Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 436

Competing facts in an article?
I found two competing facts/sources in an article, is there a way to request an edit on the article?Nikki mcr (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . That is an interesting question. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so any editor, including you, can edit almost any article. A small percentage are protected, usually because of persistent vandalism. If you are unsure of the best course of action, every article has a talk page, which can be reached by clicking a tab at the top of the article. You can start a discussion there. If you give us the exact name of the article in question, and describe the issue, then Teahouse hosts will give a more specific response. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please go ahead and edit. If you have sufficient content and reliable references you may do it yourself. However, I have checked your contributions and you are a new user. So you may write your suggestions at the article's talk page and other editors may do that on your behalf after discussion and verification. But do not restrict yourself from editing. We are all editors here. You may, however, want to understand basic policies and guidelines for your own self. You can also ask help from particular editors on their talk pages if required. JugniSQ (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it may be acceptable - even encouraged - for an article to reflect that reliable sources have expressed different views, as long as they are each given appropriate weight in the article. "Some sources say that the dress is white and gold(refs), while others say it is blue and black(refs)."  Wikipedia itself is not taking part in the debate; merely reporting it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me also add that internally inconsistent articles may be tagged with the contradict template. This will alert other editors to the contradiction - just make sure to describe where the contradiction is in the about parameter of the template. GregorB (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I add references to my article?
I have been trying to post a page on a celebrity for quite a while now but gets rejected. The reason "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." I have added a lot of references including citations but this just doesn't seem to work. Please help!Sowmyaaum (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For reference Draft:Aaryan Krishna Menon —teb728 t c 07:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I had a look at the draft, and it looks as if it has the references now. It also appears to be awaiting review. But looking at the history, I see you have removed the previous submission responses. I don't wish to be unkind, but like everybody else here I am a volunteer, and spend my time doing what interests me. If you are going to deliberately make it difficult for me to understand what is going on, I am not motivated to help you. --ColinFine (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how to remove submission responses!!!! If it has been removed accidentally (that is the only way it might have happened) i apologize. Please be motivated :)

Difference
This edit doesn't change anything. The Bot did change something. Marvel Hero (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and sincere welcomes to The Teahouse. The Bot indeed did make a change. It removed a Unicode character in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siberian_sinkholes&action=edit&oldid=698297091 this] edit. Scroll to the bottom and you should see a block or such before the ]]. Cheers!  08:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It removed a U+200E left-to-right mark after "craters". I copy-pasted the text to the "Characters" field at http://r12a.github.io/apps/conversion/ and clicked "View in Uniview" to find out. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Not the OP here, but I use wikEd as my Wikipedia text editor and when I opened the edit window for the edit prior to the Bots (per the link I provided above) I scrolled down to the bottom of that edit window and saw a red block after craters and before the ]]. Does the standard Wikipedia text editor show the red block? or, just a space? Cheers!  09:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no block, space or anything else in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources provided but don't know how to remove the tag
Hi all, how do I remove the tag: Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag. I have added sources, and it says that "you" can delete, but not sure how.

Thanks. Wstew82 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Whitney Wellington Stewart, it has no references, but numerous misplaced external links, so you must not yet remove the tag.  You need to read the links to understand the difference. There are numerous relevant links in the messages at the top of the article, so please read them.  --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete account
I want to delete my account.what to do?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichsumit (talk • contribs) 08:55, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Hello, Ichsumit. I'm sorry to hear that you want to delete your account. Unfortunately, this is not possible because all edits to Wikipedia have to be attributed to a user account. You can, however, simply stop editing, or if you want or need to make your contributions harder to find, then see Courtesy vanishing. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if all you want to do is to delete your user page (User:Ichsumit), then you can request this by adding db-user to the top of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The user has a second account here User:Isumit007 Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Sumit, if you want to delete this account just because you exclusively want to use your another account named User:Isumit007 then you can simply ask any admin to block your this account and you can use your second account. Your second account has "007" in it that may the reason you want to use that account but you could have changed username of your this account itself instead of creating another account.-- Human 3015   TALK   15:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

comments regarding an unaccepted article
hi, i am new to writing for wikipedia and recently submitted an article on the current 2015-2016 season of South Korea's Volleyball League (KOVO V-League) for review and it wasn't accepted and the reason given was

"A couple of bullet points and a lot of blank tables, with zero references this article is not ready to be accepted into the main article space."

