Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 230

Rejected Article?
My article was rejected but I have no idea why. I thought I did so much research and and followed all the requirements that Wikipedia asks. Can someone help me figure out how I can edit it accordingly to get it submitted? 12:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeistyDrea (talk • contribs) Assuming you are referring to Draft:Steel Lafferty, the reasons are for refusal are clearly stated in the pink box. The subject of any article needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; please read WP:42, and the requirements for sportspeople are more specific - depending upon their sport - please read Notability (sports). You have 5 references, I cannot see the magazine article, but the other references are not really substantial, and some, like Lafferty's sponsors, are not independent. As the rejection notice says, you need to find "clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." Please also read Help:Referencing for beginners and reference your sources accordingly. - Arjayay (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the tea-house - please sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tildes (~) and provide a link to the article you are talking about.

Trouble changing email address
I tried to change my email address recently and got the message to confirm it, which I did; however I have received no communication in my new inbox. Is there some delay with the sending of confirmation codes? It's 2 or 3 days since I made the initial change. Jodosma (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure at all this is the issue, but I'd just note on the chance it might be the culprit that we have a major problem with Yahoo! mail as of April 2014. See here and . If your email is through Yahoo!, you'll need to change it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a gmail address not Yahoo, but as they are closely related this could still be a problem. I'll go back to my first one which is a live.co.uk address so should be OK. Jodosma (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with Gmail. The issue I was talking about is a security protocol yahoo! put in place that does not allow any emails to be sent if the person doesn't send the email directly, so no reason to change from Gmail. So I have no idea what it is. Have you tried sending an email to yourself using the Wikipedia email interface to test whether it's working?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the teahouse Jodosma You probably thought about this but have you checked your spam folder? In my experience Gmail is pretty good at recognizing what is and isn't spam but even it isn't perfect. It might be that your new email system just thinks the emails from Wikipedia are junk mail and is siphoning them into your spam folder. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing a table
Please refer to my sandbox. Except for the coordinates, all of the table data comes from one source. How would you cite that? The table will be the only thing in the section, so one possibility would be to put the citation on the section heading. Mandruss (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An introductory sentence explaining the context of the table would be useful for the reader and an ideal statement to put a footnote on for referencing purposes. -- Jayron  32  14:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The system consists of the following locations."


 * That's about all you could say, without repeating language elsewhere in the relatively short article, and it doesn't seem to add any information. But I agree it would provide a convenient anchor for a citation, if section heading is a bad idea for that purpose. Btw, the actual article is here. Mandruss (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

IRC
Is there an IRC channel? MilkweedPods (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. There are many IRC channels; a list can be found here. --Jakob (talk)  17:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Star Alliance protection
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I noticed that the article, Star Alliance, was protected, so admins/template editors only can edit the article. Does anyone know the reason why this article was protected? Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  22:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, it seems to me the reason was:

(Protected Star Alliance: Edit warring / content dispute: to encourage talk page discussion ([Edit=Allow only template editors and admins] (expires 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only template editors and admins] (expires) (thank)

On the talk page, they appeared to have consensus to not put Air India has a member. Where can I request unprotection? Should I ask MilborneOne? (the admin who protected the article)

Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  22:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first step is to ask the admin who protected the article to remove the protection. If you can't reach MilborneOne, or he declines to remove the protection and you still think it should be removed after discussing the matter with him, you can go to WP:RFUP and file a request that the protection be removed, following the instructions at the top of the page. (If what you want to do is make a specific edit to the page, you can propose it on the article's talk page, putting Edit protected at the top of the section you create.) Deor (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Layout issue
What can be done about the layout problem in this article? In my browser, at least, the table is being horizontally constrained by the infobox, just enough to ruin the appearance of the table. Mandruss (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Welcome to Teahouse! My feeling, although your milage may vary, is that the table is not appropriate.  Wikipedia is not a directory.  In my opinion, the table should be removed and replaced with a bulletted list of the libraries; no addresses, no coordinates.  I would invite other hosts to weigh in on this. John from Idegon (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm in this article in the first place is because it was in a cat of articles needing coords. I asked below how to handle it and was given a couple of alternatives, one of which was to add coordinates for each branch library. I chose that alternative. I then chose to convert to a table because, after adding coordinates, there was too much information on each line, and because it looks much better and is easier to use when all of the coordinates are vertically aligned. I believe coordinates for all is the best approach, especially when you consider that the GeoGroup template I added at External links (which is quite valuable, I think), would be worthless without them. As for the addresses, I don't know. I wouldn't be opposed to removing them, but I would still want the coordinates and the table for the reasons given. Mandruss (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the article is going to have the address and coordinate information, I think the table layout is fine, much easier to read. Thanks for doing that. About the layout, the problem seems to be that the info box extends down to the right of the table, which makes the table narrower and forces the rows display as two lines instead of one. You want to force the table to display below the info box. I can see three ways to do that. 1) Add more text to the lead. 2) Add another section. That would display a table of contents. 3) Use Template:Clear. I just checked this, and confirmed that it works in Chrome. In the source, I added a !!clear!! statement (where the !! chars represent template curly bracket chars)  just before the "Locations" header, and that left the info box above the table as you want. Of these three methods, I would recommend 1), as it seems least disruptive. The clear statement would work for now, but might not be appropriate later. Maybe you could add some more information about the library or the system to the lead? -- Margin1522 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, U|Margin1522. I'm going with the . I won't bore the Teahouse with my long and complicated rationale, but anyone wishing to discuss it is welcome to drop me a line on my talk page. Wiki on! Mandruss (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

