Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 551

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

Archive 545

←

Archive 549

→

Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge

what are the prizes for Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge ?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: there aren't any, it's an initiative that's all. You seem somewhat preoccupied about rewards for editing so perhaps it needs to be made clear that most work on Wikipedia goes unnoticed and unrewarded. If you can't cope with that then you need to consider whether or not Wikipedia is the place for you. Nthep (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If i asked there is a prize or not does is mean I am "preoccupied about rewards" or something? Maybe not Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

on its own no, but as your previous questions were about the non-receipt of a barnstar for the Wikipedia Adventure raises the issue that you may be. Nthep (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

only if you can see that somebody asked about the barnstar a while ago so it looked as if wikipedia adventure gave some barnstar or something which i did not receive so i thought to ask but anyways.Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Need help with my post

The concept I am trying to introduce (IQF aka Individual Quick Freezing) is a very interesting piece of technology, quite new, used in food processing. My draft keeps being refused after many trials and changes on the ground that it looks like there is not a lot of coverage of the term on Google - even though I found a few good non-commercial sources and included them. What I dont understand is why, initiating a more extensive explanation of the term on wiki is discouraged just because there is not already tons of info on Google. And how can I overcome this? Svetlana.plotean (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Coverage on Google isn't the criterion. What matters is whether the topic has received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. Reputable newspapers or books from reputable publishers are fine. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Svetlana.plotean. Looking at a verbatim new search (see here) it looks like there are a few hundred hits, so that may be something to work off of. Of course, they will have to be sorted through to weed out unreliable sources like blogs or press releases. TimothyJosephWood 13:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Code for coordinates

Could anyone tell me what the code is to add longitude and latitude coordinates to an article? Blambert3009 (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You probably want Template:Coord, but you may want to look at an article which does it in the way that you prefer. Some articles include the coordinates in the infobox parameters. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

How to request a page deleted?

How to request a page deleted?Theistrollejensen (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Theistrollejensen. The appropriate avenue to request deletion depends largely on the article and the reason for the request. If you could provide additional context I'd be happy to try to help. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I dont think this person is notable enough to have a wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Abu_Al_Hasan Theistrollejensen (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have nominated the page for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Abu Al Hasan. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Saharsa picture

hello sir,i recently made a contribution to the wikipedia page titled saharsa.i uploaded a landscape pic of the saharsa there. i just wanted to know whether this pic of mine would always remain there or there are chances of it being removed in future.? thanks Imaddy786 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you have released the picture as your own work for use under a Creative Commons license, it will generally remain on Wikipedia indefinitely. Whether it remains on the article at all, in its current position, or for how long, is impossible to tell. Generally, all edits done by all users on Wikipedia can be changed by any other user. TimothyJosephWood 16:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Timothyjosephwood, they could request speedy deletion. (See c:COM:CSD#G7.) This can be done if the file is less than seven days old, and it is. Imaddy786, do you want the file deleted? — Gestrid (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the question. I took it to be an issue of longevity and permanence, not a desire for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 16:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, let it never be said that we Teahouse hosts aren't thorough, I guess. — Gestrid (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I am being harassed. This happened before when I first joined and is happening again.

I was updating, adding editing just fine and the same user came back to do some constructive work, which I acknowledge but also deleted a page I disagreed with. I left a note to him on the talk page and reverted his deletion yesteday.

Today I have been hit by him and more people to almost all of my pages. This isn't right, this is too bid, this is too long, etc. What a coincidence that all of a sudden all my pages are being criticized for one thing or another by different users.

Also, without responding to my justification for an album page, he deleted it again. We supposedly have no leaders, no rulers, so where do I go for help?SusanneSC (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Susanne

Welcome to the Teahouse, SusanneSC. Without looking into the details of your case, I would suggest that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the page you are looking for. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you SusanneSC (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)SusanneSC

If you are saying that your pages are being criticised by different users, it sounds as if your problems are not just with the one user to whom you referred. You need to reflect on whether your own edits may be questionable, and be aware that if you do choose to take the case to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents your own edits will be subject to scrutiny, so beware of the boomerang. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:SusanneSC - I have read your post at WP:ANI and it is too long, difficult to read. You will find that very long complaints about the conduct of another editor are likely to be ignored. It is best to be concise in your statements of issues, regardless of whether they are content issues or conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Barbara Kean - Question About Fictional Character

I reviewed Draft:Barbara Kean and declined it. I said that if it was meant to be a stand-alone article on Barbara Kean, it not only had no references but did not have enough information for an article. User:Sebmcdougall then wrote to my talk page:

the barbara gordon from the batman comics and barbara kean are two seperate characters and i just think that barbara kean (who doesnt have a page) should have her own page. Barbara kean is from the fox show gotham and barbara gordon is jim gordon's wife in the comics