1) I do not understand what they meant by a couple of bullet points. Is it not acceptable to have bullet points in the article? I put the points in bullets because I thought it would be easier for the readers to understand.

2) Yes there is a lot of blank tables because the season is still ongoing so the result is still not available. I intended to update the tables as the season goes on. For FIVB World League and World Grand Prix for example, they has not even started, but as schedule has been released by FIVB, there is a page for the 2016 World League and World Grand Prix with all the matches table blank too.

3) Regarding the zero reference, because there wasn't an English article explaining the format and all other details regarding the V-League (as all the articles are in Korean), I simply thought I can just put external links to cover them. But as this was one of the reason given for the article to be rejected, I will insert reference accordingly.

I hope you can help me understand what I need to do to fix this problem. Thank you ^.^Aimankyuichi (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, references need not be in English. Obviously English references are much easier to check and are prefered, but Korean references is always better than no references. About bullet points, I think the comment refers to the fact that, in most cases writing in paragraphs is prefered. Bullets should really be for lists. In your draft, User:Aimankyuichi/sandbox, the format section should be organised as paragraphs. You also need a short paragraph, called the lead, summarising the article. Once the rest of the article is clearer, there should be less problems with blank tables. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Happy Squirrel. Thank you for your clear explaination. It really helps me understand what changes I need to do. I've make the ammendments I see appropriate regarding the lead paragraph, bullet points, and referencing. Hope it'll pass the second round of review after I submit it later.Aimankyuichi (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * See my comments above concerning your resubmission. I see that significant progress is being made.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Three Drafts
This is about three different declined drafts, and is broken into sections.

User:Aimankyuichi/sandbox
I reviewed User:Aimankyuichi/sandbox and declined it, saying that I wasn’t sure whether the draft was about the league, or the season in the league. I received the following from User:Aimankyuich: “Hello Robert, firstly, thank you for leaving a comment to clarify whether the article was about a league, or about a season in a league. Secondly, there is already an existing article on the league itself here So I wrote the article meant to reflect the current season of the V-league (the 2015-2016 season) and would like to link it to the league page if my article was accepted. I'm sorry the title is confusing so I hope you can assist me to make the correction you see appropriate. Thank you ”

The link to the league wasn’t there at the time of the review, and was then added by the author. I would like to stress for other new editors the importance of having proper wikilinks to related articles. Some new editors don’t know this. I would also like to stress the importance of a proper lede sentence explaining the subject of the article. The current draft is a major improvement.  Do other experienced editors have comments?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Liedewij Hawke
I reviewed Draft:Liedewij Hawke and declined it. I received the following from User:Translator-reviser: “Dear Robert, I am the author of the page dedicated to Liedewij Hawke, a Canadian literary translator. My draft was decline for the following reason: "This draft is unsourced. Please provide multiple independent reliable sources." I understand that the issue is that much of the biographical information is not cited. However, there are no independent public source of such information as Liedewij's birth town, schools that she had attended, diplomas that she received, year she moved to Canada from Netherlands, etc. All of this information comes from Liedewij herself (I personally got this information from her when working on this assignment for my theory of translation class at York University). I would hate to delete this information as doing so will rob the profile of depth and detail. I would appreciate if you could get back to me so that we could discuss what can be done to preserve this valuable information. Yours truly, Irina”