block
What to do if someone else vandalised from your IP and its now blocked? SwampRockMusic (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, SwampRockMusic and welcome to The Teahouse. Since you signed in, it appears you can edit from this IP, so this is not a case of a "hard block". There is advice here on what to do but it's not clear what your exact situation is.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Getting rid of the word Draft?
I created the following wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Andre_Charles_(Zone_T.C.T.)&oldid=616474412. I was suppose to submit it for review at some point, but it stopped giving me that option. I may have accidentally submitted it? When I go to look for the article it is no there as: Andre Charles (Zone T.C.T.), but it appears as Draft:Andre Charles (Zone T.C.T.) in search and I can go to that page. How do I get rid of the word "Draft" or is it still being reviewed. Thank you.Futuronyc (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have indeed submitted it for review. However, I'm afraid it's not going to pass - we already have an article about the subject at André Pierre Charles. Rather than losing your work, I'd suggest you try and incorporate any new material you've uncovered into the existing article. Yunshui 雲 水 14:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Futuronyc. To complete Yunshui's answer: the current article on André Pierre Charles is a stub, so I am sure you could improve it a lot by incorporating elements of your draft :) But before doing so, I would advice you to fix a couple of problems I have noticed while going through your work: 1) Provide more sources and more in-line citations. Everything you write on wikipedia has to be verifiable. The sources you have given (NYT etc.) looks reliable, but they don't seem to suffice to cover your (huge) text. 2)Structure your work."Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose" as the Manual of Style of Wikipedia says. Simply put: Dividing your text in sections would make it easier to read :) 3) Avoid Overlinking. Adding links to other wiki-articles is great, but if there are too much of them, it becomes annoying for the reader. An advice: Once you have hyperlinked a word (like "Urban work", "Lafayette street" in your draft), don't hyperlink it again. It will make your article way nicer to read, in my opinion :) Here were my thoughts. I hope it will be of some help. I wish you good luck ! Regards KaptainIgloo (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help. Is it proper for me to change the name of the Andre Pierre Charles article to the name most people would find him under...Andre Charles (Zone T.C.T.)? and then add my text to that article?

Futuronyc (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * and if it is OK how do I do it?Futuronyc (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The procedure is explained at WP:MOVE. You should treat this as potentially controversial and discuss it. If this man is definitely better known as Andre Charles, a move such as you described would probably be appropriate.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

How many links are enough?
I am trying to fix up our company Wikipedia page. There is a banner on the page which reads "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text."

I have read all of the text provided and did as it asks. How many links are enough? When will the banner go away? Ecocarrier (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings Ecocarrier and welcome to the teahouse. I assume you are talking about this article: PiFi? There is no hard and fast rule about how many links but that article definitely has plenty. If anything I think you or whoever edited it may have overdone it and added too many links. I'm going to take a closer look after I finish this and may remove a few. As for the tag, it's just considered another part of the article. So just as any editor can edit the article any editor can remove the tag if they think it no longer applies. I think that so I removed the tag for you (fyi it's a bit of wiki code surrounded by curly brackets). However, if I understood your message correctly you are an employee of Ecocarrier the company that makes PIFI. If that is the case you have a wp:COI and should not be editing the article. Sorry it's just a wikipedia rule. See the article about conflict of interest for more information about this, especially this section: wp:COS. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again Ecocarrier -- and also this is a question for the whole teahouse. I took another look at the article. One thing for future reference: the policy is that you don't need to link to the same article more than once. So the first time you reference the concept you link to it but then not again. You seem to have linked to some articles more than once. I started to manually remove the redundant links but it occurred to me that there might be a tool that can do that automatically for me. Does anyone else know is there a tool that can do that? If not I'll go back and do it manually after I hear back. Thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I have added a notability tag, as the article does not include any references to show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You also need to remove all the external links that you have embedded into the bodytext, - Arjayay (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An exception to the rule MadScientistX11 mentioned: if the article is really long, it is helpful to link to the same topic once in each section.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I was going to say that originally but my comments are always so long, I've been trying to be a bit less verbose but that's probably not possible for me anyway. Just wanted to document as I looked at the article it also occurred to me that there were several links to concepts that just didn't need linking in the first place so I just did it by hand. I am curios if there is something that can automate it though, it seems like it should be possible, although perhaps it doesn't come up enough to merit a tool. I removed some of the most obvious un-needed links. There are still probably too many but I also noticed that others have added several tags to the article. I hadn't really taken a look at the content beyond the link issue but it clearly has serious issues so it will be edited or perhaps even deleted so I just spent a little time and removed the most obvious over linking. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