In looking over the description, it appears to me that there is one fictional Barbara Kean, because she is always the girlfriend or wife of James Gordon. This raises questions about how we deal with characters who appear in canon and non-canon works in a fictional universe, but it appears that our practice is to provide a single article if there is enough information with enough sources to warrant an article. The page that I declined was essentially a disambiguation page, but disambiguation isn’t required, because there aren’t different (fictional or real notable) Barbara Keans. Is my take about a single fictional character accurate? Do other experienced editors care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, that's not always the case. See, for example, Dick Grayson and Dick Grayson (Earth-Two). — Gestrid (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, and in branches of the same alternate universe. However, in any case, I think that the advice should be to expand the article rather than just have a disambiguation-style page, and to discuss the character in more detail if she deserves her own article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

saharsa

hello sir with due respect and a bit grief i have to say that i contributed to the page saharsa by eidting it.but unfortunately i editted and omitted one of the field which i intnded not to and neither i think that should be eradicated and also i donot remember the exact content word by word of that field.can i reapply and go to the earlier version of it.please reply. thanks Imaddy786 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Imaddy786, I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more specific since it looks like you've made several edits to the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding external links

Is it possible to ad an external link that redirects the user to an outside review or posting pertaining to the article? Thanks so much!Matzohboy (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Matzohboy. Normally, external links are not allowed. See Wikipedia:External links for our policy on externa links. — Gestrid (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia page cannot be searched by Google

I created a living person Wikipedia page. But when I finished editing, my site cannot be searched in Google engine. Does anybody know how to solve this problem? Thank you the page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zi_Wang Kapakapapon (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kapakapapon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your new article is not patrolled. Wikipedia:New Pages Patrol says that "Other pages may also need to be deleted, but deletion for other reasons may be less urgent – pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines." —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing about an article I just created. Adam9007 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello MRD2014, thank you for your quick reply. I am new to Wikipedia, I am still wondering does it mean my pages will be deleted maybe or just part of my page should be revised, and could you please tell me how to pass the patrol part? Kapakapapon (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone with the new page reviewer user right has to review the page. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As it happens, the article has now been patrolled, but here are a few points which might be relevant for other users in a similar situation:

There are currently 14091 pages awaiting new page patrol, and comparatively few editors with the new page patroller user right so reviews are happening at a rate of about 700 pages per month, so you may have to wait many months. Apart from a few outliers, the oldest articles in the queue date back to August, and the recent creation of the new page patroller user right may well lengthen the queue. The fact that the sources on your article are in Chinese will probably delay review. The page history shows that one reviewer has already seen and edited the page but not marked it as patrolled. Although foreign sources are acceptable, it may be advisable for you to provide an English translation of the relevant parts of each source (see WP:NOENG). It was noted that when you first created the article you included the {{Prod blp}} template requesting that the article be deleted, so again this may have delayed potential reviewers. Another thing which may delay review is that your previous attempt to create the article was deleted as non-notable, as shown by the log. While you are awaiting review, you ought to make the article comply with the Manual of Style, such as by removing misplaced external links and correcting date formats. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

In answer to your question as to whether the page may be deleted, it is open to any editor to request deletion through any of the 3 deletion processes, and the notability criterion may again be a concern, so you would certainly be advised to make it clear to English readers that the subject has received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, David. Thank you for your explanation. Now I am clear with the procedure. Kapakapapon (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a quite long queue. It seems it will take maybe 10+months to finish the patrol step. Kapakapapon (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I was very surprised when the NOINDEXing of unpatrolled articles was introduced, along with the restriction of the right to patrol new pages. I hope that someone is keeping the process under review. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully that,I am still awaiting updates for my page.

Once again thank you, David.Kapakapapon (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to get a new page up - 1800approved

Hi Teahouse Party Guests,

My name is Ken and I'm really struggling to get a new page up for the company I work for, 1800approved, www.1800approved.com.au

I wrote what I thought were 2 different, non-marketing, non-PR pages , very dry and to the point. Both were deleted because they were deemed to be 'unambiguous PR'. However, it was very dry just stating the pure facts of where based, what industry, number of employees etc.

I guess I'm seeking a little consistency, as there are similar companies that do have a Wikipedia presence, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_(financial_services).

The issue might be that there are only a few sites with 1800approved mentioned that I can use as references ?