I would like the comments of other experienced editors. Unfortunately, if there are no independent third-party sources, the article will not meet our general notability guidelines or biographical notability guidelines. Personal interview data is not acceptable unless the interview has been published in a fact-checked source. (An interview with the author that has in the meantime been published in a peer-reviewed journal or fact-checked popular monthly is a secondary source.) It is a common situation that an author has personal information about the subject. Unfortunately, if they can’t provide impersonal information about the subject, she may not be notable, or we cannot accept word that she is notable. Do other experienced editors have advice on how the author can get more information? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jason Mann
I reviewed Draft:Jason Mann, a filmmaker, and declined it because there is already an article on Jason Mann, a filmmaker. I received the following from User: Jasonlmann “Hi - I created the page for a filmmaker named Jason Mann. I see that you pointed me to the Wikipedia page for a different Jason Mann. They are, indeed, two different American filmmakers. For evidence, here are their IMDb pages: The existing Jason Mann: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2643355/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 The other Jason Mann (the page I am trying to create): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1157607/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2 Also, please note that Google is also confused about this. Their Knowledge graph has a bunch of the biographical info for both men combined, but that is inaccurate.”

On the one hand, I would suggest finding reliable sources to verify that they are definitely two different people (e.g., with different dates of birth and places of birth). I would also suggest disambiguating the existing article and the draft, perhaps by the use of middle names. (If you need advice on renaming, known as moving, it is easier to ask one of us to do it than for us to explain how to do it. In particular, one of us will be glad to create the disambiguation page.)  Do other experienced editors have advice on how to deal with two people who are easily confused?

However, I now notice that I apparently rushed through my review and overlooked an issue. It appears that the author is Jason L. Mann. If so, this draft is an autobiography, and the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. If the author can persuade other editors that they are notable, they can ask other editors to assist them in developing a neutral draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hello, I wanted to ask, how to make my userboxes go bottom from the top down, and that I could be divided by categories === ===?--L.ukas lt 13  --Talk  16:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, you can have a look at Userboxes, or get ideas from looking at other users' pages, such as mine. Gap9551 (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Howdy, Lukaslt13. Experiment using the templates userboxtop, userboxbreak and userboxbottom.  You can add section titles in the userboxbreak template.  Building your userpage is good practice in using wikicode but remember that things like userboxes don't belong in articles.  Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixing up an article.
hello there o' knowledgeable ones. :) I am trying to fix up an article so I can remove its clean up tags, however I have came across this tag "This article is missing information about the film's reception.  (June 2015)" please could you explain to me what this means please. I look forward to you sharing your wisdom with me. 8) Best Regards. Hot Pork Pie (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . "Reception" in this context would usually mean evaluations by professional film critics. Try to find and briefly summarize a few. Often, sites like Rotten Tomatoes can be useful for finding a range of professional reviews. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the TeaRoom. 'Reception' means what the critics said about it. Check for places such as http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ and other well-known film sources. If you're confused, look to a oldish but very popular film like Star_Wars_Episode_III:_Revenge_of_the_Sith or Bram_Stoker's_Dracula for what a reception section looks like. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations in translated articles
Some time ago I translated from French Wikipedia and article titled in English Wikipedia: "Church of Notre-Dame of Dijon". Wikipedia has added a note: "This article needs additional citations for verification. … Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." The references cited in the French article are not available to me for checking. What is Wikipedia's policy on citations for translated articles?Phormium (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the TeaHouse User:Phormium. In the first instance, cut and paste the references directly from the fr-wiki to en-wiki. include in the edit summary that you copying them from fr.wiki in 'good faith.'  Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Stuart. I'll do it.Phormium (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone check this article for me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Mitchell