how to create and promte my biography in wikipedia?
I had created my personal biography in wiki. The page has been created and viewable in google SERP page, but now the page has been deleted because it doesn't meet wiki guidelines. so what can i do to retain my page by satisfying wiki guidelines.

122.178.113.219 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, please read our notability guideline for people. Then, read about why we discourage autobiographies. Your comment about "promoting" your biography indicates that you may not fully understand what Wikipedia is. We don't "promote" people or their careers here. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Try a social networking site like LinkedIn for that instead. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this a legitimate article?
I was doing some housekeeping on U.S. gun law articles and came across this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_firearms_topics

I went to AFD to read-up on nominating for deletion, but I'm not really sure what this article is. It says its a list, but all that's in it is a couple of boxes.

Is it a legitimate article? Lightbreather (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My gut reaction is on the order of "what the heck is this and why is it so old?". I don't have a good policy point at the ready, but, IMO, this is either 1) an article with no content 2) a very poor outline. The templates can remain, but I feel the "article" should be deleted. PS. if someone can give a better policy-based argument, I'm all ears. Chris857 (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC) [PS. My opinions stand in light of the below] Chris857 (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is widely considered bad form,, to remove a big list of content from an article, as you did today to this one, and then complain about the state of the list article. At least tell people what you did before asking for an opinion. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I did something out of order. The part I removed had been tagged for a year (not by me). It wasn't a list of firearms topics. The other things in/on the "list" I couldn't qualify, so I came here. Lightbreather (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You did nothing "out of order",, and that list has (and had) significant problems. It seems reasonable to me, however, that when an editor asks others for an opinion on an article, that they should also mention that they have recently made major changes removing content from that article. You wrote, "It says its a list, but all that's in it is a couple of boxes" while you are the one who had just removed all of the list content.Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the diff of what I removed from the article before I came to ask my question. It was a list of "Prominent people." Two lists, actually: "Prominent" advocates of firearms ownership and "Prominent" advocates of firearms control. Category:American gun rights advocates and Category:American gun control advocates say these people are supposed to do more than just express an opinion on guns and gun control. Plus, the people themselves are not firearms topics, which is the title of the list/article in question: List of United States firearms topics.
 * So the question still remains, I'd like to do something about this article. It was once upon a time, apparently, a real list, but the boxes are in use now and this article seems to be obsolete. Do I go to AFD, and what would it fall under? Lightbreather (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you transform it into a useful and neutral list of U.S. firearms topics. But if you believe that the list is untenable in any form, please feel free to nominate it for deletion, explaining in your nomination why such a list should not exist. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Film Composers are not "notable"?
Hello folks, I have been in dialog with the last reviewer concerning Criteria for musicians and Notability. I feel that the selection guidelines are biased against Film Composers. There is no mentions for criteria for Film Composers which is the case for William Levine. Who can we appeal to re composers otherwise this submission will get rejected again. Mr. Levine is a Hollywood,composer, a BMI member who has conducted and orchestrated for live orchestras. These works made it out to millions of people and continue to do so internationally. But like all film composers, they are rarely mentioned in reviews because a good score is supposed to be felt, not noticed.

Thanks.

03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It is difficult to accept your argument that we are biased against such people when we currently have well over 1000 biographies listed in the category "Film score composers by nationality". So, there is no artificial obstacle whatsoever in creating such a biography. You simply need to provide references to independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to this person. That's the same standard that any article should be held to. So, maybe that 1000+ should be cut to 800. But we don't add new non-compliant articles just because other non-compliant articles haven't been created yet. So, either your guy is notable, which you can show by furnishing the sources, or he isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Not everyone needs a Wikipedia biography. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. That helps. Is IMDB an independent, reliable source?
 * For most information, no.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And we have a helpful description here.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, there is a wiki for "List of composers by nationality" but not for "Film Score Composers by nationality." Nor is there a "Film Composers by nationality". So it's hard to accept your argument. "Film Composers" leads to "Film Score". On that page there is a list of Award Winners and Nominees. Obviously notable. But there are hundreds of award-less composers who have had there music heard by millions of people but have never get mentioned on wiki. I'm just trying to speak up for all composers at this point.
 * Out of curiosity, if there are no independent sources covering a composer, what would you put in their biography? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you don't know how to search categories. Please take a look at Category:Film score composers by nationality. As I said, we have over 1000 such biographies. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Can i remove something from page?
Hello i have a question. Can i remove this from a page if i go through everything and feel that it's fixed