If anyone has any tips for me how to get my little inoffensive and non-PR page up, I'd really any tips you might have.

Many thanksPleaseOrangeMike (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@PleaseOrangeMike: Welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you should do is read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and comply with it. This is mandatory. Next, read our policy on conflict of interest. The fact that you thought your draft was "inoffensive" and "non-PR" but a highly experienced Wikipedia administrator deleted it as unambiguous PR is an illustration of how difficult it is for those with a conflict of interest to write a neutral, properly referenced encyclopedia article. Any future draft should summarize what independent, reliable sources completely unaffiliated with your company say about it. The prose should be rigorously neutral, as if you were writing about your leading competitor rather than your employer. As for the other article, I will take your word that it has shortcomings. If so, it should either be deleted or improved. The existence of other mediocre or unacceptable Wikipedia articles is not an argument in favor of accepting another poor quality article. We have too many of those already, and instead should be writing and accepting excellent articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are trying to create an article on the company for which you work, you need to read about conflict of interest and about paid editing. As far as the comparison with Stratton (financial services) is concerned, please read the advice at WP:Other stuff exists. If there are only a few mentions of your company, that makes it non-notable in Wikipedia's terms. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, that other article you mentioned, Stratton (financial services), has a prominent notice at the top of the page saying, "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." It would be a big mistake for you to model any draft article about your company on that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thanks for your help and input, much appreciated. Back to the drawing board it seems......Cheers KenPleaseOrangeMike (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How do I know when my edits have been published?

I have saved my editing Chrste16 (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. For most articles, including Tituba which you recently edited, any edit which you save is "published" immediately. There is an exception for those articles which (because of persistent vandalism) have been subjected to pending changes protection; in that case, edits by new editors are not externally visible until they have been accepted by a trusted editor. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chrste16: to add to the above, edits like those you have made to your sandbox are also visible to anyone but because of their location they are much less likely to be viewed by anyone. Nthep (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing a title to italics

I´m not a new user, but this place is the most helpful I know on WP, so here goes. I want to change the title of You Got Trumped to italics. Do I move the page to You Got Trumped, or is there a better way? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. A move will not work. Use {{Italic title}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So quick and helpful it´s disturbing. I feel like I owe you money. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's ok. We're all volunteers here. — Gestrid (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How to determine if a game qualifies for a Wiki page? Example below.

Hello - The game "Throne of Lies: The online game of lies & deceit" is having a Kickstarter Jan 9, 2017 by indie company "Imperium42 Game Studio". There is an official game trailer, official website, a Wikia page with many pages and translations, etc. It's awkward because without a Wiki page, their official trailer says it's a completely different game (because YouTube gaming pulls their schemas from Wiki - if a Wiki article for the game doesn't exist, it links to the closest game and overrides any field you may have entered otherwise).

So, the question is: When is a game considered eligible to have a Wiki page? Dylanh724 (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dylanh724, and welcome to the Teahouse. Simply put, a game must have coverage in a few reliable sources. The game also must meet the general notability guideline criteria. For a non-exhaustive list of unreliable and reliable sources for video game articles, try looking through our reliable sources for video game articles. — Gestrid (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Dylanh724: This is not wikipedia advice, but you may find this page useful for more information on giving youtube information on your game without a wikipedia article - Beevil (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How to change the spelling of the person in the title page

I have accidentally typed Kayla Greenbaum as the title name and continued to create the page which is incorrect. However, her name should be KYLA Greenbaum. I can edit everything except the top title name. How can I change it? Flauta111 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The article has been moved to the correct name. - GB fan 16:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

When to remove maintenance template warning message?

I just saved an update to the page at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Ligier and was wondering if it meets the criteria for removing the maintenance warning. Are the citations I've added enough?

Kumboloi (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kumboloi. Your edits have certainly improved the Guy Ligier article (though the previous opening sentence was closer to the style that Wikipedia biographies tend to follow, describing what he is known for). However, there is still quite a lot of material in the article that is not sourced, so I think that template should stay for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. For my edification, what else is considered unsourced on that page? I'm trying to learn about what constitutes an acceptable ref.

Thanks kmb Kumboloi (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

All statements that aren't followed by a footnote reference, Kumboloi, such as the passages starting "With help from Pierre Coulon...", "When his rugby career ended he switched to racing...", "In 1965 he won the 24th Grand Prix de Albi Sports in a GT40 for Ford", etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've probably got the urls for some of those points hanging around. I'll try to track some down and add them. They're mostly online versions of print media.