Thank you very much

Ylevental (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominated for AfD, it seems it will stay. -- Human 3015   TALK   07:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Article talk page
Where can I find a list of Wikiproject messages like this Talk:Underground Astronauts ?Marvel Hero (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Teahouse. If I got your question then you are asking info about various WikiProjects. There are more than 2,000 WikiProjects on Wikipedia. You can find list here.-- Human 3015   TALK   06:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from that I want to add messages like that. --Marvel Hero (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , If you want to add WikiProject banners to talk pages then you can add . In place of XYZ you should add name of the WikiProject, you can also add class of article whether it is stub class or start class etc, also importance of the article in that project as "low", "mid", "high" "top" etc.-- Human 3015   TALK    07:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

How much can be inferred from a source in a wikipedia article?
I'm editing the page Eugene, Oregon, and it states in the lede that the Eugene-Springfield MSA is the 146th largest in the country. This information appears to come from the wikipedia page: List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas. That page sites a table released by the Census, although the Census document only gives the populations of the MSAs; the rankings could only be a calculation done by the author of the List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas page. 1) Can I just cite the statement in the Eugene article with the Census URL? Are arithmetic calculations considered original research? 2) If calculations are research, does the List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas page need to be heavily modified in order to reflect that policy?TheCensorFencer (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Are these the wrong sort of questions to ask here? Is there a better place to ask these things, or a likely place to find archived discussions where consensus on this sort of thing was reached?--TheCensorFencer (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good place to ask, TheCensorFencer. I'm sorry that you haven't received a reply yet. No original research states that routine calculations do not count as original research. I would think that calculating a basic ranking based on a reliable source counts as routine, though others may disagree. Hopefully, some other editors will be along to give you advice before too long. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, and I agree, that is a routine calculation. I'm vaguely aware that a lot of software (like Excel, and I think even Word) will do it for you automatically.  I'm just going to operate on that assumption.  Thanks again!--TheCensorFencer (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, TheCensorFencer. If you have any concerns about whether something is considered original research, you can always ask at No original research/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

de-orphaning an article
I have recently created an article and it is currently showing as an orphan. I have since edited the article so that it links to a couple of categories. Is that enough to have the orphan tag removed?Contributor50 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably not, see WP:ORPHAN.--ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome . Which article is orphaned? Sas is not. Cheers!  02:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm a bit confused (so what's new!) - using "what links here" finds no other articles that link to Sas Metcalfe. So doesn't that make it an orphan?  Adding categories means it is no longer uncategorized, but I was not aware that it affected its status as an orphan.   removed the orphan tag, but I would still have called the article an orphan - am I missing something here? --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored the orphan tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding names to a music group to complete total number and names of members
The music group TRUTH, a contemporary Christian music group performed over many years. During that time numerous individuals particpated in that group. The Wiki citation for members who participated does not include a complete list of names. I have all of them, and edited them into the names of people who particpated. They should be recognized for their work, given that they served for $15 per week. It's the least that can be done. My last edit weas removed. What do I need to do to keep the added names on the Past Members section? germanized11Germanized11 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article in question is Truth (American band). The information you describe can be included in the article, but where you originally put it in the Infobox is not the most appropriate place.  I suggest using that information to complete the existing section called "Members" in the body of the article.  And of course, be sure to provide suitable references to support the information you add; this is sadly lacking from the article at the moment and as the sign says "unsourced material may be challenged and removed".--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When you are editing that "Members" list, there are a couple of other things that you could do that would really improve it if you feel inclined to. The first is to add a very brief introduction, clarifying that this is a list of all past members who have played with the band.  Secondly, the list would be more usable it if was in some order - at the moment it seems to be just dozens of names at random.  Parts of it look like they were meant to be in alphabetical order, but only some parts.  Decide whether to go with alphabetical order, or chronological order (which would mean adding dates for each person!), or some other order.  Mention that order in the introductory sentence, then go for it!  The article will benefit as a result.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . In my view, the "Members" section is far too long for the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and nor is "recognition" for anybody one of its purposes. A full list of former members would be entirely appropriate for a website devoted to the band; a Wikipedia article about the band should list only those members who are notable either in their own right (where they have been written about for other reasons) or who have been noted by the independent sources who have written about the band as significant. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Creating BLP page
Is there a template to create a BLP page? Merci AG 12:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Congratulations on picking up the local jargon (like BLP) so quickly; you will do well here.
 * There is no specific template for a BLP, although there is a process that can guide you through creating it. The best thing is to read through Your first article first so you understand the process, then click on the "Article Wizard" link near the top of that article to go through the guided creation.  And if you have any specific questions, you are always to come back here and ask.  --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

