independent source to confirm your version of events. If you have such a source that can be quoted, but 34 yaers later, that may be difficult to prove. - Arjayay (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Looking at the NY Times reference, I see nothing to support the statement in 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands that is being disputed here. It simply attributes the conversation to two "subscribers", so the disputed statement appears to be WP:UNSOURCED. Murph9000 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Charlesk1953, I am one of the editors who reverted you and left the message ref the Teahouse on your talk page. We have two policies that you need to be aware of. First of all verifiability, which means that it has to be possible to verify the statement being made. To verify, we would need what would be classified as a reliable source per WP:RS that confirms the version of events. Reliable sources would typically be a reference book, a newspaper article etc but I'm afraid whilst I don't doubt your story your personal recollection is not something we can accept. As Murph9000 indicated the current edit doesn't reflect the source so I've copyedited it to match. One of the other factors in people reverting your edits is that you named someone, we now know it was yourself. In general, we wouldn't name an individual unless it was needed per our WP:BLP policy. Regards, WCM_email 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlesk1953 e-mailed me this article from the BBC. It clearly states "The newsroom had Argentine claims, but nothing else apart from a laconic message from the Cable and Wireless station on the Falklands - "we have a lot of new friends"."
This is a very good reference for C&W's involvement, although it does not mention Charles Keenleyside. However, as already stated by User:Wee Curry Monster above, "we wouldn't name an individual unless it was needed per our WP:BLP policy" - Arjayay (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is Andrei Tome being deleted?

I'm not sure whom is which and what is what, but which is the which to what is more notable that what?

I am being fed up to get this notice in front of a page which I want to create and is marked to be deleted.

This in fact shows that every wikipedia page should be deleted. No one is greater than Andrei Toma, so that page should remain there as long as wikipedia exists

Othewise makes no sense to have this wikipedia business in our online comunity which bans people from expressing themselves. 17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icdsarch (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not indented to be a place for people to express themselves. It is an encyclopaedia. No general-purpose encyclopaedia in history has previously had an article on Andrei Toma, if Wikipedia is to be the first a good case needs to be made.

Wikipedia uses a concept called "notability" to decide which concepts/people etc. have articles and which do not. If you believe you can prove that Andrei Toma meets the notability criteria for people, please edit that article to prove this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the boomerang essay. You are calling attention to your own disruptive editing in removing of speedy deletion templates. There is a procedure to contest speedy deletion, but it isn't by removing the templates. You are subject to being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And, as warned on your talk page, your Username contravenes our Username policy, as according to this website ICDS ARCH LTD, is Andrei Toma's company. Furthermore, you also have a conflict of interest in writing, or editing, the article at all. - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Substituting a picture in an Infobox

I'm trying to edit the entry for "French Historical Studies" to reflect the new editors and cover. I managed to get everything done but the new cover. I've loaded the cover image as a gif into Wikipedia commons as French Historical Studies.gif, but the old image keeps appearing. (Old image has French Historical Studies in white and very large; new image has it much smaller in gold.) I've checked the link repeatedly and the new images is the one that comes up on Wikipedia Commons, so I don't know what I've done wrong. Is it just a question of time to propagate? Thanks for your help! uscedwardsUscedwards (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Uscedwards. The technical issue is that, while images that are at the Commons can be used here natively, just as if they were locally hosted (i.e. uploaded here), where a local image has the same file name as an image on the Commons, the local image will always be shown. This essentially means that either the image at the Commons would need to be moved to a different file name (and the infobox changed to refer to it), or the image here with the same file name would need to be deleted.

However, that technical background is not what I think should be done, because my best guess is that your upload to the Commons is invalid, and the image is a copyright violation (though not one made by you knowingly). Are you the publisher of the book, its author, the creator of the image or otherwise situated so that you might own this image – retained or had its ownership legally transferred to you? You might be, in which case there's no issue, just so long as you understand that your giving up most of your rights to the image by licensing it under CC-By-SA 4.0. In that case, ask for the local image to be deleted (since its fair use would be rendered invalid by a free equivalent existing). You can use {{subst:Rfu}} and explain in the edit summary the existence of the Commons image with a link to it.

On the other hand, do you have no ownership whatever over the image, but had thought (as is not at all uncommon) that by scanning or uploading it, it somehow became your "own work", and so you could provide a free copyright license for it?

If the latter is the case, what I suggest you do is:

i) go the the Commons and mark the page for speedy deletion, e.g., by editing the page and placing something like {{Speedydelete|1=My own upload. I was unaware that I did not become the owner of its copyright by scanning and uploading the image.}};

ii) go the the local image page, File:French Historical Studies.gif, and click near the bottom of the page " • Upload a new version of this file" and upload the new image under the same claim of fair use already present on the page and then;

iii) Mark the prior version for deletion by clicking edit at the top of the page and placing this template: {{subst:orfurrev}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Fughettaboutit. I actually do have the right to post the image on Wikipedia; I'm one of the journal's editors and I post will full permission, in fact the urging of, the press that prints the journal. I'll go sort things out! uscedwardsUscedwards (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is watching?

Hello, Teahousers. This is probably a dumb question ... they're my speciality ... but is there any way to find out who is watching an article? This is really just for curiosity, prompted because I was wondering whether anybody watches my User Talk page. I tried "what links here" but that does not have anything. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz - You can't tell who, and you can only tell how many, if there are more than 30 - in your case there are "Fewer than 30 watchers" as shown here - Click "Page information" in the LH column - which tells me that 1,010 editors have this Teahouse page on their watchlist. - Arjayay (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Great - thanks for that, Arjayay. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealing With Socks

Per Dealing with sock puppets, you should "not ever call someone a sock puppet on an article or user talk page or in any edit summary", but I've seen experienced editors accuse fellow editors of being socks, and revert on said basis. There seems to be a contradiction with regards to Wikipedia convention and what policies say, or am I wrong? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to bear in mind that WP:Dealing with sock puppets is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. The policy is at WP:Sock puppetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Another essay which is often used in sockpuppetry situations is WP:DUCK. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi DevilWearsBrioni. This seems couched at providing rules of thumb to avoid drama and actions that might backfire on you if not done circumspectly, rather than to set a rule in stone. Anyway, no such concrete behavioral prescription can envision every circumstance where the advice might fail. And even if the advice is wise, and most of the instances you've seen would have been better rethought, this is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, with one user's take. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP's question might perhaps be read in the context of the discussion at User talk:Dr.K.#Panagiotis Kone. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. And yes, David Biddulph, that's the discussion. One a related note, how does one deal with sock edits? In my experience, it seems a bit arbitrary. Certain parts have been reverted, while other edits remained. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph and Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you David and Fuhghettaboutit for your very well-made points. Now I think we can put this matter to rest. Best regards. Dr. K. 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with reference

I would be grateful if I could have help with a reference.

I have been trying to format ref 38 but fail each time. Instead I get ref 39 (which I don't require). What am I doing wrong? Could you format ref 38 for me please.

Your help would be much appreciated.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is presumably about Draft:Feargus Hetherington. Rojomoke (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Cured with this edit. You had two problems. The first was that you had two | url = parameters in ref 39, so it ignored the first (correct) one and gave you the second (incorrect) one. The second problem was merely that ref 38 was an unformatted duplicate of 39, so I've deleted it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfairly declined, despite more references

Hi, My article on Moritz Götze, one of Germany's most relevant contemporary artists, has been declined twice. The first time was justified and I put more references in. I am very unhappy about the second reply which suggests the article reads like an advert for the artist. This is nonsense. My tone is neutral, I have nothing to do with the artist, I just thought, he should be represented, as his work is appreciated and loved by many. He has exhibitions not only in Germany, but in the US, India and soon in London. What can I do? Once the page is up, surely other people can add more references? Slothberina Slothbearina (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:Moritz_Goetze.

Slothbearina: It's not how many references there are that's the problem, it's their quality. At present, there's only one (the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung) that does anything to establish his notability. And "Once the page is up, surely other people can add more references" suggests that you have misunderstood something. Notability needs to be established before the article goes up. Other people can already add more (and preferably better) references, if they can find any. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit clash)Hello, Slothbearina and welcome to the Teahouse. The article in question is Draft:Moritz Goetze. Also pinging the reviewer, @RadioFan:. I am sorry if you are finding the process frustrating. It can take several attempts to get the article into line with Wikipedia's way of doing things, especially they are strict about biographies of living people. I encourage you to stick with it and to contact the reviewers if you have specific questions about their comments.

From a brief look, I did notice a couple of things that you could start with - expressions like "His father ... was one of the most original artists of the counter-culture movement" may be okay if it is a quote from a reliable source, but not as a bald statement - who says so? Similarly, comments like "the East German authorities had blocked his development as an artist" need a good source. These both come from the first paragraph of "Life", which only gives one reference at the end of the paragraph - but that reference does not say anything that relates to any statement in the paragraph; it appears to be just a website that sells art books etc. You need to build the article based on what is stated in the references. Not just adding more references, but references that support the statements made in the article.

So where did you find out that his father was "one of the most original artists of the counter-culture movement"? Put it as a reference. Where did you find out "the East German authorities had blocked his development as an artist"? Put it as a reference. And so on for the rest of the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions on my Moritz Götze article!

That gives me something to work with. I appreciate your help a lot! SlothbearinaSlothbearina (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How can I dispute a decision made by an editor to deny a page because he/she feels the person is not noteworthy?

Hello,

My name is Ted Gehring. I am a Ford's Theatre Teacher Fellow who currently teaches American History in St. Francis, MN. This past summer, I had a chance to study under some of our country's best Civil War historians during a NEH Scholarship experience at Ford's Theatre.

While completing my course work, I repeatedly came across the name of an African American servant who played a major role in foiling the attempted assassination of William H. Seward, as well as the capture and conviction of Lewis Powell. Bell attempted to turn Powell out, witnessed the Powell attack Seward's son (Frederick), obtained help from a nearby military headquarters, returned in time to get a make on the assassin's get away horse and give chase, later picked Powell out of the police line up, and gave important eye witness military tribunal testimony led to Powell's guilty verdict at a time when black testimony was widely seen as inadmissible in court.

While Bell's story and picture is present on the front page of period newspapers, and in the military tribunal testimony, he has been mainly written out of the story because he was black. People who played a lesser role in this event have a Wikipedia page (for example, Frances Adeline Seward).