Kumboloi (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Help Please

My article was denied on the articles page and I wanted to know if anyone could specifically teak me what is wrong with my article. Jstewie77 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Jstewie77. Your draft, Draft:Arthur F. Shea, has two problems. First, the draft does not cite any references. Articles must cite references from reliable sources in order to be accepted. Both print and online sources are accepted, of course. Click here to learn how to cite sources on Wikipedia.

Your second problem is that your article is not written from a neutral point of view. Simply put, articles cannot praise their subjects, nor can they unnecessarily negatively describe their subjects. Your article has phrases like "called to his Eternal Reward", "clearly possesses the gift", etc..

— Gestrid (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you see the responses to your question about this now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 549#Can I get help fixing my denied page?, Jstewie77? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How to Make Suggested Edits Real

Hello Everyone,

My Wikipedia name is Sherwood Noble Morsel Van Echlin, but call me Noble. I want to edit the Royal Rumble 2017 Wikipedia page. I simply want to edit the announced entrants, by highlighting the participants based on their brand. Therefore, Raw wrestlers would be red, and Smackdown would be blue.

IT CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE THIS:

Royal Rumble match participants

Participants	Participation declared
Goldberg	November 21, 2016 episode of Raw
Brock Lesnar	November 28, 2016 episode of Raw

I simply want to MAKE it look like THIS:

My edit is very simple. Simply highlight the wrestlers name either red or blue based on their brand. RED for RAW and BLUE for SMACKDOWN LIVE! Simple enough? Hopefully so.

Royal Rumble match participants

Participants	Participation declared
Goldberg	November 21, 2016 episode of Raw
Brock Lesnar	November 28, 2016 episode of Raw

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeah16 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Mmeah16: your Wikipedia name is Mmeah16, not either of those other names you mention. You should sign your postings with it, by putting four tildes like this ~~~~ after everything else you write. As for your question – it is not clear to me what you are trying to do. Do you want to change the colour of the text in the table? This would not be a good idea, as red and blue text already have standard meanings in Wikipedia articles. But it is possible to change the background colours of text cells. Is that what you're looking for? Maproom (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: I think the question is about rowspan in tables and getting the second box to cover both rows as the desired content is the same. I would answer but formatting table code on a mobile device is a pain. Nthep (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My edit is very simple. Simply highlight the wrestlers name either red or blue based on their brand. RED for RAW and BLUE for SMACKDOWN LIVE! Simple enough? Hopefully so. Below is how it shall look with my suggested edit. Probably will cause a headache or two for some, but that is OK.

Royal Rumble match participants

Participants	Participation declared
Goldberg	November 21, 2016 episode of Raw
Brock Lesnar	November 28, 2016 episode of Raw

Mmeah16 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that Mmeadh16 has significantly changed their original post since others have commented on it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Flag Removal

I'm having trouble removing the flag from this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer, even after I fixed the issues. Can someone please remove them?

Thanks

kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kc2290: welcome. If you think none of the tags are applicable any more then you can remove them and the wrapper template they were held in. So you need to remove {{multiple issues}} from the article as well. Nthep (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Kc2290, Nthep, that "flag" appears to be an edit-notice. It'll presumably disappear if or when the page protection is lifted. Kc2290, I don't think the problems with the page have been fixed, not by a long chalk. I've added some clean-up tags to highlight what seem to be the most obvious problems, and started a discussion on the talk-page about how to move forward. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: This was the revision when I replied to the original question which contained an empty {{multiple issues}} hence the error message which I assumed was what the question was about. The protection, unusually, has been applied since 2009 and as KC2290 is autoconfirmed wasn't a bar to their editing of the article. Nthep (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh I understand now, in my entry for the subject's second book, I relied to heavily on her actual website description.

I believe I fixed the problem.

Kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox saves but change doesn't show; it only shows when page is reopened for editing

Link to my sandbox, in case it helps: [1] I just pasted in some copy, then added some. When I save, none of those changes shows on the page - but the page history shows that the page bytes have increased. I'm obviously doing something wrong - or rather, have done something to cause this, without realising it. And this hasn't happened to me in umpteen years of Wikipedia editing. Help.... Haploidavey (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Haploidavey, looks like you may have forgotten to close the end of your reference with a </ref>. TimothyJosephWood 00:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, User:Timothyjosephwood you're right! What an eejit I am! Many thinks to you. (I thought I'd actually managed to break the Wiki) Haploidavey (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, Haploidavey. Only admins can break Wikipedia. — Gestrid (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Russo - Article Submission - November 25th