My edits were removed
I did some changes on 2-3 sites, within hours they were undo by some wikimedia persons. I reedit all thing, again the same thing happened I asked them why they removed , they didnt answer. I dont know where I am doing mistake, please correct and guide me,as I am new on wiki.

Regards Vivek Vivekchotaliya (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Any material you add to Wikipedia must comply with the neutral point of view, and must summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. Wikipedia is not for advocacy of any kind. If your edits are reverted, you should discuss the changes you want on the article's talk page. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For clarity, the instance I found of this with your account is this sequence of two edits. In it, from what I gather, you stated that the organization which is the subject of the article has broken a religious law and is thus illegitimate. You did not provide a source, so we have no clue where this idea comes from. This is a really serious accusation to make, so it would need a really good source. Even then, it is unlikely to be put in the first paragraph. As Cullen says, now that you have been reverted, your next step would be to discuss on the talk page. Give them a source, discuss with the others how widespread this view is. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note, there was apparently some sort of mess up and both and my comments disappeared. I restored them. If there are any objections, please let me know. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. Strange, they are now listed as added in the edit history twice, while appearing here once. Gap9551 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They showed up in the section below for some reason; I just removed them now. I've noticed (sometimes) when responding to a particular question, my response will be placed in the wrong question. I wonder if this is because a question was asked while I am writing a response, sort of like a different kind of edit conflict. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * HI ALL,

Actually I have a proof for that but don't know how to cite, if I was asked to show I would have given that pdf.But before any clarification my edits were removed. Now, can still provide you that pdf.

Regards, Vivekchotaliya (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . Sorry, but there is no such thing as "proof" on Wikpedia for any religious claims. Nothing whatsoever can be proven about Abraham, or Jesus, or Confucius, or Buddha, or Mohammed, or Baha-ullah, or Joseph Smith, or the Native American "Great Spirit" any of the countless gods of the Hindu pantheon. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of religious truth or proof. What Wikipedia does in these cases is summarize in neutral terms what reliable sources say about religious beliefs. Nothing more and nothing less. That is what you must accept if you want to edit articles on religious topics. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have had this happen. I spend a lot of time reading and by the time I see something I want to respond to and click on its edit link, I find myself answering a different question.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

My user page
What should I put on my user page? I was trying to find a type of guide, but could not find any. Thank you for any help. RedExplosives 21:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, RedExplosiveswiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you haven't already seen it, I recommend having a read of User pages. That might give you some ideas of what is possible, but there's not anything that you absolutely must include (some editors don't have a user page at all). There are some things you shouldn't, though, and they are explained further down that page. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Cordless Larry
 * Thank you I will have to check that now.
 * RedExplosives 21:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I should also point out that your signature is not compliant with WP:SIGLINK, RedExplosiveswiki. It needs to include at least one link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. Are you signing using four tildes, or writing it out manually? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I was writing it out manually, what do you mean by adding my talk page?. One last question can I link twitter or facebook to my user page?