To help rectify the heroic role William Bell played in this major historic event, my students researched and wrote the Bell page which I have been trying to have published. However, our page has been denied because my editor believes Bell is not noteworthy. This is ridiculous. According to the Wikipedia page, a person should not be included if all of the following 3 criteria are not met.

1.If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

    - Bell's major contribution to US history is tied to the Seward assassination, and Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Military Tribunal

2.If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Bell's role in the event was front page news during his time period which is odd considering the time period in which he lived. Blacks were often not written about, trivialized, and/or marginalized due to period racism. If his role is not rectified, how can he ever not remain a low-profile individual?

3.If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Bell's role is both well documented in period newspapers, tribunal testimony, and current history works by leading Civil War historians that have written on the topic. Furthermore, Bell's testimony is more extensive than other white people of privilege from the time who have been given a Wikipedia page (Frances Adeline Seward for one). Like many heroic African Americans of his time, Bell did not receive a metal for his heroism like Seward's white body guard George F. Robinson who was present probably due to period racism that existed. Because Bell was not awarded a metal for his actions like Robinson should Bell not be included? (Robinson has his own Wikipedia page as well)

I can site Bell in more secondary sources on the topic if this is helpful. My class really could use help here.

- Yours truly, Mr. Ted Gehring and his 7th Grade Class 96.3.0.200 (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It would help if you could give us a wikilink to the page that has been deleted, or to the draft that has been declined. One point which I would make is that "WP:other stuff exists" is not normally a strong argument to use. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the draft is Draft:William H. Bell, submitted by Ted.gehring (talk · contribs). --Murph9000 (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A quick Google search turns up some additional potential references: [1]

Ted, my gut feeling on this is that you simply have to be both patient and persistent. I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia's policies on this are normally handled rather strictly, and your case does not appear to be significantly unusual in that regard. It seems to me that there should be books and articles in those search results which can be cited to help prove notability. I think the issue isn't really about whether Mr Bell has notability, it's about convincingly proving it, achieving verifiability through well cited reliable sources. That's how I interpret the most recent message declining the submission. To me, that suggests that the article's content is basically ok, it's primarily the references which are the problem, and you simply need to try to add more citations to support significant statements in the article. I believe that if you add more references, including multiple references to the same point (for Wikipedia, there's basically no such thing as too many references, as long as they are good references), you will probably ultimately succeed.

--Murph9000 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

unsourced comment

In Nihal (name), someone slipped in the following about two weeks ago: "For this reason, people with the mentioned name happen to be unique, successful individuals." I removed that sentence for obvious reasons. At the same time, they also added: "The name also means tall and slim." There is nothing wrong with this, but I don't know if it is true. There is no source, but there are no sources for what was there prior. Given the nature of this article (really a short paragraph), should it have normal references? Mb66w (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mb66w, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to all content on Wikipedia, and therefore if a source can't be found, the material should be removed. It looks like it already has been in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mb66w. This is a problem I quite often have: somebody adds some unsourced material to an already poorly sourced article: what do I do? Often what I do is to remove the addition (with a suitable edit summary), and separately add a {{refimprove}} tag to the top of the article. Much better would be to take the time to research the article and look for references (including for the new information), adding those where I can find them, and removing information which I cannot verify; but that can be a lot of work. I do it sometimes, but not often. Sometimes it is apparent that the subject is not notable; again there are choices: to nominate if for deletion, or just to tag it with {{notability}}. --ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mb66w, Cordless Larry, and ColinFine: I've been thinking about this issue a little, and realised that I have to voice strong objection to one word used above, "should". WP:UNSOURCED states that it "may be removed", which is quite different from "should be removed". Wikipedia would suffer tremendous damage if "should" was widely and indiscriminately applied. Each and every case needs to be carefully considered individually, and only the troublesome statements should be removed. Leaving the less troublesome (or more reasonable, just uncited) statements in place, but adding an inline {{citation needed}} tag to the specific statement is a far more reasonable and productive thing to do, as well as being entirely consistent with the WP:UNSOURCED policy. The consideration should be per statement, not per article, so an article with 10 unsourced statements might have 1 removed and 9 tagged for citation needed. Indiscriminate removal might even cause people look at it as vandalism. I'm not suggesting that the specific thing which opened this discussion should be restored, only that "should" is the wrong approach (and is not consistent with the official policy). --Murph9000 (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Point taken, Murph9000, but note that WP:UNSOURCED also states that material challenged or likely to be challenged should be sourced. The statement that Nihal "also means tall and slim" sounds rather suspicious to me (perhaps someone called Nihal added it), so I would challenge it and require a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement concerned was added as part of this one edit, so there is no reason to believe that the second part of the edit was any more truthful than the obviously fictitious first part. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry and David Biddulph: Yeah, I agree, when viewed in context, removal does seem quite appropriate for this specific case. I think a good way of describing it might be that you should ideally have a better reason than purely being unsourced, and the context of that edit is a significant factor which tips the balance towards removal. --Murph9000 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Green number in parentheses

On my list of user contributions, the first thing on each entry is the time stamp. Then, I see the diff and hist buttons. After that, there's a number that is green and in parentheses. What is this? What does it mean? --Nicolás Macri (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nicolás, welcome to the Teahouse. That number is the size of the edit, in bytes. It can also be red, if the edit made the article smaller. Larger changes are in bold (I forget exactly what the threshold is, I think it's something like more than 500 or 1000 bytes for bold). --Murph9000 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Nicolás Macri (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Advice on how to read the contributions page is given at Help:User contributions. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

On the Greek Alphabet page the word "been" is missing

In this line "In both Ancient and Modern Greek, the letters of the Greek alphabet have fairly stable and..." Between have and fairly should be the word been. Because the page is locked no one can fix it. After an hour of trying to figure it out I am posting here. It seems ridiculously hard to fix stuff on wikipedia. Tekland (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read the whole sentence, which says "In both Ancient and Modern Greek, the letters of the Greek alphabet have fairly stable and consistent symbol-to-sound mappings, making pronunciation of words largely predictable." The words "stable" and "consistent" are adjectives which apply to "sound mappings". You are reading it as if the word "stable" applied to "letters", and as if the "and" were leading on to a separate clause, which it doesn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Tekland, welcome to the Teahouse. The page is "semi protected", so can only be edited by people with a longer editing history. This is a necessary protection for some pages, due to persistent problematic editing. I have looked at the page, and I believe that you are referring to the first paragraph of the Sound values section. As far as I can see, the text is correct as currently written. It is not talking about changes over a period of time (as would be the case if the word "been" was inserted), but the pronunciation of words, i.e. the sound of each letter in different contexts. In English, for example, the letter 'g' has a completely different sound in "growl" compared with "enough". That sentence is saying that Greek has far fewer cases of that type of confusing variation. I did study ancient Greek many decades ago, and I believe that what is written there is accurate (although my ancient language skills are really very rusty these days, and I certainly never was an expert in the subject). --Murph9000 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking to Hate Sites

What is the relevant policy about linking to hate sites? Is it simply WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, or is there a more directly relevant policy regarding links to racist or neo-fascist content? (Please ping me when replying, or reply on my talk page -- thanks!) MarkBernstein (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there may be a bit of a grey area on it. If the site adds no value as a source (due to failing one of the usual criteria for sources), there's normally no reason to include it. Otherwise, WP:ELNO applies, and WP:LINKLOVE may also be relevant. However, these are all guidelines, and not policies. It looks to me like the only policy prohibited links are copyvio and stuff blocked for technical reasons, per WP:ELNEVER. My personal view, is that if a generally objectionable site is needed to neutrally document something, then linking to it may be a necessary evil, but that such things should be generally minimised when it is reasonable to do so. --Murph9000 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: so you know you have an answer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz, although I did send Mark an official teahouse talkback. :) --Murph9000 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic: Dear Liz. The Teahouse gives Teahouse hosts a nifty link that shows up next to a poster's signature and it looks like this: [TB]. When we click on that link it automatically sets a Teahouse Talkback announcement on the Talk page of the user like this: User talk:MarkBernstein#Teahouse talkback: you.27ve got messages. It is a Teahouse Host User Script that has to be installed manually to activate the feature. The only challenge is to remember to copy the thread heading name to clipboard so it can be pasted in to the [TB] process so the user can easily get back to the question from a link in the Talkback message on their User page. Casing and exact wording is important for the link to work; that's why copy/paste is the safest way to insert the topic name in to the [TB] chain. The Teashouse Talkback message can also be set manually via a template, but that is more tedious. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Talkback messages and I post one on user talk pages when I answer a question. I didn't answer Mark's question though and was just responding to his request to Please ping me when replying, or reply on my talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Gotcha. I just considered a Talkback message to be in lieu of a complete reply. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

On topic: Greetings, and welcome again to the Teahouse MarkBernstein. I would say it would usually fall under TMEL (too many external links). Also, hate sites would fall under personal sites or Blog sites typically. Here is the nutshell on external links:

Note: WP:External links is a guideline, not a policy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MarkBernstein. True "hate sites" cannot be considered reliable sources, and therefore should not be cited as references except in extremely limited ways. Exceptions would be for uncontroversial facts like the name of the proprietor or the city where it is headquartered. But some hate sites are themselves notable and deserving of an encyclopedia article. This is in no way an endorsement. We have articles, for example, about Hitler's book Mein Kampf and the Nazi hate newspaper Der Stürmer, and each article has external links to disturbing content. If a modern operating hate website is notable, then we should both include frank assessments of what reliable sources say about the site, and also include a link to that site in our article about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am mildly curious as to why MarkBernstein, a longstanding and experienced editor, has asked this question here on a page for new users, rather than at the Help Desk. Maproom (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

sorry to cause inconvenience. I was pretty sure you'd have this at the tip of your fingers, and tea has a nicely dramatic sound. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Article approval

My article has been declined a couple of times. Im not sure if its the content of the piece thats not correct or whether its the sources. Ive added lots of credible, reliable sources to the article which validate the content - so im unsure where im going wrong! JDoe2016 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In the future, when asking about an article, please provide its name, Draft:Vrumi. Read the comments by the reviewers. They say that, although the references are from reliable sources, they don't establish corporate notability. It might be helpful to ask the reviewers, at their talk pages, to explain their declines here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia article deletion - please help!