Hi, I submitted an article for our company CEO, Michael Russo, but he wasn't deemed notable enough. His fiance and business partner, Tamara Ralph, has her own page and nearly all the same footnotes on her page were used on Michael Russo's, and yet she is notable but Michael Russo is not. Please help? Must I search and just keep adding references for credibility? Thanks, Sophie SophieHutchings (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SophieHutchings. You could better devote your efforts to improving the existing articles Tamara Ralph and Ralph & Russo, which are both excessively promotional and read like advertisements. And, as you have a conflict of interest, you should declare it on your user page. 12:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Maproom (talk)

Hi SophieHutchings. In addition to what Maproom posted, I think you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and better familiarize yourself with the kinds of things Wikipedia expects from COI editors. COI editing is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something that is highly discouraged because persons closely connected either personally or professionally to a particular often find it sometimes difficult to adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view no matter how hard they try. It's not impossible to do, but it can be tricky to simply "forget" everything you know about the subject matter and stick to simply adding what information can be found in independent reliable sources, and it's only natural that a little bit of embellishment/bias creeps in (even unintentionally) into a COI editor's edits. These things can be and are usually cleaned up by other editors unconnected to the subject, but you've got to try and remember that Wikipedia is not really interested in making the subject look good or bad; it's only interested is content which can be supported by and reflects what is found in reliable sources. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing because there can be a downside to a Wikipedia article being written about you or someone you might know.

One more thing to remember about Wikipedia is that the fact that other similar articles might exist does not necessary mean that a particular article should also exist. There are over 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia: some of these are quite good, while others are really pretty bad. The fact that another article exists does not mean it should exist; it could just mean that it has being flying under the radar and nobody has noticed it yet. An article can be created and exist for years before it is noticed and eventually deleted. Articles are deleted for a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones is that there is no evidence of Wikipedia notability. So, if you want to have you're draft accepted, you should be looking for sources which show that Russo meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia notability for Russo mainly depends on whether he has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, not who he works with or who he works for.

Finally, I've noticed you've uploaded a file to Wikimedia Commons. Unless you've taken this photo yourself and can provide proof of this when asked, you should be careful about claiming things as "own work". Copyright of a photo is generally held by the person who took the photo, and it's a good idea to assume that every photo you find online is copyrighted by someone unless it clearly states otherwise. Commons only accepts files which clearly in the public domain or clearly have been released under a free license compatible with Commons. So, unless you (or someone else) can provide verification that the file you uploaded is either of these two things, it is going to eventually be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia stand for truth?

Fidel Castro was never freely elected by the Cuban people, he was a dictator but Wikipedia calls him "President" why not call him what he really was. VICTORYIN08 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, VICTORYIN08, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has certain policies we must follow, and this is especially on Biographies of Living (or recently deceased) Persons. In the case of Fidel Castro, we must stick with what he and his administration called him. While I'm no expert on Cuban history, that was likely "President". We also have a policy that says we must maintain a neutral point of view, and, if we called him "Dictator", then that would be a violation of that policy.

Here's an example of why we shouldn't change his title to dictator:

Suppose terrorists against America said the same thing you're saying (switching "President" and "Dictator" around, of course). Would it then make sense to change what Wikipedia says to "Dictator" instead of "President"?

— Gestrid (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Fidel Castro does mention that many called him a dictator. His title was President so of course that should also be in the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. Calling Fidel Castro a dictator would not be a violation of the neutral point of view policy.

Here is the definition of dic·ta·tor noun 1. a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.

Did Fidel Castro obtain power by force. Check! Was Fidel Castro a ruler with total power over a country? Check!

By the way it wouldn't make sense to change what Wikipedia says about US presidents from "President" to "Dictator" because they are NOT dictators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VICTORYIN08 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a place to learn and ask questions about editing Wikipedia, VICTORYIN08. If you want to propose changes to the article about Fidel Castro, then the place to do so is at Talk:Fidel Castro. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi VICTORYIN08. To answer your original question, Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about a subject and all article content is supposed to be verifiable by examining such sources. This is particularly true when it comes to content about living/recently deceased persons. So, it's verifiability, not truth which matters when it comes to such things. Moreover, Wikipedia articles are not intended to be battlegrounds for righting great wrongs. If you have concerns about article content, then you may discuss them on the article's talk page, but try to do so in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you wish to make changes to an article, then please be bold and do so; if, however, your edits are reverted then please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and engage in discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding images to an existing page of which I am not the author

Hello, I would like to add some pictures to a page of which I am not the author. I was able to add some information (text) but not pics. Also I would like the author of the page to contact me as it is of personal interest. The page is : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoettler_I Thank you. SchotTak — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchotTak (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SchotTak, and welcome to the Teahouse. As long as the images you upload are not copyrighted or they are eligible for fair use, you are able to add the images to the article. Also, in order for an image to qualify for fair use, it must meet all ten non-free content criteria. If the copyrighted image is one you own or is one you have permission from the copyright holder to use unnder a free license, you should contact our OTRS team to help you with the paperwork. You should know that nobody owns anything on Wikipedia. This means that, provided you follow the rules (which I've linked to on your talk page), you are free to edit pretty much anything. And if you do mess up (everyone here has and will, even administrators), we'll help you correct your mistake and let you know what to do differently next time.