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (March 2014) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find links tool for suggestions"  Stone2ypr (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings Stone2ypr and welcome to the teahouse. The policy is that tags are part of the article and if you feel you have done appropriate editing to remove them you can just as you can do any other edit. However, IMO it's a good idea for new editors to err on the side of caution, if you aren't sure better to have someone more experienced take a look first and if they agree they will remove the tag. Can you let us know which specific article you have in mind? I looked at your recent edits and I saw that you've edited several pages that had tags for multiple issues. In my quick look at those articles most of them seemed like they still had issues and that the tags should remain but we can give you better feedback if you let us know which specific article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Madscientistx11 yes the article is David Daneshgar please let me know what you think. Best --Stone2ypr (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I looked at the article for David Daneshgar. There were two issues: that the article was an orphan and that it didn't have a lot of links. There were plenty of links but there was only one reference from an actual Wikipedia article. (Other pages show up when you did "what links here" but they were all user pages, talk pages, etc.) But I used the Find Links tool and found three additional pages that mentioned David (various poker championships he finished highly in) but where his name wasn't a link and I made those all links. So I removed the tags at the top for the orphan and under linking. I left a tag that was still there at the bottom saying the article requires more categories as there is only one and this subject is very far from the kind of things I normally edit so I wasn't sure what categories to add but the major tag at the top is gone. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help i learned a lot --Stone2ypr (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to do on an article that needs major work
I recently edited an article where I wanted to link to another article on the topic of automatic classifiers. Classifiers are a kind of inference engine (an example is called HermiT which is part of Protege, earlier examples were the languages Loom and KL-ONE) This IMO is a fairly important topic because although the topic has a long history it's only been in the last few years where the technology has become very important to the real world. There is an initiative called the Semantic Web which is the vision by Tim Berners Lee for the next generation of the Internet and ontologies and classifiers are critical to that idea. Anyway, I found and linked to this article Hierarchical classifier and on a quick read through it seemed like it was kind of on that topic. I made a note to go back and edit that article which I'm starting to do now. But as I look at the article in more detail I'm not sure if it's meant to refer to deductive classifiers (here is a paper that is a good overview of the topic in case you want some light reading http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/papers/macgregor/aaai94.pdf) or not. The current article seems to me like complete OR, nothing worth keeping. But I'm not sure whether the intent by someone was to create an article on deductive classifiers or on something else. I've never heard deductive classifiers called hierarchical classifiers but I could see why someone would call them that. So my question, looking for feedback is: is it better to just tag this current article as unreferenced OR (or maybe just nominate it for deletion) and start a new article for deductive classifiers (I searched every name combination I could think of and couldn't find anything) or is it better to keep this article and just assume that's what they meant and rework it. (If I do that I'll add redirects for more common uses of the name that I'm familiar with). MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thinking it over I realize the question is highly domain specific so probably hard for teahouse feedbsack. And as I read through the hierarchical classifier article yet one more time I realized that the first sentence definitely implies what I mean by a classifier. So unless someone disagrees I'm going to be bold and assume that is what they meant and edit that article and then also add redirects. I've already posted to the talk page so if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of what Hierarchical Classifier means they will have a chance to let me know. It's odd sometimes just having to collect your thoughts to present them to others helps clarify the answer. Still interested of course if people have opinions. I wonder if this is the first time a Teahouse host has answered his own question? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , the article should probably be about "hierarchical classification". Google books has a lot about this in the fields of data bases, expert systems, machine learning, and neural information processing. There is even an "International Federation of Classification Societies" and the topic comes up in papers in their proceedings. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I asked after all. You clarified it. Now I see what this article is supposed to be about. It's interesting they are doing essentially the same thing as the deductive classifiers do only the way they do it is completely different. The Hierarchical Classification uses things like neural nets where as the reasoners I'm talking about use formal logic. It's interesting (well to me) there are often conflicts between these two camps in computer science, the connectionist AI people and the formal logic AI people. Anyway, you are right absolutely, I'll leave that article and tag it and create a new one for deductive classifiers. thanks! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit going to wrong place?
Hi all, i'm trying to move my work from my sandbox to the boxing section in the Argentina at the 1948 Summer Olympics just like i did for the athletics and basketball, but for some reason it keeps going to the Reference section?? I'm still learning so be gentle if i am missing something very obvious. And thank you in advance. Iantheimp 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantheimp (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, Iantheimp and welcome to The Teahouse. An experiment was tried but it didn't work. I've asked for help here.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And they fixed it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A big thank you to you all for trying and fixing. Iantheimp 17:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantheimp (talk • contribs)