Hi Wikipedia experts My article Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari has been deleted. I think the community have seen it as promotional. Please can you advise? I want to edit the source so to remove any promotional language. Or would I need to create the article again? The reason why I want to do this is because I stupidly created a username that makes it appear the subject of the article is the creator of the article, where I am not Ahmed Saad. Please advise as what to do? Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Ahmedsaad.ihsan you could ask for a WP:REFUND to your sandbox or the draft area so you can work on the article outside of the mainspace. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(e.c.)This was deleted per AFD discussion. It was deleted primarily because there was not enough evidence of the subject's notability. See WP:Notability. We need to see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Meters (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

thank you for both of your comments. How can I attempt to rewrite the article? Or do I have to create a new entry again? Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Ahmedsaad.ihsan, you can post a request to WP:REFUND asking for a copy to be restored to your sandbox or the draft area. Or if you want to start again use the Articles for creation process starting with the Article wizard. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But, given what Meters has said about notability, Ahmedsaad.ihsan, your time would best be spent first of all finding reliable independent sources which discuss the Al-Azhari at length. If you cannot find much published material written about him by people who have no connection with him, then it will not be possible (for anybody) to write an acceptable article about him at present, and I advise you not to try. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine, thank you for your comments and advice. I will try and find more independent sources for sure. However I would like to mention my article did contain independent sources e.g. from newspapers etc. Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

also, I don't understand - I have seen articles which have references that are linked to the subject. Why are these articles not deleted? Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably because we haven't got round to them yet. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of articles that should be deleted. Also please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF.--ukexpat (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And also because non-independent sources are permitted, Ahmesaad.ihsan, for certain kinds of information (uncontroversial factual data such as dates and places); but most of the sources for an article should be independent. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Mike McMullen

Mike McMullen edited Mike McMullen, and he needs a bit of help with the wikimarkup for references. Please do not use scary WP:COI templates. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

He shouldn't be editing the article. He should be requesting edits at the talk page, Talk: Mike McMullen. If he needs help on wikimarkup for references on some other article, we can give it to him. If he requests the edits at the talk page, an experienced editor can add the references. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, though the page could use some further TLC.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, you are awesome! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Article got speedily deleted, flagged for Vandalism (G3), but it's not a hoax

I wrote my first article about a social phenomenon that exists at my college because when I searched for it I found that there was no article already. Perhaps I wrote it too humorously and thus it got flagged, but it is not a hoax or a joke. People legitimately talk about the president's hair all the time (separate from the way that the talk about the president herself, who is also talked about a lot), and it has gotten to be more well-known than several bands I know. What can I do to get this article back up? Jampot (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, from the sound of what you have said here (remember, I can't see the article), it does not sound even remotely like something appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I sincerely doubt that it would qualify as having WP:NOTABILITY and good WP:RS to support the notability. Has there ever been an article written about it by a professional journalist and published in a respected national newspaper? It's not the official Wikipedia standard, but if a professional journalist wouldn't report on it, it's probably not ever going to be suitable for Wikipedia. Unless you can make a good case for it having WP:NOTABILITY, it will not happen. --Murph9000 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like maybe the wrong tag was used, but it sounds like it should have been deleted. Maybe A11- obviously made up and not notable should have been used instead. Either way, this thing doesn't sound like it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the article seems to be Sandra Gray's Hair- guessing there's never going to be a notable article under that name. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See also, WP:NFT, which explains how you could create the notability (with vast effort in the real world). At one time, WP consensus about the iPhone was that it did not have notability, so it got deleted! Basically, get an entire nation (or the planet) talking about it, and you can have a WP article without a problem, but WP will not assist in achieving that. --Murph9000 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear TehJampot and a very sincere welcome to the Teahouse. FYI the article on Kylo Ren was deleted over and over for lack of notability, etc. until it stuck. Then it quickly became the 4th most popular article on the English Wikipedia once it stuck. There is also an article on hotel toilet paper folding, nose-picking, etc. and those articles have stuck. Good luck in your efforts. Hang in there. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

using the equation editor

It looks like I will have to use the equation editor, but there is a problem. When I open it, the editing window is very small. I can not see the code and the equation at the same time, unless I reduce text size so much as to induce severe eye strain. Is there a way to fix this? Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the equation editor myself, as it's not something I would use. If you are familiar with TeX or LaTeX, you can use that for your formulae and the like, and it's all just normal LaTeX source you type into the standard wiki source editing window. See Help:Displaying a formula. A quick example: $ax^{2}+bx+c=0$ --Murph9000 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Murph9000. I've used TeX enough to know the logic, but not the details, of the syntax. But I find that if I go into "edit source" I can copy existing formulas and modify to get what I want. A bit inconvenient, but workable, at least for the time being. @Murph9000: Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Retired Pchem Prof and a hearty welcome to the Teahouse. How is the equation editor accessed? Or do I need to get off my duff and poke around for it? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The way I did it: Click on "edit" (not "edit source") then click on the equation; a little window will pop up, click on "edit" and you are into the editor. The equation and code appears in a window near the top of the page, with "edit" and "options" tabs. On a big monitor, or using small text, it would be fine. But with my aging eyes on a laptop, not so much. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: I do not really understand what you mean, would you be so kind to upload a screenshot? You can use something like Imgur.com and post the link here. It is possible to change the MediaWiki interface to your liking using Cascading Style Sheets. For example, we can change the width of the Formula editor with:

.oo-ui-window-frame {width:100% !important;}

If you post a link to a screenshot someone may be able to give you some CSS to change the appearance of the Formula editor. In general, when reporting computerproblems, it is a good idea to mention the name of your Operating system and Web browser. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting help for an editor who seems to be editing in good-faith, but struggling

The Teahouse helped me quite a bit awhile back, so I thought I'd bring this here. User:Wikihil123 seems, at least to me, to be editing in good faith, but is not properly using reliable sources. There is now an open thread at ANI, where another more experienced user has asked that he be banned. Would a Teahouse regular be willing to step in and try to help this editor become a better contributor? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The editor has now been blocked for 1 week for "incompetence." While I feel that's a fairly punitive action, I still hope that someone from this board will step in and help this editor become productive. Thus far, most of the experienced editors that have posted to Wikihil123's talkpage have been much less friendly than you all were when I asked for help at this page quite awhile back. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You are very kind to try to help this editor, Hallward's Ghost. I would be happy to assist them if they show any sign of understanding the problems with their contributions. Many editors have pointed out the problems, and so far, they show no sign of taking the concerns seriously and trying to do better. A basic level of competence is required here, though perfection isn't. For example, some editors add good content but are poor spellers. Other editors happily correct spelling errors. This particular editor seems unwilling or incapable of making any truly useful contributions to the encyclopedia, at least at this time. Adding a reference that does not support the claim is a major problem, for example. They seem incapable or unwilling to make the effort to even approximate a proper encyclopedic prose writing style. These are major issues, and not a petty matter by any means. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I must confess, then, that I've apparently misread the situation entirely. Where I saw genuine confusion, and a good faith (albeit misguided) attempt to add burial information to articles, others see something more nefarious. Since I seem to be a lonely chorus of one, I will bow out and leave the situation be. Thank you for looking into it. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 08:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm new, and I would like some information.

I would like a rundown of how Wikipedia editing works, and how I could edit better and more professionally. EditingJay (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a fairly huge and open-ended question. I have dropped one of the larger standard welcome messages on your talk page, which has a large number of links to helpful information. Please have a look at that and see if it provides what you would like to know. If you have any specific questions now, or still have questions after reviewing that welcome message, please do ask them here. --Murph9000 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A good question that ought to have a simple answer. I am struggling with the same thing. A couple other users have very kindly come to my aid, but it is really not a substitute for proper documentation. There are some documents like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts but I do not know how to systematically find them. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tell us the specific things you are still looking for, or even the broad areas of documentation, Prof, and I'm sure people here will be happy to try to point you in the right direction. In general, the documentation is mostly all there somewhere, it's more commonly a question of finding the specific thing you are looking for. --Murph9000 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@SonicXtremeXD: @Retired Pchem Prof: All documentation or help pages on the Wikipedia start with either Wikipedia: (or the short form WP:) or Help: . If you type WP:Whatever you are looking for or Help:Whatever you are looking for in the general search box up in the top right-hand corner, something is bound to be suggested. The WP: and Help: work as kind of prefix for all documentation. As far as I know there is no general index of all these pages other than perhaps the catagories they are sorted in. Try it out with some things you wonder about and see the results.

Another way of getting introduced to how to edit here is to do the tutorial mentioned at the top of this page where it says: Play The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit in about an hour. w.carter-Talk 19:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For more detail there is The Missing Manual.--ukexpat (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Book references - small print.

Hi, I've found plenty of references in Google Books for a subject I'm considering, but the pages shown are not complete, or too small to read - making citations difficult, how do I get around this? Alfshire 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

editing

how do i put images in a gallery

==Gallery==
<gallery>
??????????
</gallery>

Hunter gjp (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hunter gjp. There are a few pages that provide relevant material and instruction here. Please see Help:Gallery tag, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, and the template documentation at {{Gallery}}. The format of the tags you placed above (which I tweaked slightly so they can be seen) is essentially correct. As you will see at the syntax section of gallery tag help page, you just need to add between the gallery tags above the full names of existing images, though there are various ways to modify the default display. Be aware that many users have difficulties where they attempt to manually type the names, rather than copy and paste them. If you get one letter wrong in any way, including capitalization, the image will not be recognized and called to the gallery. Also, please be careful that you are only including suitably free images in the gallery, such as those from the Wikimedia Commons – fair use images are rarely appropriate in galleries. Anyway, here's a very basic gallery, which you can view in edit mode to see how it was placed:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Hunter gjp (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Subject is reference

Hi, I'm trying to create an article in which it matches the criteria for original content, as well as notability, but the subject of the article is my reference. How do I cite the reference so the content becomes verifiable for the page Cason Cooley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekozacek (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 January 2016‎ (UTC)

If you are saying that you can't find any references independent of the subject, the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, so the article will be deleted. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Help.