Anyway, I apologize for how complicated the process can be for a copyrighted image, but we take copyright very seriously here.

— Gestrid (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi SchotTak. Although usually the first concern here would be the copyright status of the images, in this case I am guessing they were 1) published 2) in the U.S. 3) before 1923 and are therefore in the public domain. Is that the case? If so, head over the to Wikimedia Commons and upload them. Actually, you are an author of the page, because you contributed to it already. To put it another way, Wikipedia pages have no "authors" exactly. They sometimes have majority contributors, but the tenor of what you're asking implies a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia articles. You can look at the page history to see who has contributed to an article. In this case you'd find that the user who wrote much of the content, is User:TSRL (who will, by my linked mention of his or her username, be pinged to this thread). By the way, when you added content to the first paragraph of the design and development section, you might have noticed that there was a footnoted reference at the end of the paragraph, to a source that is cited to verify the content in that paragraph. Of course contributions are very welcome, but adding content to a sourced paragraph, and not providing a separate source does create a bit of a problem. That is, the content you added is not verified through the existing reference, and is now situated as if it is. The way to fix this is to find a source that does verify the addiiton, and cite it alongside the other cite. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SchotTak. To follow on from what Fuhghettaboutit says - once you have identified the editor you want to talk to (TSRL), you can go to their User Talk page (User talk:TSRL). Once there you have two options: you can just leave a message there (which will be publically visible), or else look on the left hand side under "Tools" to see whether there is link to "Email this user" - it's optional so you won't see if for all editors, but TSRL has activated that option, so you could use it to send a conventional email. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

citing reliable sources and editing

how many sources do I need to make an edit? Even if an author has bias but uses an outside expert does that negate the outside experts credibility? If I feel credible sources are missing how do I ask as a new editor for citations or verification? Truthitmatters (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Truthitmatters: Welcome to the Teahouse. Many edits, such as correcting typographical or grammatical errors, do not require any sources. Often, content in an article can be expanded by reading and summarizing sources already in an article. Completely new content requires at least one new reliable source. Just because a source has a bias or a point of view does not mean that it is unacceptable. The neutral point of view obligates editors to summarize what the full range of sources say about a topic. As a simple example, if a source biased against something is included, then another source biased in favor can be added and summarized to give a balanced overview of the topic. This excludes fringe or extreme minority views. If you think that sources are missing from an article, then the best thing to do is find the sources yourself, add them to the article, and summarize them. Another option is to tag the article. Please read Template:Citation needed for an explanation of one method. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

how to send article to review

Hello Everyone, I would like to send my article to review. How can I do that? I am writing about a company and I dont want my article to send back with the reason of conflicts of interest. It is not my company so that and I would like to go through the review process. Thank you in advance. Csnikoletta (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about User:Csnikoletta/sandbox you need to read the various links on your user talk page, including to WP:Your first article. In particular you will need to provide citations to published reliable sources independent of the subject. You need to remember that your previous attempt to create Atoll Group was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that it did not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant, and was deleted because it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, so make sure that you don't make the same mistake again. When you are convinced that it is fit for review (but not before) you can click the blue "submit your draft for review" button in the box at the top of your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Trying to remove flags from wiki page about a mutual insurance company

Hello,

I'm a copywriter in corporate communications. I work on a contract. I'm not the most Wikipedia-savvy person in the world but my boss did say our company (Amica Insurance) does have some lingering flags/issues on its Wiki page.

The information currently on our page is largely if not entirely factually based (who, what and where) and could be verified by reputable sources such as The Providence Journal or any number of business publications.

I would be very appreciative if someone more expert in this process could please assist me in getting some of those flags either lessened or removed entirely.

I know Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies are very real, but I feel this should be a reasonably simple and straightforward fix.