Quoting from a television programme?
Hi

Is it ok to add to a person's page a quote they said on a television programme, so long as you use their actual words? Enjoylife123 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to provide us with a few more details? I assume this is a real person, and that the statement was made during a news program of some sort.  If that's the case, you can add it just as you would a quote cited in a print media article. Also keep in mind that any quotes need a citation so that other editors can independently verify their accuracy.  Hope this helps!  Keihatsu   talk 19:15,  reliable,2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another issue to consider,, is that a single quote taken out of context is not necessarily worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. People say many things, so why is this particular thing important? It would be best to have a reliable independent secondary source that discusses the significance of the statement. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting quotes can, however, be added to our Wikiquote project. --Jakob (talk)  20:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info so far guys.. to add a little more... in the UK we have had issues regarding sexist comments made by people in the media recently. It has been said that people in the media on national television shouldn't make sexist comments and cause offense to a group of people and, if they do, they should be held accountable for what they say. One such comment occurred during a news programme where a newscaster made a sexist comment about boys in schools and, as with stories that have been leaked recently, such as the Richard Scudamore debate, I felt it was worthy to add the comment to show this person's views, so long as what is said is exactly what the person said and nothing is added to that person's comment...only the actual quote. What do you think? Is that perfectly ok?

Using quotes out of context is a problem - thus we rely on whether a reliable secondary source refers to the quotes. Collect (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And also, rather importantly,
 * Wikipedia is not for "holding people accountable"
 * Wikipedia is not for "redressing the balance" (a phrasing you used earlier)
 * Wikipedia is not for promoting or defending a particular point of view
 * Biographies of living persons are subject to policy WP:BLP, in particular any material critical of a living person needs to be given due weight
 * So for example Wikipedia's article on Jeremy Clarkson, presenter of Top Gear, mentions his mis-use of a certain word, but only in passing (briefly!) in the wider context of him being an extremely successful and popular (if sometimes controversial) television presenter. And it only mentions it because multiple independent reliable sources commented on what his employer said about what any future such mistakes might mean for his career.
 * So for example Wikipedia's article on Jeremy Clarkson, presenter of Top Gear, mentions his mis-use of a certain word, but only in passing (briefly!) in the wider context of him being an extremely successful and popular (if sometimes controversial) television presenter. And it only mentions it because multiple independent reliable sources commented on what his employer said about what any future such mistakes might mean for his career.
 * So for example Wikipedia's article on Jeremy Clarkson, presenter of Top Gear, mentions his mis-use of a certain word, but only in passing (briefly!) in the wider context of him being an extremely successful and popular (if sometimes controversial) television presenter. And it only mentions it because multiple independent reliable sources commented on what his employer said about what any future such mistakes might mean for his career.


 * Likewise that guy who allegedly bit some people during football matches probably has some mention of that on the Wikipedia article about him (because of its significance in his career)... but if some guy on TV tomorrow said "I think biting people is OK" then we would not add that to a Wikipedia article about the guy, because it's just a dumb comment that is of no great significance.


 * Above all, beware hearing (or seeing or reading) something and deciding "this is relevant because it seems so to me". Such additions will be removed.


 * I'm quite interested in what the comment was, though :P --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Citiations for headers
why do many articles, including corporate ones, do not have citations for the last paragraph before the table of contents, are they just assumed?

for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding Dark Liberty (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In an ideal article, the WP:LEAD would not have references, because the lead would a summary of content found elsewhere in the article which would be cited. (one caveat is that controversial claims and quotations need to be cited at any appearance) That being said, ideal articles that follow this to a T are relatively uncommon. Hope this helps. Chris857 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I find out why my article was not accepted?
There was no reason given with the rejection Jackdesert (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Did you take a look at your own draft article? Because I just did and found this message from reviewer, who made the following comments, which you should study and address:


 * "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."
 * "What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."