My page Allama Abdul Malek Halim and Al-jamiatul Arabia Lil Baneena Wal Banaat Haildhar Anwara are going to be deleted. Plz go ther and correct it.its very nesessery files for bangladeshHamdan Munir (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would think that this is not the section for this type of help but I do hope that instead of unilaterally deleting articles so soon after being notified that others will provide just as speedy guidance to improve what remains of these articles since WP English has so much more work needed to help sub-continent subject matters improve to the level that western articles are that explain that society/culture.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hamdan Munir: I would advise you to leave it to be deleted, and then recreate it as Draft:Haildhar Madrasah. Making it a draft rather than a live article will give you a chance to get it ready, without risk of deletion before you have finished. And as this is English-language Wikipedia, a name in English is preferable. Maproom (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with persistent non-registered spammer/vandal

On Colour recovery, someone using various IP addresses (178.71.158.64 / 178.71.135.235 / 178.71.130.124 / 178.71.137.112 at least) keeps adding information about a "secret" colour recovery process by Solar Green. The discussion on the talk page seems to agree that at the very least there do not exist any reliable sources for this information; moreover, based on the talk discussion it seems quite likely that the person making the changes is the same person who created the Solar Green website, which is the only source that exists at all for the topic. I and other editors have been reverting these changes. There is another, unrelated edit (removing excessive italicisation), which does not appear to actually be in dispute, that has been caught up in the ensuing series of reverts.

What is the appropriate course of action in this case? So far no one has violated the three revert rule, but at this point the repeated edits adding unsourced information and arbitrarily reverting an undisputed edit are really becoming spam/vandalism, and edit warring does not seem like the right approach.

- cpcallen (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey cpcallen. I have semi-protected the article for ten days. We'll see if that fosters any discussion and production of any reliable sources verifying these persistent edits, though it looks like a clear cut case for promotion by someone involved with the material. Protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - cpcallen (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article sounds like a "press release"

Hello - my article on Pompea Smith has been deleted because it "reads like an advertisement or press releases for her". I have many references for Pompea Smith in reliable sources and have chosen to do an article on her because of her commitment to low-income communities in a non-profit organization. Is there a specific section I could go to in order to edit the article for approval? I believe the comment that reviewer DDG wrote refers to the writing style. Any suggestions out there? THANK YOU! Lily Prigioniero (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIO. If you are confident that she qualifies as having notability, and can support that via reliable sources, then the AfC process is a good way to create the article via reviewed drafts, and will give you a chance and hopefully some collaborative help to develop it to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. New articles in main article space come under immediate heavy scrutiny, and need to pass many criteria to avoid being speedily deleted, but AfC drafts get a little more generous treatment, as long as it is credible to develop an encyclopaedic article on the topic and there appears to be a good faith effort to do so. Make sure that you provide your reliable sources at the earliest opportunity, so that notability can be rapidly established. The standard welcome notice on your talk page contains a number of links to useful information and guidelines about editing on Wikipedia. --Murph9000 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Uploading logos and images to wikipedia

Hi,

Could someone please help me understand how one can upload a logo to wikipedia? Aren't most, if not all, logos copyrighted? So how are users able to uplaod corporation logos into the infobox of the respective wikipage?

Also how does one upload an image into Wiki Commons?

Thanks in advance!

Finivino1000 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finivino1000, yes, most but not all logos are copyrighted and non-free. We are able to use them under US fair use law. Use of non-free content is highly restricted by Wikipedia:Non-free content (NFC) rules, but the use of one logo in the infobox to visually identify the subject of an article is usually acceptable. NFC rules are actually made somewhat more strict than what is necessary to justify fair use in order to encourage the reusability of articles. —teb728 t c 08:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As to uploading images to Wikimedia Commons Finivino1000, you can click the Commons Wizard link at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. You can't upload non-free logos or other non-free content to Commons. —teb728 t c 08:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You might also find the step-by-step instructions which I added to the question Adding club crest to an info box below helpful.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

JC Gonzalez

We have been working in this page about this actor, songwriter, singer and dancer. He is a young man with talent. Please can you review and give me your feedback and help us to improve this page. Thanks :)Texancool (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

JC Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--ukexpat (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Texancool, if you take a look at the current deletion discussion it will be clear that editors don't consider that Gonzalez at present meets our "notability" requirements. Wikipedia is not a means to promote anyone's career, only to provide easier access to information published in independent sources about notable topics. Your words "we" and "us" are something of a concern too, as Wikipedia accounts are for use by only one person: Noyster (talk), 13:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Texancool. The basis for the articles for deletion discussion on him is lack of notability. This can only be remedied if the type of sources needed to demonstrate notability exist. What we want are reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic, that treat the topic in substantive detail. Citing such sources shows that the world has taken note of the topic, and allows an article to be written with verifiable information that requires no original research for its content. Please understand that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability – the sources we require either exist or they do not. People appear to have looked and not found them. So, if you can find sources, do so quickly (as the AfD is already at seven days), cite them and then note your discoveries and additions at the AfD debate. If you cannot, then chalk this one up to a learning experience about what to do and not to do when writing a Wikipedia article. In short, gather good sources first; write only using what they verify (without copying their words); and decide in the first place whether to write on a topic only after determining that the requisite sources exist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:A. C. C. Cigars

I reviewed Draft:A. C. C. Cigars and declined it as reading like an advertisement. It was previously likewise declined, with the comment “Spam”. User: SaschaIllyvich then wrote to my talk page: "Hey Robert, What specifically is triggering this response? This is NOT an advertisement. I don't work for the company nor do I have any affiliation with them. How can I get this through Wiki? Thanks for your help, mate. Sascha "

Can some other experienced editor either agree that it should be accepted or advise her as to whether it can be improved and how? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help mate. I thought I pulled all the ad-like content out of the article and I did model it after successful cigar company wiki entries. I was told in a chat that "sometimes those entries aren't good examples." If that's so, why aren't they pulled or cited?

I really appreciate it.

The OTHER thing that would help me would be to grant me access as a content contributor to the Cigar Wiki where this article would better be suited. I've applied, but that was months ago.

Again, thank you.

SaschaIllyvich (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SachaIllyvich. This is far from the worst I've seen, but it does still read like an ad, for two reasons. The main one is the detailed list of products. If the reader wants a detailed list of products, they can follow the link to the company's website. A Wikipedia article should only summarise, and probably only mention those products which independent reliable sources have written about. The other is certain evaluative statements, such as "brought with him generations of Cuban expertise": a statement like this should never appear in any Wikipedia article, unless it is directly derived from what an independent source has said. Even "family-run" might seem like a statement of fact, but if you think about it, it is still a bit of peacock language|, appropriate to a promotional brochure but not an encyclopaedia.

The reason I would not accept this article as it stands is that it is nowhere near sufficiently referenced, and I am not sure that it contains enough independent sources even to establish that the company is notable: the first two references are not about the company at all; I haven't looked at the other two, but from the title I would guess that the Smokeshop article at least, and perhaps the other one too, is written from a press release or interview and so not independent. Quite a number of statements in the draft might be challenged, and so need to be cited inline to reliable sources: The claim that "In every cigar-producing country of the world, except Cuba, the breed of tobacco most widely used for premium cigar wrappers is Ecuadorian Sumatra" is, in my view, original research, and must not appear in a Wikipedia article unless it is supported by a citation to a source which credibly makes that claim. (I am not disputing the claim itself, by the way; just saying that an article should not say it in Wikipedia's voice, but only by citing a source which says it). Even more problematic is the claim that "Jose Aray Marin, founder of the Aray tobacco family, was the first to crossbreed the Cubano variety with Sumatra varieties" - this is not only original research, but also promotional, and needs to be supported not just to a reliable source but to one independent of Martin (again, I am not challenging the claim, but only discussing its appearance in the article).

What the article desperately needs is a number of references to reliable sources independent of ACC (which excludes anything based on interviews or press releases from them). The article should then be written nearly 100% from those independent sources - if only the company has said something, it probably shouldn't go in the article (or at the very least, it should be covered as "Martin says that ..."

In answer to your other questions: the many bad articles have not been pulled because nobody has got round to it. We have over five million articles, and all editing is done by volunteers. If somebody finds an article which shouldn't be there, or needs major improvement, they can leave it, or add maintenance tags to point up its deficiencies, or they can work on it (which might be proposing it for deletion) - the last option may take significant work.

Looking at your draft, I see that it links to Ecuadorian Sumatra Tobacco which in my opinion has as many problems as this one. I may go and add some maintenance tags to it.

Finally - The Cigar Wiki has nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia (they merely use the same software which Mediawiki have made freely available) and nobody here can help you get access to it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Glaister

I reviewed Draft:Paul Glaister and declined it twice as not meeting notability guideline, and discouraged the submission of autobiographies. User:Paul Glaister has now inserted the following diff into the bottom of the article (rather than as an AFC comment): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3APaul_Glaister&type=revision&diff=700506601&oldid=699045995 He then removed it when I cautioned about inserting first-person language into the article itself. I agree that he does meet academic notability guidelines, but the draft needs work. Can other experienced editors please either review the article or caution Dr. Glaister about autobiographies? I see that the draft refers to his education only in the bottom of the article and not in the body of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, Robert McClenon and Paul Glaister. Writing autobiographies is a form of conflict of interest editing, which is discouraged but not forbidden. The Articles for Creation process was established, at least in part, to allow editors with a declared COI to create a draft for review by more experienced, generalist editors. Accordingly, an AfC draft should not be greeted with the hostility that is commonly given to a COI article plunked directly into the encyclopedia without in-depth review. Commend COI editors who use AfC rather than vilifying them. AfC should not insist on perfection, but should move articles to the encyclopedia main space when they have at least a 50-50 chance of surviving a deletion debate. Articles can and often will be improved later.