Thank you very much and I hope to hear soon,

Michael 4.79.1.1 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this is more difficult than some Wikipedia activities but not impossible. First two steps are to make a Wikipedia:Account and use your wp:user page to describe yourself with particular attention to wp:COI. Sorry for these complications, but as I said you are not starting with one of the easy things. There's a bunch of additional things before you can make a good start with this kind of task. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. The article in question is apparently Amica Mutual Insurance. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that once you have found the sources, Michael, you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit requests to request that they be added to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The way to remove the tags is to fix the problems. The only source on the article is the company's website and that is dead. The article needs references from reliable sources that discuss the company. There must be some sources that discuss it, since the company has been in business for over 100 years. - GB fan 14:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

øca problems

Hey guys, I'm having problems with Sigma's øca archiving tool. I try to archive using it, and it doesn't show the archive buttons by the post title. Here's what I'm doing:

1. I go to my talk page, look around, and see that there's some posts that need archiving.

2. I go to More --> øca and click on it.

øca seems to initalize normally, but the buttons to archive don't show up. Ideas?

T P M 15:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

information removed

can you say why the information in Sakuchia Badiuzzaman Dakhil Madrasah was removed pertaining to eiin number and that it is a religious institute?This is because the information is there in the reference and i am not sure to re add the information or no because it might have been removed due to some issue.The link looks reliable.Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Adityavagarwal. Looks like the edit summary left by User:Marchjuly points to this discussion on the Bangladesh WikiProject. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So what do you think should be done?Should I add the information again?Because he added the citation anyways so still the information is not there so do you think I should add it?Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adityavagarwal I did ask about the article at WT:BANGLADESH, but I did not remove any information from the article. I think the editor who removed that content was Lourdes with this edit. Maybe instead of re-adding the information to the article, you should post something about it on the article's talk page, explaining why you think the information should be included and how doing so complies with relevant policy and guidelines. Just for reference, not every bit of information about something which can be verified about a subject needs to be in an article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING; rather articles should try and only include content that is encyclopedically relevant and actually significantly improves the reader's understanding of the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Put the query on the talk page of the article. I'll respond there. Thanks. Lourdes 15:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly I know.It would be strange to remove the information as you already supported it in the link this discussion but yeah as you said maybe something should be said in the talk.Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't not support any particular bit of information in the article, I just asked other editors belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh to look at the article. As Lourdes has suggested above, please post your concerns on the article's talk page and explain why you think the content should be included. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

why don't my edits show up in the View History tab?

I am working on editing and adding citations to the Woodturning page. I have made significant changes in the past two days, including editing explanations. Nothing appears in the View History tab from this work. Is there a time lag, or is there something I don't know about the process?KayLiggett (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi KayLiggett. I see lots of your edits in Woodturning and its page history [2]. Try to bypass your cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki page for a company

Hello,

I am looking to create a Wiki page for my company. I will keep it factual, unbiased and with plenty of references from 3rd party sites and publications. Can I go ahead and do this, will it be accepted? Would truly appreciate inputs.

Thanks, Anupam Anupam dasgupta (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is your company, you should not make the page. See WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Anupam dasgupta. It may help if you understand that there is no such thing as a Wikipedia page for a company. There are only articles about companies, which is not quite the same thing. "A page for a company" is appropriate to advertising media, social media, or directories, not to Wikipedia. Articles about companies are neutral - they are neither "for" nor "against"; and they are based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the company have published about it. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a company - or its employees, agents or associates - say or wish to say about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Colin, let me rephrase, being an employee of the company can I create and publish an article about the company (on wikipedia). I can ensure that the article is factual and heavily based / referenced to 3rd party articles and publications.Kindly let me know, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.42.50 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Anupam. The links other people have given show that you are discouraged from creating such an article, but not forbidden; that you should use the Articles for creation process to create a draft, and expect to be closely reviewed; and that you must declare your conflict of interest as a paid contributer. --ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting notifications that my edits are being reverted, even though I never edited anything.

Several times the last few days when viewing Wikipedia pages, A banner appears which tells me there is a message for me. When I click the banner, the message tells me that my edits to certain pages are unhelpfull or even vandalism, and that they have been reverted. However, the named pages are completely unknown to me, I've never been there, never edited anything. What's going on ? Best Regards, Miro 178.167.254.207 (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be because you are using an IP address which is shared with other users. You could avoid the problem recurring by registering an account, which is free, and also helps to preserve your anonymity. Maproom (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. IPs can be shared by many people, including people in the same household. It's possible that someone else using the same IP address as you has done some vandalism. However, your IP address seems to have changed recently and I can't verify whether what I've said is true or not. The latest warning on your talk page.

In order for you to stop receiving notices not meant for you (and some other benefits), I would suggest you register an account. This will also hide your IP address, which can give away your physical location.