 * Links to the relevant policies and guidelines have been provided by the reviewer at the beginning of your draft. If you have any questions after reading that, please feel free to ask them here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

DOBUT + Assist
I had created apage by the name Ravensoul (a book review) but due to lack of time couldn't feed in the whole date & it was removed. I also need some voluteers for speedy completion. ( the book is by James Barclay) Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxiblurr (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What was the name of that article?  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . When we look at your contribution history, all we see is this Teahouse question. That makes it very difficult to find what you were working on. Unless you can provide more details, only an administrator could learn more about this. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article in question was Ravensoul, which was speedily deleted twice, on successive days, as (basically) not providing enough information to identify the article's topic. Oxiblurr, I'll just say that I think you are laboring under a misapprehension: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for book reviews. If you think the book merits an encyclopedia article rather than a review, the instructions at WP:Your first article should be of help. Deor (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What can I do if someone deletes my edits?
Someone has deleted my edits on the pretext that the information is not attributed. This information is based on local history - some of it derived from personal knowledge of people still living. This is difficult to cite. I suspect the deletions are against the public interest and are biased. GoodnessandTruth (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I fear you have run up against a normal WIkipedia issue, but it's a good thing to ask us about. Reading WP:TRUTH will show you how we, as an encyclopaedia, differ from a reporter of the truth. We report on other people's reports of things, things that may not even be true. Usually a wikipedia editor will be able to remove their own biases when making edits, though not always. We do require attribution, and not just personal recollection. We can't cite Mrs Trellis of 27 The High Street, Fooville, because we have no published source. If the Fooville gazette publishes Mtrrs Trellis's recollections then we have some sort of a source. If they comment upon Mrs Trellis's recollections then we have a better source. We are not a local history archive, and personal recollections should be offered to your local history society without fail. We have a different purpose, unfair as it may seem to you at first.


 * If you have attribution for the edits you can and should use the article's talk page to discuss the material and ther attribution and seek to form a consensus for the inclusion of the material. Fiddle   Faddle  12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c)  @GoodnessandTruth, FreeRangeFrog:   Hi GoodnessandTruth. The only thing you can properly do is add back the material citing to published reliable sources that verify it, using inline citations. Please see the section of the verifiability policy known as WP:BURDEN, which places the obligation to verify unsourced material, after removal, on anyone seeking to return it. Since you are stating that most of this material is actually unpublished, you cannot properly return it at all. I disagree with you that this is either against the public interest or is biased. It is what is necessary to maintain Wikipedia as a encyclopedia, and not some other type of reference work. It may very well be that this material should be posted elsewhere, but not here. An encyclopedia is by its nature a tertiary source, that details what is already known through previous publication in the wider world. It is not for the announcing new things or original publication. Wikipedia is constrained from doing so by the very fabric of what it is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a New Administrator
There is an ongoing issue with the administrator who has been reviewing my article for creation, "Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing." After this administrator initially declined the article on the basis of Notability, I pointed out two or three items already written in the article and referenced, by which it met the standard for notability. Only after I pointed out these elements to him multiple times did he finally agree that the article did indeed meet, as originally written, one of the guidelines. At his request, I then added a second reference to completely establish notability, and accordingly resubmitted the article. He again nevertheless declined the article. I pointed out how and where the reference met the criteria for notability; he responded that although he did not dispute the facts of the reference, the reference did not contain enough pages about the subject to establish notability. In other words, the facts were appropriate for notability, but the quantity of pages expressing those facts were not enough! (The history of this exchange can be viewed, I believe, via my page/his talk page. It's pretty self-explanatory.)  The pattern seems to be that I make changes; he ignores them; I point out how the changes meet the criteria for notability; he assents and comes up with a new edit he requires; etc. We're now at a point where he seems to be introducing an entirely arbitrary criteria for notability--i.e. the number of pages of, rather than the facts expressed by, the reference are required, by him, to establish notability. Can I request a different administrator to review this article? i.e. one who will abide by the standard for Notability established by Wikipedia?

Thanks!