In this case, I see little doubt that Paul Glaister meets our notability guideline for academics. Yes, the draft is imperfect, but I believe that the encyclopedia is better off with the article than without it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - I agree that it is better to submit conflict of interest drafts to AFC than to dump them directly into mainspace. I agree that I have negative feelings toward autobiographies in general because most of the ones that I encounter in AFC are bad, not notable and containing peacock language. My own thought about this one, and this is only my opinion, is that the author should be asked to expand it somewhat, to give a synopsis of his education and career. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For one thing, Glaister shouldn't be described as "prolific", in Wikipedia's voice, without good sources that clearly describe him as such. Even if such sources are found, I think it best that such an opinion is attributed to its author rather than being in Wikipedia's voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear All

I have read the notes on my User: Paul Glaister page. Many of these are actually supportive. I hope you can still access the last version of the page even though I cannot as it has been deleted by an editor. There were suggestions on this thread that it might be appropriate for my page to be published, and I would welcome any advice as to how to make it more suitable and acceptable. I removed the phrase 'prolific' - I put it there on the basis that I had over 400 publications, and in that sense 'prolific', not least because that does represent something of an achievement. But I have removed the phrase now anyway. Anything I can add to the main body of the current version (if it still exists) that you can suggest would be very welcome. As one of my roles as Chair of JMC is relevant to hundreds of thousands of mathematicians and mathematics educators in the UK across universities, schools and colleges, it would seem appropriate that I appear somewhere and a link from the Joint Mathematical Council page to a page featuring me would seem appropriate. Paul Glaister (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul, please don't give up. It's almost certainly not over, if you can stay with it and let the Wikipedia policies and processes do their thing. Your deleted page can be retrieved by an administrator, and emailed to you under the WP:REFUND process. If it is any consolation, User:Jimbo Wales famously has had problems with updating Jimmy Wales, due to some of the very same policies that you are running into. Also, once upon a time, Wikipedia policy declared that the iPhone did not have notability, and deleted it. --Murph9000 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Glaister, the version of the article at Draft:Paul Glaister still exists and can be worked on. It was only the version that you had saved to your user page that was deleted, as that isn't the place for draft articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Murph9000 and Cordless Larry - very much appreciated. I guess I await further instruction/advice from editors as to what to do next! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Glaister (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Edited names

An admin choose to delete some names of award winners from a page I update for an association. notes show "NN" as a reason...can someone clarify what this means? WJD 22:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droop65 (talk • contribs)

The abbreviation is for "Not notable". See Wikipedia:Notability for details, and especially WP:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Dbfirs 23:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Droop65. When it comes to mentioning that someone won an award here on Wikipedia, the standard is how notable the award itself is. Let's face it. Awards are a dime a dozen. I have one for donating 100 units of blood, which took me decades of commitment, and I am very proud of it, but it is not worthy of mention in a Wikipedia biography. If someone won the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an Oscar, an Emmy or a Goldman Foundation "genius" grant, then no one will contest that. But if they won the Podunk County Best Hound Dog Trainer award, with a gilt synthetic ribbon, that is probably unworthy of mention here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

12v 20 amp gel batteries

Hello, i need information about 12v 20 amp gel batteries, please Emconrado87 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We have an article on VRLA battery#Gel battery. If this doesn't provide the information you seek, try asking on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science‎‎. Dbfirs 22:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Order of Article Elements

I'm adding a refimprove template to an article that already has a redirect at the top of it, does the refimprove come before or after the redirect? Alcherin (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If it is a redirect, it doesn't need references. The references will be on the article to which it is redirecting. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding a refimprove template to the top of a full article that has other titles redirecting to it. I was asking as to what order the templates should be in. Alcherin (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are perhaps saying that the article doesn't have a redirect at the top of it, but has a template indicating that another page redirects to it? In which case, that template comes before the refimprove. See WP:ORDER. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

promotional content in article

The lead paragraph in Heineken Green Room in Singapore concludes with: For updates on upcoming Heineken Green Room events, log on to https://www.facebook.com/heineken.

This strikes me as overly promotional. Should I just delete the sentence?

Mb66w (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing is a spamfest and should be deleted and recreated from a neutral POV, if indeed it is notable, or severely pruned.--ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely seems overly promotional to me. Also, the article's organization is a little strange -- listing year by year with just one or two events seems over-the-top. I might organize it in a more condensed fashion.

Disclosure: I am still new to this, my answer could be improved by someone much more knowledgeable! ;) Apspowerengineer (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Creating an autobiography.

hi our practice submitted an autobiography for our prosthodontist last week and I'm having trouble finding it but it's not in the deletion log. The Dr. has run a practice for 30+ years and well-reknown in the city. Is it possible to create a page without deletion? We have sources such as some magazine publications on the Dr., dental orgaziation memberships (ACP), and are trying to get online sources showing his degrees.

Any advice appreciated. Thanks, Sara Wrgdds (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you click on the "Contributions" link towards the top right-hand corner of any page it will take you to a list, including the userspace draft to which you refer. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

But please be aware, Sara that your words above suggest you may be in breach of several of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Autobiography is strongly discouraged; Accounts should be used by only one person (which your "Our practice submitted" suggests is not the case); and Wikipedia may not be used for promotion. If Dr Gielincki passes the test for notability (in Wikipedia's special sense - basically that there exist several substantial pieces about him, written by people unconnected with him and published in reliable places) then Wikipedia may have an article about him. It should be neutral in tone, based almost entirely on what these independent people have written about him, and not be written by him, or you, or "our practice" because of your conflict of interest. If you are here to help us improve Wikipedia, you are very welcome. But please do not come here to promote anything, whether a person, an idea, an organisation, or anything else. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft still exists, but is tagged for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Elaboration on the Cloudyn article deletion

Hello,

I would like to farther understand why the article I created, titled "Cloudyn", was deleted. I tried to stick to the format of the existing article about "Cloud Cruiser", a company that offers similar services. Which part of the article I wrote seemed to be commercial? How does it differ from the Cloud Cruiser article?

Thank you Mynameisalon (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft was rejected and subsequently deleted because it was too promotional in tone. Please see WP:SPAM.--ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Mynameisalon. Unfortunately, only administrators can see deleted pages, so I can't tell. I suggest you contact either the editor who deleted it, Jimfbleak or the editor who declined your submission, Robert McClenon. But note that just because an article exists doesn't mean it is a good model. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I declined it because it did not, in my judgment, establish corporate notability. Not every company is notable. It was then tagged for speedy deletion as too promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternate spelling, how to include in article?

I want to add to an article by showing an alternative spelling of a word is commonly used. Two questions: 1.) I can show this by pointing to many websites, but how should I determine which site is most valuable as a reference for this spelling? 2.) Is it ok to add this mention of an alternative spelling form in the first paragraph of the word's wiki page?

Thanks! Apspowerengineer (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Apspowerengineer. Good question. I take it that it is the subject of the article which has variant spellings? In that case, the lead (or the beginning of the first section after the lead) should certainly mention the different spellings. As to which spelling to use: like much else in Wikipedia, that is a question of judgment. If most of the reliable sources use one spelling, and only a few use others, then choose the most-used one. If they are evenly split, then I think it is up to you to choose a spelling and stick to it. If the spelling is a matter of different regional varieties of English, then unless the subject is particularly associated with one part of the English speaking world, again you can choose which spelling to use: see WP:ENGVAR. When you have written the article (or, if you are using the Articles for Creation process, when it has been reviewed and accepted and moved to main space) you probably want to create a redirect page from the other spelling.

Very good advice. The spelling is about a page already created on Wikipedia, so I will add to it to mention about the other common spelling and learn how to do the redirect as well. Thanks! Apspowerengineer (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

citing a search

I would like to support the statement that "a company is listed as a supplier of purified water in over 1400 peer-reviewed technical articles" by citing searches using Google Scholar and/or on the American Chemical Society database. These searches are clearly verifiable and repeatable and I do not want to cite the 1400 articles separately. How do I cite the searches?Paul W1901 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Paul W1901. I think there is some disagreement on this, but in my view, claiming that something is cited in more than 1400 articles would be original research and so not acceptable (especially since it appears to be promotional in intent). You would need an independent published source that says in so many words that it is listed in over 1400 articles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

I just signed up for suggest bot but it only gave me articles that are already in existence. How do I get suggestions for articles that don't exist yet cause I really like to do new articles😊 Only one interested in China related suggestions though.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Notgoingtotellyou Welcome to Teahouse. There is no bot to suggest non existent articles. You have to think according to your interest to create new articles. Still you can read Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Requested articles to see requests of some new articles. Also there are some stubs articles in Category:China stubs, you can expand those. Cheers.--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  16:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I notice from your edit history, that you have not previously created an article, or at least not one that has survived. I suggest that you consider using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, and creating drafts prior to main articles, at least for your first few articles. New articles in the main namespace come under heavy scrutiny almost instantly, and a great many of them get rapidly deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for a published article. Human's advice to start with expanding stub articles from WikiProject China is also excellent, as a stub that has survived for a week or two is much less likely to get deleted. You can possibly avoid some pain for completely new articles via the AfC process, although it is entirely up to you. If you are confident that there won't be a problem, you are welcome to go right ahead and boldly create your first article. --Murph9000 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

... and if you have another area of interest or expertise, you can choose from a long list at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Dbfirs 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Question!

Excuse Me, Can I make my fictional episode guide now? I've been waiting all morning to make one!TheBetterAccount2016 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In view of your hyperactivity here in creating multiple accounts and asking lots of questions, it might be wise to give Wikipedia a rest until you are older and able to make constructive edits. Meanwhile, your fake article is still here if you wish to copy it to your own webspace. You could create your own Wiki where you could add whatever you wish. Dbfirs 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Combine IP account with new account?

For several years I made contributions just through my IP address, without an actual Wiki account. Today I've created an account and now have no contributions...is there a way I can combine my contributions made while just using the IP address with my new account? Apspowerengineer (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Apspowerengineer, welcome to Teahouse and congrats for creating an account. But there is no way to combine contributions of two users. You can write on your user page that "I was editing since several years via IP". But it will better to not disclose your IP address. There is no need of combining contributions, you can have fresh start and you can use your past experience while editing via this account. Have happy editing. Cheers.--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, too bad, but I will plow on. Thanks!

Apspowerengineer (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My Redemption

Hi, I am the same user of American Weekend Pizza 2013, Gifted Teen, and Geno Robinson Wood. I'm sorry for what I did before and if you can find it somewhere forgive me, I promise I wont reopen List of Triton Henderson episodes for eternity. I am trying to make a change in Wikipedia. A brighter future on Wikipedia, I'm just an avarage person on Wikipedia. Please give me a second chance with account and my episode guide. I still want to make one. I stil want an acconut. I'll be the better user. I can change on Wikipedia. And god knows that!!! Now can I make my fictional episode guide now? ;DTheBetterAccount2016 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If the original poster hadn't been so busy bothering us with questions, we might not have noticed the sockpuppetry. This was a boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

New pages created by the person it is about?

Good afternoon, What is the stance on New Pages most likely created by the person the page is about? What do we do about it. I have seen one before that was obviously created by a bored school kid, and reported it for deletion. But I have just seen one by an actor, that was also not in English. Do we report it for deletion, or is there somewhere we can report it, for a more seasoned editor can look at it?, and decide if it is beneficial to Wikipedia? Cheers Lbmarshall (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the autobiography policy. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete

How can I delete my former accounts? such as AmericanWeekwendPizza 2013, Gifted Teen, and GenoRobinsonWood, 2602:306:3A5D:D950:D058:3859:AD9E:7374 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't delete former accounts, but you can put a note on the user page that the account is no longer in use. Why do you keep creating new accounts? Dbfirs 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q9: Notice all Facts!!!