If you already have an account, you should login to it since you appear to have been logged out.

— Gestrid (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

To demonstrate how anonymous an account is, you are not even required to add an email address, though there are also benefits to adding one. (I use an email address that I only use for Wikipedia and has my Wikipedia username attached to it instead of my real name, so people don't know my real name when I reply to an email from them.) — Gestrid (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see Special:Contributions/178.167.254.207 for a list of edits made from your IP address, Miro. If those weren't made by you, then you must be using a shared computer or have a shared IP address. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

How to separate Notes from References?

--Working on Woodturning page. I am building the reference list, but it is combined with the footnotes. I must be missing a mark-up in there. How do I format the notes to follow the references? KayLiggett (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple ways to format both references and notes. The way I personally prefer is to use <ref>REFERENCE HERE</ref> and {{reflist}} for references, and use {{efn|FOOTNOTE HERE}} and {{notelist}} for notes. TimothyJosephWood 19:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Ping KayLiggett. TimothyJosephWood 19:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What to do about dead links

It is not uncommon to click on a reference or source and discover a dead link, it just happened to me at Traditional Values Coalition and the link was supposedly to the site that actually explained what the Coalition was about. I put a "(dead link)" next to it, but am sure that there is a better or more accepted way of dealing with this. Before I remove all the content that is no longer referenced I shall put a post on the talk page, but what is the correct way of dealing with this unfortunately common occurrence. Carptrash (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Carptrash, usually the easiest thing to do is enter the url at https://archive.org/, and then replace it on Wikipedia with the archive version if one exists. TimothyJosephWood 18:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carptrash and Timothyjosephwood: Actually, there's a specific procedure for something like this. The procedure is given in detail here. — Gestrid (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I may or may not intentionally skip most of those steps. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's still a good source of instructions on how to add an archive to a citation. — Gestrid (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all, I will check this link out (if it works, joke) but I am a bit of a luddite and get lost pretty quickly in what seem to be cakewalks for other editors. Thanks again, Carptrash (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't delete content which was supported by a dead link. Better to rescue it where possible, as described above. You did exactly the right thing by tagging it in the meantime, and if you have any questions then you know where to ask... --Gronk Oz (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hello, I was wondering how to create a WikiProject. Can any one help? JustAGuyOnWikipedia ( To see my User page, click here) | (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi JustAGuyOnWikipedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject should help. If you have any questions after reading that, please do follow-up here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Adding an external link

Several years ago I tried to add a link to my website as an external link to an article, the external link that is there is incomplete and way out of date. Every time I made the edit, it was changed back, I was told that since my website had advertising, it was not acceptable. Since then I no longer have advertising so I tried to make the edit again but found that my user name had been banned. I tried to reach the banner by talk and email but never got any response. How should I proceed to make the edit? 66.75.225.150 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello person editing from 66.75.225.150. It's always difficult to give advice in the hypothetical, without being able to look at the specifics of a situation. Does the link you were trying to add truly meet the external links policy? Putting aside that it no longer contains advertising, does it avoid other prohibits set out at WP:ELNO – is it a directly related to the article's subject, provide a "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", and is it written by a recognized authority and is not a blog, personal web pages or fansite?

Were you blocked because you continued to add the link over and over while ignoring warnings? Or, on the other hand, were you blocked with little direct interaction and fairly summarily? Did the username you edited with and that was blocked, contain the name of the business that appeared to be promoted by the link you were trying to add? (See WP:SPAMNAME.)

Anyway, assuming the block did not remove your talk page access, you can make a request to be unblocked by posting to your user talk page (once logged in) this wikimarkup: {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}, but please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks first. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External link addition deleted as spam

I read Wikipedia pages on Apolipoprotein, Apolipoprotein A1, ApoA5, Apolipoprotein C3, ApolipoproteinE this week to get some information as a researcher doing work with those.. At that time I noticed on some of those pages - for eg, on Apolipoprotein A1, an external link entry for "Applied research on A1 for a company "Mabtech" selling certain proteins used in the study of these apolipoproteins but not the apolipoproteins . So I added the "biomedical research on Apolipoprotein to these apolipoproteins & linked the website of a company which offers these specific apolipoproteins - I thought I was providing a necessary link for any one studying these proteins & looking for the proteins. To my surprise, all my additions were deleted & I got an email telling me that what I supplied was spam & also a link to the "Tea House". I am really confused 157.142.237.60 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia policy is very restrictive on what external links are allowed; in particular, links to commercial sites are almost never allowed, apart from one to the official website of the subject of an article, if that is a commercial entity. Please see WP:external links for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)