BlitzenrupffBlitzenrupff (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It seems that you are talking about here, and when we discuss another editor on Wikipedia, it is considered polite to mention them by name. When you describe that person as an "administrator" and ask for a new "administrator", you seem to have a misunderstanding of roles. Yes, that editor is an administrator, but reviewing Articles for Creation is not an administrative function, and such reviews can be completed by any experienced editor, whether or not they are an administrator. In this case, this particular highly experienced editor has given you excellent advice for several weeks now, pointing out the importance of independent coverage, and that the coverage should be significant, rather than just a passing mention. Please be aware that the Articles for Creation process is an optional one that you have chosen. It gives you the opportunity to have an experienced editor (more than ten years of experience in this case) give you advice as your article develops. The alternative is to drop the article into main space, where new page patrollers, who tend to be far less patient, may tear it to shreds. So my friendly advice is to work with the reviewer. I think you have a good one. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cullen. How do I drop the article directly into the main space?  (It's been a very frustrating process with this editor (Graeme Bartlett); the frustration is pretty self-evident if one views the history of the exchange on his talk page--i.e. asking me to add elements that were already addressed in the article and references, etc.)  We're now at the point where he is substituting arbitrary criteria for those stated by Wikipedia.  It's hard to contribute more time to an article that can continue to be at the mercy of whatever arbitrary standard he next decides to introduce.)  Thanks again.Blitzenrupff (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clear that you are showing frustration here, but I am seeing only cursory interaction between you and the reviewer, who is giving you excellent advice. He has explained to you that a passing mention in a source is not adequate, but that instead we require significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. My question to you is why are you rushing to create a Wikipedia article about a journal that has only been around since 2013? But the procedure to move the article to main space is described at here. Please be aware that I consider it highly likely that your article will be nominated for deletion if it is moved to main space. The choice is yours. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. (I hadn't noticed your response until now.) I might give that a try. I don't understand on what basis it would be nominated for deletion. It seems to satisfy clearly criteria 1 for Wikipedia's standards for Notability for Academic Journals. Unless the editor can explain to me--i.e. respond to my last set of questions--how exactly it does not, I'm not sure what else to do. Thanks again.Blitzenrupff (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because a Wikipedia article should be a summary of previously publishedinformation about a topic, I spent some time looking on the internet for information about "Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing". I used Google, which found 29 items, most of which were announcements of one kind or another, such as calls for papers. It may be that Blitzenrupff has not added references to independent discussions of this journal in reliable publications because it is so new that none exist.  If this is the case, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about this topic yet.  On the other hand, perhaps authors in the field of critical thinking have written about this journal, but in off-line or subscription-only publications; in that case the relevant text will need to be found and cited to demonstrate that this is a well-known journal.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although only an essay No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability may help the editor understand the problem. - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Anne, The WAC Clearinghouse at Colorado State Univeristy and INWAC are the two sourced authorities. The Editor has even acknowledged that both are independent of one another and the journal. He has also acknowledged that each is a reliable source--the first being the primary academic exhange for the field, the second one being the leading professional organization in the field.Blitzenrupff (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anne. That's right, the standard is "passing," not "brief," which means the number of pages is immaterial; by definition, "passing" concerns WHAT is expressed, not HOW MUCH of it is expressed. And as the editor acknowledged, through his explanation that he is not disputing the facts of the reference, mention of the journal is not cursory to another conversation (i.e. "passing), but central to the reference's discussion of which specific resources are 1)the important ones in the field and 2)are recommended for universities starting WAC programs. The reference is from the leading professional organization in the field (which selected for endorsement this journal and only two others out of a multitude of journals--a significant gesture to anyone familiar with the field).  This second reference is precisely what was requested by the editor in order for the article to be published.  It's hard to see how this reference confers less notability than the first reference, which he already approved (after I pointed out several times that the sourced reference was independent of the journal; frustrating because this is clearly evident to even the most casual reader of the article and the reference). As for your Google search (which I certainly appreciate), you'd find similar results for most academic journals. The notability of an academic journal doesn't usually accrue from others writing ABOUT the journal, but from who publishes IN the journal, who is on its editorial/advisory board, and from other authorities in the field--such as those issuing the kind of statements I cited. I think this is why, if one does a random search of academic journals in Wikipedia, one finds that a vast number of them are certainly notable (to those knowledgeable in their respective disciplines) yet have no references at all. What I've provided, in response to the editor's request, meets the notability guidelines for academic journals and far exceeds that for most of the academic journals whose entries I've surveyed on Wikipedia and initially used as a model for writing this article. My article would seem to provide a solid foundation for others to build on and update as the history of the journal unfolds. Thanks again for your thoughtful response, Anne--much appreciated.Blitzenrupff (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this the current draft? Draft:Double_Helix:_A_Journal_of_Critical_Thinking_and_Writing  If it is then I only see three references. All of them are web references and two seem to be from the site itself.  If that draft that I linked to is the article in question then I don't think you have any justification to request a new review. I don't think any experienced Wikipedia editor would approve that draft it just doesn't pass the standards for references and notability, to be honest it's not even close. Here is a good summary of those as well as of what makes a good article  wp:42 Also, I googled "Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing" and the first 20 hits all seemed to be from the site itself or other blog like academic sites. I think there may be a real question whether the journal is wp:notable enough at this point to merit a wikipedia article at all. Please understand this has nothing to do with the quality of the work on the site. I'm sure it's outstanding and that that there are experts in the field who will say it's outstanding but unfortunately that doesn't matter for Wikipedia. What matters is are some of those experts quoted in good sources like independent newspapers, other journals, or magazines talking about Double Helix. If such references don't exist than unfortunately Double Helix doesn't pass the standard for notability at this point. Please note, I'm not saying definitively that is the case, I haven't researched it enough to say either way but I am saying that I don't think you've made a case that the editor is not following Wikipedia guidelines in their assessment and feedback.  