And y'all users will always be cool with me. Y'all always be cool. Wikipedia Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But the problem is the episode guide problem. So i love wikipeida.2602:306:3A5D:D950:D058:3859:AD9E:7374 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The fake episode guide List of Triton Henderson episodes should never have been created. Dbfirs 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q8: Forget It Let Me TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!

First of all, why would users be watching my sandbox? It's for my personal use! Second, Can I please make my fictonal episode guide? Third, Will I be "breaking the law" when I create the fictional episode guide? I gonna make it no matter what! It is my sandbox for crying out loud!! I said it was fictional, so it's fictional. Why are the people making a stinking big deal out of it?! Like I said it is my sandbox! And y'all should read that it says the information is fictional. So It turns out that the info is fictional!! Why can't y'all notice that? I know wikipeida is open and all of that, but why can't i create my fictional episode guide? I'm not breaking no law when I'm just creating an episode guide which is infact "FICTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!" So, please. I beg you please. Can I make my fictional episode guide nnow?!!!AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You made your page here then deleted it, but we are puzzled by the purpose. If you just want webspace, then this is the wrong place for you. If you want to start making useful contributions, then you are welcome to have just one account. Dbfirs 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fictional or not isn't the question. The acceptable uses of user pages (including sandboxes) are described at Wikipedia:User pages: "User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site." Sandboxex are not private, they are not personal, they are not for any use beyond "purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project".--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q7:User Talk

Yes, David. I am the same user. I keep getting locked out of my account :( AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q6: Extra

Can I please make my fictional episode guide now? I always wanted to make one since July 2015. I promise I wont break the law. It's only on my sandbox! Please? can I make one?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered the questions which you were asked at #Q5: Final Bonus. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

About Youtube video links

When it is it ok to add a link to a Youtube video? I have seen such links here and there.

For now, I have added one to the Money burning to show what Serge Gainsbourg did and where he explains his motives.

The trouble with Youtube is that anyone can upload content but this does appear to be the original footage.

The subject is current as an arts student in the UK is apparently planning to burn money this year. I might add some information about this.

-- JamesPoulson (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was illegal to burn money here in the UK!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It probably is as in other countries. In the video from 1984 Gainsbourg said it was illegal then. I came across this article when doing research on the question. I think he's up to some social experiment as he's stated he will give to charity instead if he gets donations exceeding what he intends to burn. Anyway, coming back to the Wikipedia article I hope the video link is suitable. It's something that marked the memory of many people in France so I wanted other people to see the moment. --JamesPoulson (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"It's illegal to burn money" is a long-standing myth (it's illegal to deface money in the UK, but not to destroy it), although it is illegal in the US. You might want to point out to the art student that this was already done, very publicly, two decades ago. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of the UK in the Legality section.

Yes, many people have apparently referred to the stunt carried out by the KLF. The difference here is that he is going to burn money coming from a loan so it is not his and the wording on this page is a seeming political statement. I am not sure if the act should get a mention in the article but he has been covered by Vice and in the Daily Mirror according to the link posted previously.

I also saw this poetry film featuring money burning on social media. Is this worthy of mention? --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JamesPoulson. I have removed the link. There are a couple of separate issues here. First, external links in text are almost never allowed in Wikipedia: see WP:EL. They are allowed (in fact, encouraged) as part of references, but you presented that as a link, not a reference.

Secondly, linking to sites like YouTube, even as a reference, is allowed only if it is clear that the video has been posted in accordance with its copyright - i.e. with the explicit permission of the copyright holder. I'm not certain, but I don't get the impression that that is the case here, which is why I removed it. I have also removed the text you added before it, as (unlike the text I have left) that is not supported by a reference. If you can show clearly that the video on YouTube is not a copyright violation, then you could use it as a reference: since you would be using it to support the claim that he did burn, and his stated reasons, it would be acceptable even though it is a primary source. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine there are examples of links like this on the Ahmad Shah Massoud page. That is why I wasn't certain of how to go about things.

When you say that an external link is allowed as part of the references and not a link what do you mean exactly?

About copyright, the ideal would then be, say, the official channel of Gainsbourg, that of the television channel or perhaps some historical archive?

In this case, you are right. The main reason I used that link is because of the quality of the video. Hopefully I can find something suitable.

By primary source I understand this is a case when an exception is made.

Thank you :) --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JamesPoulson. I mean that a reference (between <ref> and </ref>, so that it will appear in the reference list at the bottom) must have sufficient bibliographic information that a reader can in principle locate it, and may also have a URL to an online location if one exists. It should always be to a reliable source, and the link must not point to a copyright violation. Part of reliability is being able to determine who put the material up: a document scanned and posted on some random website would not be regarded as reliable for any purpose; much of what is on YouTube similarly (as well as being copyright infringements).

So, to use a YouTube link as a reference, it would need to be on a channel that is clearly both reliable (authentic as to its source) and complying with copyright.

I don't know about Ahmad Shah Massoud - on a quick scan, I didn't find any external links, but if there are any they're almost certainly not allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine I get you. So if it's not online or has been moved elsewhere the source can still be found using the bibliographic information. I agree with what you say about Youtube. Most content is user-submitted and only the official channels respect copyright unless it's by an artist themselves.

For the article about Massoud a quick way to find markup to Youtube videos is to use the search feature of a browser. There are two Youtube videos linked inline although they aren't used to support the article text as I had. The funeral video is very important as it shows how popular he was.

P.S: Don't want people to think I'm searching about money burning. I was actually looking up money destruction (removal of money from circulation) but it did catch passing interest :p --JamesPoulson (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Youtube; I am looking to place a reference in a WP article for subject who was presented with a national radio award for his work with a major star in that country, but the only link I can find is the channel's own Youtube video of the event, is this acceptable as it actually proves he received the award? Alfshire 10:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Students and teachers

Wikipedia is not a school/university. There are course online volunteers. They have students. There are student accounts also. Very strange. Do they get admission and also prepare for examination? Marvel Hero (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Marvel Hero. I believe the things you have noticed are part of the Wikipedia:Education program. Wikipedia is not a school/university, but provides resources to help educators/students use and effectively edit Wikipedia as part of education courses. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Marvel Hero and Welcome to the Teahouse! A good overview about Wikipedia:School and university projects which may be helpful. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  13:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Two persons with same name confusion

Hi, I am considering a WP article on a notable composer/record producer who has had major chart hits (including Billboard) since the 1970s. However, I have discovered in 2001 another musician with the same name made an instrumental album, which also had some success. On search the only thing I can see is that the other person had no references for any instrumental or other recordings before 2001. To avoid confusion between the two people, how do I resolve this tricky issue? Regards, Alfshire Alfshire 11:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Alfshire. This is usually handled using disambiguation. Do not know as of yet how the intermediary page is done but someone here should be able to walk you through the steps. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alfshire, and welcome to the Teahouse. This happens all the time, and the approach is described in Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation. Then first consideration is to name each article uniquely. This is normally done either by giving each a qualifier in parentheses (but if one is most notable then that one may be left plain, without a qualifier), or sometimes by adding a middle name if that is more recognizable. Then we need to facilitate readers finding their way to the right article, and basically that hinges on the number of people who share the name. If there are only two or three, then at the top of each article a Hatnote is used to redirect readers who might have come to the wrong page - for an example, see Brian Schmidt. If there are more than about four people with that name, a separate disambiguation page is set up to direct the reader: for example, see William Smith. So in your case, your new article might be called something like "Lorem Ipsum (composer)". I hope that makes sense; I seem to be having trouble putting it into words clearly so please do look at the examples and I hope they will be clear. Otherwise, please come back and ask...--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice everyone, Alfshire. Alfshire 15:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion, Alfshire, is to work in Draft space (use the Article Wizard to create it) and simply not bother about the ambiguity for the moment: when you submit your draft for review, and it passes, the reviewer that accepts it will move it to main space, and sort out the naming then. If you think that the overlap betwen them is enough that reviewers might not realise they are separate people, then you can add something like {{for|the composer and producer|the instrumentalist|<name of the other article>}} at the top of your draft. --ColinFine (talk)

Thanks ColinFine, I am sure some have bought the instrumentalists album thinking it was the composer/producers work and I reckon the WP reviewers may also believe the same. I have now found a note on the composer/producers record label that the instrumentalist is an impostor cashing in on his fame, of course I cannot cite this as it doesn't meet the WP criteria of other reliable sources. I don't want to get involved in any ambiguity disputes so I may take your advice and add ...... .....(composer/producer) next to his name. Alfshire 10:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alfshire, welcome to the teahouse! As a sidenote, there is an easy way to sign your comments. You can type four tildes (~~~~) after the end of your message. Then your username and the date and time will automatically be added. Gap9551 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Noticed that now UTC, thanks again. Alfshire 10:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

referencs dont show subjects notibility

Hi,

I am a beginner to Wikipedia, and working on my page in the draftspace. It has been declined as the references don't show the subjects notability.

I have read the guidelines but still confused as to were I am going wrong. Please can you clarify if this refers to all the references listed and exactly were I am still making the error.

Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated Melissatanya (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link:- Draft:Exact Abacus - Arjayay (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Melissatanya. The draft currently contains only two references (which is barely enough for notability in any case); but though they appear to be reliable sources, the MEN article is obviously written from a press release and is therefore not independent of the company. I can't see more than the first few lines of the Business News article, so I can't be sure, but it looks to me as if that is probably from a press release as well: I may be wrong, in which case that is a useful reference, but you need at least one more.

I see that the draft has been nominated for a speedy delete by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, as unambiguous advertising, but I have removed that nomination because I don't agree. The company may turn out not to be notable, but if it is notable, I don't think the current content is unreasonable (though it will need to be added to from the sources). --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I notice there's quite a few Exact Abacus references in Google News, and some in Google books which might be worth considering?Alfshire 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback and advice. I am going to make the suggested changes and hopefully show more notability with the sources.

Your help has been much appriciated and i'm sure I'll get my had around this wikipedia in no time.

Thanks Melissatanya (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding club crest to an info box

Hello Teahouse,

I am beginner to wikipedia. I am working on a page in my sandbox, it is for our football club, Inter Taipei FC. I had uploaded the logo to go into the info box and couldn't get the correct size. After getting it right I tried to upload the final image and got the response, that the image already exists but was deleted. I am now unable to re-upload the image. Why?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Lion Harley (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

On your talk page on Wikimedia Commons, you will see a warning message explaining that the image was deleted because it was believed to be subject to copyright, and no-one had provided a copyright waiver. The message includes links described what you might be able to do about it. Maproom (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Images like this are called "non-free" images, and they go through quite a different process than normal "free" images, which are released for anybody to use. "Non-free" images are permitted on English Wikipedia (NOT Wikimedia Commons) under certain restrictive conditions. The full details are at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, but by far the easiest way to do it is to use the wizard. Basically: start with a low-resolution image (certainly under 100,000 pixels, preferably well under), and use the "Upload file" link on the left hand side of English Wikipedia to upload the file. When asked, specify that it is a non-free image of type "Team and corporate logos", i.e. it is the logo used to identify the subject of the article. It will ask you to justify how the use of the image will be minimized: state that it will be used only once at the top of the article and it is low resolution (111 x 222 pixels). (Substitute the actual size of your image there!) The questions may seem repetitive or unimportant to you, but if you treat them seriously your image will have a far better chance of surviving. Hope that makes sense; let me know if you have problems.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Gronk Oz's advice is all good, Lion Harley, but there's one important thing he missed out: one of the conditions that must be met for a non-free image to be uploaded to Wikipedia is that it is used in at least one article. For this purpose, a draft in your sandbox is not an article. You need to wait until the draft has been moved into main article space (either just by moving it, or, better, by getting it reviewed) before you upload the logo to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Lion Harley, sorry I missed that the article was still in your sandbox. First the article "goes live" in Article space, then you can upload the image. Thanks for catching that, ColinFine. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Increasing the sizes of images on wikipedia

Hi,

Does anyone know how to increase the size of an image on a wiki page? After uploading an image, it displays quite small on the page, and I don't understand exactly how I can go about increasing its size.

Thanks in advance!

Finivino1000 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have enlarged one of the images at Sula Vineyards for you, so that you can see how to do it. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Finivino1000. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for various methods of increasing image size. Keep in mind that readers can click on an image to see a larger version. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I finally figured it out!

Finivino1000 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finivino1000
Please note that WP:IMAGESIZE specifically states:-
"Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width."
The thumb parameter allows readers to choose the image size they want, not have a size forced on them. - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q5: Final Bonus

Am I'm allowed to create a new fictional episode guide after deleting the recent one?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Our purpose here on Wikipedia is to create and improve encyclopedia articles, not fictional content. Are you planning to work on encyclopedia articles, AmericanWeekendPizza2013? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as User:TheFinaleAccount3? We are puzzled about the purpose of your edits. If you are just practising the format of tables with the intention of doing genuine edits to real articles, then that's fine. If you think that Wikipedia pages (even in your own sandbox) are a form of free webhosting, then you are mistaken, and we regret to advise you that new fictional guides without any constructive purpose are likely to be deleted as fake articles. Dbfirs 07:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q4: Bonus Question

So The Fictional Episode Guide I have on my sandbox, Can I keep that without doing something wrong on wikipedia I'm a teen and i trying to make an episode guide on my sandbox. So I still have it. I'm only worried about Who are the episodes directed by and who are the episodes written by and who are the episodes viewed by because i'm afraid i might be breaking the law. But it is fictional. You Know what?!! let's do a role call: Directed by: Fictional- Written by: Fictional- Viewers: Fictional- Title: Fictional- Summary: Fictional. So it turns out to be that all info on my fictional episode guide aren't real. So can i put what i currently have on there? I worked too hard on this. AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q3 Last Question (Part IV/Final Part)

What is the content?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello AmericanWeekendPizza2013. Your pattern of editing seems very similar to GiftedTeen2014. Are you possibly the same person? If so, please be aware that each user should in general use only one account, with very limited exceptions for security reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello AmericanWeekendPizza2013. I am going to guess that this question is a continuation of "Q3 Last Question (Part III)" below. (A note for next time: it would be easier if you had just continued that discussion rather than starting this new thread with no context, but I will make that assumption for now.) So the question is about how to blank the content of your sandbox. The steps to blank the page are:

1. Open your sandbox (User:AmericanWeekendPizza2013/sandbox)
2. Click the "Edit" tab, near the top right corner (if using a PC; on a mobile device click the icon that looks like a kind of pencil)
3. Select everything in the edit window underneath "<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->", and delete it all
4. Save your changes.

That's it; the page should now be blank.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Energy (Rock Band)

I reviewed Draft: Energy (Rock Band) and declined it, saying that it did not appear that anything had been added to the draft after its last decline by User:RadioFan. User: Thablaqkgoat then posted the following inquiry to my talk page: “So I had made a minor change before resubmitting it, removing a videography section to the page as the sources were posted to YouTube by the band itself. That was the difference between the first time it was submitted and the time you reviewed it. But I'm still trying to understand how my sources aren't "reliable." I had this discussion with the previous reviewer and I got the impression that he was the wrong person for this particular type of artist, as he did not understand reputability within this genre. So my question is: how exactly can my sources not be reliable? They are all varied between multiple sites that are entirely independent of the artist (minus a couple that are there purely for referencing dates and proving existence.) One of them is Alternative Press, which is a well established and reliable print magazine and another is the very well known and reputable IGN. I have found many artists in similar genres with similar notability and they have Wikipedia pages with less sources from similar outlets. Just as well, they are listed or referenced on other pages here and the link redirects to the wrong artist (which I'm in the process of removing those links for accuracy.) I'd just really like to nail down this issue please. Thank you.”

I agree that Alternative Press is a reliable source. The sources in the draft are a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources. Can other experienced editors please advise as to whether the sources are reliable? If other experienced editors think that the sourcing is sufficient, either they or I can accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd really like to understand this a bit better! Thablaqkgoat (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thablaqkgoat. Please read our notability guideline for bands. Most of what I see are basic tour schedules, album release announcements, reprinted press releases, interviews and social media content. These do not establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. We are looking for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, not stuff generated by the band's publicity efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Alternative Press item is a very brief tour schedule, of the sort we call a "passing mention". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen. I've been a regular visitor and done a few edits every once and a while but I'm excited to get the hang of everything and become a little bit more involved.

The band had a full page ad in Alternative Press at one point as well, but I'm not sure how I would be able to reference that. So interviews and release announcements, though not posted personally by the bands, are counted as not notable because it is considered promotion by them? I just added a feature article from a Mass. based news website, would that count as independent? Thablaqkgoat (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Advertisements are most certainly not independent coverage, and so they contribute nothing to notability, Thablaqkgoat. It is the notability of the band that we are evaluating, which is the basic threshold for inclusion of an article about this topic in the encyclopedia. As for the sources, we are evaluating whether they are independent and reliable. Nothing generated by the band's PR efforts is independent. Sources need to have professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy to be reliable. Sources that simply parrot press releases are not considered reliable. What is the name of the Massachusetts news source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The publication is Wicked Local. Thablaqkgoat (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q3 Last Question (Part III)

But how can I blank it? AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

By blanking it. By deleting its content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In order to find help I've just read again the biography for Tomo Milicevic, who is the guitarist of the same band as Stevie Aiello, and I can't understand what is remarkable for him that I could add also for Aiello.

During his career Aiello has made much more then Milicevic but it seems not notable, could I know why? StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Help

How can i see the cahill map of the phillipines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plx Angel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Plx Angel, welcome to the teahouse. Do you mean the Cahill-Keyes projection? Would that be useful for a country that is much smaller than the size of the Earth? I think most map projections will look quite similar for the Philippines. Anyway, Wikimedia Commons has quite a few maps of the Philippines, see Commons:Category:Maps of the Philippines. Gap9551 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Stevie Aiello

User:StevieWorldwide asked me at my talk page about declines of Draft: Stevie Aiello: “Hi, sorry if I ask you but the article is constantly declined. I spent a lot of time on it and I don't want my work to be wasted. Could you help me understand what's wrong so that I can make it right? Thank you so much in advance”. Can other experienced editors please comment? Also, are you, User:StevieWorldwide the living person who is Stevei Aiello? If so, your draft is an autobiography, and common advice about autobiographies is not to try to submit them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! No we are not Stevie Aiello. We are two people who have a fanpage on social media and are trying to write informations on wikipedia about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See the username policy. User accounts should not be shared. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We wrote that in two but i'm the only one running this account, I don't see the problem. However I asked about the article, there are other editors who helping me. I'mgoing to edit it in a few minutes. Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First, you said that you are two people. Then you say that you are one person running the account, but that other editors are helping you. If they are helping you by using the account to edit the article, that is non-permitted shared use. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the only editor other than reviewers who has been editing the article. I don't see any other editors posting to your talk page advising you how to edit the article. So it appears that you are using an account for shared use. However, will other experienced editors please comment on whether the subject of the article is notable, and, if so, what can be done to improve the article? There are two different issues, the account, and the article itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry maybe I didn't explain it well. I'm the only one running this, I said that there are two people only because the draft was made by me and my sister (And that's why I used this username) but she co-worked with the mind, she never logged in. About the other editors, I got notifications from "MIpearc" who edited my article. So you say he's just a reviewer. Sorry i'm new here. Hope other experienced editors will comment soon. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

StevieWorldwide: your request "Could you help me understand what's wrong so that I can make it right?" suggests that you may have misunderstood the problem. It may be that the problem is not with the draft you have created, but that its subject simply isn't notable. If that is the case, there is nothing you can do about it. Maproom (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you. So I don't have to prove that he's notable but experienced editors will check that, right?--StevieWorldwide (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

StevieWorldwide: If you don't demonstrate that he is notable, the draft will be declined. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) StevieWorldwide: That is not what I meant. If you don't provide evidence that he is notable, there are three things that might happen. (1) An experienced editor looks for evidence and adds it to the draft. The draft eventually gets accepted as an article. Or (2) an experienced editor looks for evidence, fails to find it, and the draft gets rejected if resubmitted. Or (3) no-one bothers checking (we are all volunteers here) and the draft gets rejected if resubmitted. My point was that if he is not in fact notable, there will be nothing you, or anyone else, can do to prove that he is. You should not assume that there is "something you can do to make it right". Maproom (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