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mad Scientist. One of the External Links is to The WAC Clearinghouse referenced in the article, which does indeed meet the standard for Notability, according to the editor and the standards as laid out by Wikipedia for Academic Journals. The footnotes are to a Statement released by INWAC endorsing the journal. This was the second authority, which the editor asked me to source in order to establish notability in order for the article to be approved. According to Wikipedia's standards for notability for academic journals, the article needs to satisfy only 1 of the 3 criteria in order to meet the standard. According to the Editor, a second authority that is independent and reliable needs to be sourced. He agreed that INWAC is, as it is both independent of the other source, The WAC Clearinghouse, as well as the journal, and is the leading authority in the field. What's puzzling is that this second reference offers more of a statement about the journal than the first reference, and it's hard to see how it possibly confers less notability than the first reference. The history of this discussion, which I'm briefly recounting here and above, can also be found at the Editor's Talk page. Thanks again for taking an interest, Mad Scientist.Blitzenrupff (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. I know it can be intimidating to new editors there is so much stuff to learn. That is why I always advise new editors to get experience editing existing articles first before they try to create a new page. Although no on ever seems to follow that suggestion ;-) FYI an external link doesn't count as a reference. A reference needs to be an inline citation. The idea is that the reference comes after the fact(s) it supports. External links are for additional information that is relevant but not used as a reference. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks (yet again), Mad Scientist. Although this wasn't an issue for the editor, the method of documentation for the first source could easily be modified. I think he and I are at an impasse. He still hasn't responded to my questions about how exactly the second reference fails to satisfy criteria 1 for establishing notability for academic journals. So, since he appears to be the sole gatekeeper for the article, unfortunately, I think that's it.Blitzenrupff (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no concept of 'sole gatekeeper' here. When you submit an article for review it is like playing spin the bottle. You will always get a kiss, but you may find it not to your taste.
 * I see it is not currently submitted for review. If you are confident that all the work that can be done has ben done, resubmit it. On the prior reviewer's talk page consider placing a request that other eyes than theirs look at it. Fiddle   Faddle  13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper way of Deleting unwanted User Pages.
I often notice user who adds too much personal information which is not worthy or user names which seems to be more of an advertisement [ eg: xyz associates ]. Should i notify them beforehand or add the quick deletion template directly ? Please share links on proper ways to notify or handle these cuz, I might have missed it :) Sahil (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. If you see a userpage with personal information, there's little you can do, unless it's about a minor. Then you should email the oversight team as soon as possible so that it can be removed from the public archives. Promotional userpages can be tagged as db-u5 (okay) or db-g11 (better) and promotional usernames can be reported here. If you install the Twinkle tool in your preferences (look in the gadgets section), the latter two tasks are easier to do. --Jakob (talk)  17:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Editorial use images on Wikipedia
Is it OK to use an image provided for "editorial use" in a Wikipedia article? For example, the image [|here] is protected by copyright and "for editorial use only", and would be great for illustrating the Kobo Aura. Is there a section in the non-free media rationale that would allow this? Cheeseisdisgusting (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse! I get an "access denied" error when I try to view your linked image, but I'll try to answer anyway. For an image to be considered free by Wikipedia's standards, it needs to be licensed in a way that allows the image to be used for any purpose, in any medium, including commercially. As a result, "editorial use" isn't sufficient enough for the image to be considered free. Non-free images can only be used when "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The Kobo Aura, being a physical tablet, can certainly be portrayed through a freely-licensed image (and it already is), so a non-free image would not meet our non-free content criteria and wouldn't be acceptable. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 21:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre missing reflist
Hi. While patrolling NewPages just now, I came upon an article that appeared to have a list numbered list of references, exactly like a reflist, but there wasn't a reflist. I added a reflist, but the old revision is here. This isn't terribly important; I'm just curious if someone can explain what was going on. Thanks, --Jakob (talk)  23:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a new feature. See Village pump (technical)/Archive 128. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What is a company called "Wheel Tugs?"98.239.250.230 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Was on Wikipedia and Andrew Tobias autobiographical information which led to his website. He apparently is in to a company called, "Wheel Tugs" and I was wondering if there was some more information that may be gleaned in wikipedia about the company. 98.239.250.230 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We've got an article on WheelTug (and also an article on Tugboats, some of which have historically been driven by paddle-wheels) - any use? Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 14:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

talk page
how do you get to somebody's talk page?Sdkevon (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Click on their name, and choose the Talk tab at the top of their userpage. Alternatively, type:  into the Search bar. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水  14:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Provelt
Hello, Is there a way to get rid of the "(edited with ProveIt)" tag next to my edit summaries? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know. Removing it, it is only automatically re-added, it's a bit of a pest and not really needed, but again, I don't know a way to stop it. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only way I get rid of it is to preview my edits first then remove it. However, most of the time I forget to do that. Thanks anyway. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I couldn't be more help, hope you have better luck at the Village Pump. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)