To restate what Maproom has said, slightly differently, not every musician, or entertainer, or person in any other line of work, or corporation, or product, is notable. If the subject isn't notable, there is nothing that the author can do to get the article accepted. If the draft doesn't establish notability, you can try to find additional information to establish notability. That doesn't mean that you will find it; it doesn't mean that you won't. You can ask for help in finding evidence of notability, but some experienced editors are willing to help you find evidence of notability, and some would prefer that you do it yourself. Not every subject is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There are basically two major classes of reasons why drafts are declined: Style reasons, and notability reasons. If a draft is declined for style reasons only, and not for notability reasons, it can probably be fixed. If a draft is declined for notability reasons, you might be able to add evidence of notability, but the subject might not be notable anyway. (Some drafts have both notability and style issues. Also, some drafts are frivolous, but yours is not. It just has notability issues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

ok, got it! Thanks to both of you! So I can say that the subject is notable because:

• Has had a single he co-wrote the song "My Demons" performed by Starset and it was on national music chart for weeks. In fact, the label "Razor & Tie Music Publishing" claimed "Starset’s first single, “My Demons” is now in the Top 5 at Mainstream Rock Radio and has been on the Billboard chart for a record-setting 41 weeks. This marks the longest chart run of the year at the format and the longest chart climb to the Top 5 for any artist since the launch of the chart in 1981"
• He released two albums with the major record label Island Records: "Wall Of People" and "Break Through The Silence" as frontman and composer of the band "Monty Are I"

I added this to the draft, hope that's enough. Anyway I'll be searching for more tomorrow.--StevieWorldwide (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The first of those sources doesn't mention him, the second shows that he co-wrote a lyric, and the third refers to his "versatile guitar". I doubt any of this qualifies as "significant coverage". Maproom (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon:

Maproom: In order to find help I've just read again the biography for Tomo Milicevic , who is the guitarist of the same band as Stevie Aiello, and I can't understand what is remarkable for him that I could add also for Aiello.

During his career Aiello has made much more then Milicevic but it seems not notable, could I know why?StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC) > StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

StevieWorldwide, if you want to ping other users, as you have just tried with Robert McClenon and Maproom, then you need to do so at the same time as signing your post. Adding pings to a post from two days ago won't result in them getting notifications. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Cordless Larry: thank you!

New Member Trying To Get Some Tips From An Experienced Member.

Hello, my Wikipedia name is FromAllAspects, currently I'm a new member of Wikipedia. I was wondering if I could get some tips on how to create/enhance articles. I recently created a article by the name "HSV GTO", which is an Australian Muscle Car that was made by Holden Special Vehicles between 2002 and 2006, but was called off as it lacked information (Didn't know how to create proper templates and other important pieces to make it worthy). I hope this isn't a stupid question, but a response would be excellent.

Kind regards, FromAllAspects 17/01/2016 FromAllAspects (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi FromAllAspects, no it's not a stupid question. You can read WP:Your first article for some tips. Also, a helpful way to make new articles is to create them in a sandbox or user subpage, because then you have an unlimited amount of time to perfect them. You can do this by typing User:FromAllAspects/HSV GTO (or whatever you want the title to be, after the slash) on your userpage and then clicking on the redlink. Whenever the article is ready, you can then move it to mainspace. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

However FromAllAspects, the HSV GTO (and other HSV models) already have coverage at Holden Monaro#HSV range (and HSV GTO redirects there). You should consider adding your content there instead of creating a new article. —teb728 t c 20:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I see now that there is a separate HSV article at Holden Special Vehicles. That would be an even better place to add content. —teb728 t c 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, White Arabian Filly and teb728 t c. I'll see if I can add some detailed information in the HSV section instead.

Kind regards, FromAllAspects 18/01/2016 FromAllAspects (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Inserting a logo into the Infobox

Hi,

I am currently struggling with learning how to: 1) Inserting a logo into the Infobox 2) Adding coordinates in the Infobox for a location

The page I am working on is 'Sula Vineyards' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Vineyards

I am new to wikipedia, and this is the first page I have edited. Could someone possibly help me out? Also can this be done without coding?

Thank you!

Finivino1000 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Finivino1000. For a logo you first need to upload it to Wikipedia; see WP:Logos. When it is uploaded, add the file name to the winery_logo parameter of the infobox. For the coordinates, add a coordinates = {{coord}} parameter to the infobox, filling in the coord parameters as described in the Template:coord documentation. —teb728 t c 21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finivino1000. I'm not familiar with the coordinate parameters, but it seems like teb728 did a good job above. To add an image to the infobox, upload or find an image (preferably an image under the Creative Commons) and put the image name (without "File:" next to winery_logo =.

It will look something like this when it's done: winery_logo = example.png. Anarchyte 12:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Finivino1000: @Anarchyte: No, it is unlikely that Sula Vineyards’ lawyers will allow the logo to be licensed under a free license—even Wikipedia for all its commitment to free content does not free-license its logo. The logo should be tagged with {{non-free logo}}, and {{non-free use rationale logo}} should be used for a non-free use rationale (as outlined at WP:Logos#Uploading non-free logos). —teb728 t c 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help!

I managed to successfully insert the logo into the inforbox. I added the coordinates as well, however there is an error. Could someone please have a look at it and correct it, or let me know what I am doing wrong?

Thanks once again!

Finivino1000 (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of "space" for duration of time

In the article Jacobite rising of 1745 (as well as others) "space in time" has been used to describe the duration of time. Some of the edits that I have made have been reverted based on the premise that the previous "sounds better". Space measures volume vs. time measures duration. A calendar takes up space but the time on it takes up duration. Now I understand that "space in time" has been used liberally but it seems that when the wrong use of word has been made that regardless of how it sounds the wrong use of a word persists. What is the policy of WP?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the relevant policy would be here, but "in/within a short space of time" is a well-established phrase. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Col. Saunders, I agree with Cordless Larry. Describing time in spatial terms is a major underlying metaphor in English and many other languages. Consider:

• You have been called before this court... / I have to be there before ten.
• Jill came tumbling after / Repeat after me.
• I'll go on ahead / the days ahead
• We're approaching the end of the year.
• Christmas is coming.
• a short time, a long time
• This week has just whizzed by in a blur. / My days crawl by when you're away.

See Conceptual metaphor for further discussion.

--Thnidu (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your reference to my name offensive and I am certain that you would be the first to understand that you have absolutely no right to do so. It disrespects me, can on some levels be found to be derogatory and makes my name a mockery.

Space is measured by volume and time is measured by duration. The phrase to non-English speakers can be very confusing because it is not logical. I had always thought that its use was a sign that a person was either confused or just plain ignorant. If there is some special exception then for those that persist to use are justified to do so. What newspaper of record is willing to use it in their publication, and if they do is it only as a direct quote? What legal action has it within its text or does the profession regard its use merely for literary use. I would not regard WP as a literary pursuit. It is an act of encyclopedia that to a certain extent is a measurement of an absolute/definition of something. It is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Srednuas Lenoroc. You can find an example of "space of time" used in newspapers here and here, and there are plenty more if you search. "Space in time" is perhaps less common and it's harder to find examples, because searching for that throws up many results along the lines of "Tim Peake blasted off into space in time for Christmas". What is the context in which you have encountered "space in time"? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked Jacobite rising of 1745, and I see you've made two edits to it recently. The first one changed "red silk with a white space in the centre" to "red silk with a white period in the centre" and appears to have been made in error - "space" is clearly correct there, not "period", as the sentence is describing the design of a banner. The second changed "in so short a space of time" to "in so short a period of time". Both of those are correct, in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with both examples cited of "news" reporting is that one is a reader asking the question which the newspaper then poses to its readers. It is not a "news" story to be found on a front page. The second example is an op-ed piece contributed to the newspaper and not written by the newspaper staff. So again, where are there examples of a contemporary newspaper that has its reporters write original verse with a phases such as would use volume to describe duration--and it is not a direct quote? If it cannot be found in an example of legal actions such as an opinion/ruling or legislation then the inherent confusion to be found by the incompatible comparisons found within the phase. It may be fine and dandy for novels but not works that are used to establish credibility such as encyclopedias.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the writer of the letter wrote the headline of that article, Srednuas Lenoroc, but if you want more examples, there are thousands here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

An advice column is not of the same writing importance as a front page above the fold current events report. Novels make great reading but they are fiction. Wikipedia is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about a novel, but I have provided a link to a list of lots of newspaper articles that use the term, as you requested. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

All varieties of English use idiom and synonym which may be illogical and appear to be imprecise. "Short/long space of time", note the qualifiers should be included, is a widely used British English synonym and if even English use guides like Fowler's Modern English Usage use it (example - read the entry on Google) then it's use on Wikipedia isn't an issue to me. Perhaps it's a term that should be added to Wiktionary but and absence of definition there is not reason to eradicate it's usage across Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding here. I am not for an across-the-board eradication of the term at hand in WP; only its use as an original composed contribution to WP articles outside of a direct quote. Grammar exists to provide a logic that is not framed well with the phase at hand regardless as to how any "authorities" sustain it.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The first definition of space in the Oxford English Dictionary is "denoting time or duration". Its use for denoting area or volume while not a secondary definition is not the first listed. Yes, grammar does exist to provide a logic and in British English space as a measure of time is perfectly acceptable. While it might grate to the ears to some or seem illogical to others, it's an acceptable and logical form in any Wikipedia article where British English is the form of English used. Wikipedia isn't here to create an international form of English and the variations are accepted, even welcomed - see WP:ENGVAR. Nthep (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding, I am not advocating for universal British/American English, just a logical one.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Srednuas Lenoroc. You seem to be objecting to a particular use of language which several people have pointed out is a normal part of English (and other languages, incidentally). If you choose to avoid such expressions in text that you write, I doubt if anybody would even notice; but for you to go round removing it because you consider it illogical would probably be regarded as disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that due diligence be practiced so that since this discussion has what I thought ended there has not been any additional changes. Your apology accepted. As was previously stated, WP is not the place for innovation regardless as illogical is the English language. I do still hold the point that this "volume" vs. duration has its point except in creative writing and WP is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to your supporting statements; please do not take them away on my account. I am certain that there are others that might find them of interest. As they appeared following my comments I assume that the proper way of including them was not followed.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ECPMF article proposal

Dears, I'm thinking about creating a Wikipedia article concerning the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF). Before drafting the page, though, I would like to have your opinion on whether the subject already meets the notability criteria. Thank you, --Davide Denti (OBC) (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. To avoid wasting editors' time by answering questions which have already been answered elsewhere, we normally prefer that questions not be asked in multiple places. As you've asked it at the help desk we'll let people answer it there. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @David Biddulph:, and sorry for that!--Davide Denti (OBC) (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)