RedExplosives 21:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant you signature should include a link to your user talk page, or you other user pages, as mine does, RedExplosiveswiki. This will happen automatically if you sign by typing four tildes (~) after your comments. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * External links revealing your identity are allowed, but think about that carefully. At least read the following first: on User pages (the same page Cordless Larry mentioned), subsection 4.2 'Personal and privacy-breaching material'. Gap9551 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

hi again teahouse.
could someone please have a look on User:Hot Pork Pie/common.js and tell me where I am going wrong as I am not seeing the vandalism tool options it is saying I should now see in my tool box. best Regards.Hot Pork Pie (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Hot Pork Pie looks like your missing single quotes i.e. importScript('User:Lupin/recent2.js'); Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KylieTastic thanks for that, I can now options now. Best RegardsHot Pork Pie (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

linking to the French Wikipedia
On the Wikipedia page for List_of_HVDC_Projects I was trying to link to the French Wikipedia using the format :fr:Interconnexion électrique France-Espagne but I've been told by an editor from the French Wikipedia that this is not the preferred format and he/she has used a different format for the HVDC France-Spain but this clearly hasn't worked as it is marked in red. Obviously I don't want to get into an 'editing war' so please can you advice me: what is the the correct format to use and how do I contact Moumou82 to discuss this? My personal preference is to include the acronym for the project which is INELEF as the displayed title but don't feel strongly about this - after all I could simply add 'aka INELEF'. Advice for a novice editor appreciated. Cantab72 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I see you do know to contact at User talk:Moumou82. If this person does not respond, there is an "email this user" link on the left side of the talk page.—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Although Moumou82 does appear to visit Wikipedia fairly often. Just as I responded above, you edited the article in question with the edit summary that reads in part "yes seems OK now". So can we assume the problem is resolved?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, my comment related to a problem with the following entry about Skaggerak 4 which seemed to have had a column missing at the end from before I started editing this page! I fixed it by copying the Skaggerak 3 entry and then using the information from the duff Skaggerak 4 to fix it. I'm happy to leave the INELFE entry for a few days for Moumou82.

If I have time I'll be looking at the various recent HVDC projects in Wikipedia to ensure they are up to date. Is using :fr: deprecated - it seems a concise way to link to another language. Cantab72 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Moumou82 can help you, but I'm not familiar with this. I know Wikidata is used for interlanguage links, but beyond that I couldn't help you.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me explain the difference between your solution and Moumou82's. Yours is hardwired to the French article; so that when a user clicks on it, they are taken without warning to an article that most users can't read. When (hopefully soon) someone creates an English version of the article, your link will still go to the French article. Moumou82's version creates a red-link to the English title with a link to the French article in parentheses. That way users can see that an English article does not exist (and hopefully will think of creating one); and if they want the French article, they can click on the parenthetical link. When an English article is created the link turns blue, and the parenthetical link automatically goes away. —teb728 t c 23:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your solution works well on a forum or talk page, where the hard-wired link will be used only temporarily. —teb728 t c 00:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with biased editors
What's the proper way to engage with editors whose edits show that they have their own POV which can't be accepted as NPOV? Especially if the editor is quite experienced here. Marvel Hero (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, best is to first try to resolve it with discussion on the talk page of the topic(s). If that really doesn't work, you could ask for a third opinion from an outsider (Third opinion). Requests for comment is another option in the early stages of dispute resolution. Dispute resolution lists more options for difficult cases. Whether the user is experienced or not should not matter; everybody has to observe the same guidelines and policies (though one would expect experienced users to know these better). Gap9551 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Gap9551 If they don't violate policies? Lets say, there is a discussion about a crime related article. The victims and the accused come from separate communities. The editors belonging to the community of the accused will try to vote delete in AFDs. While the article they are trying to delete is passing notability. --Marvel Hero (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * An AfD is not just a vote though, and the closing admin will primarily look at the arguments brought forward. If a minority makes solid arguments that the topic meets the relevant notability guidelines, then the article should be kept. Of course there are sometimes gray areas where notability isn't clear and nobody has convincing arguments. Then the end result would be more like a vote. Still, even then the closing admin can decide for 'no consensus' even if the majority votes 'delete'. In other words, in unclear cases, it is more likely that the article is kept, at least for a while longer. The burden of proof lies mostly with those who want to delete the article. If someone merely wants to have an article deleted because they don't like it personally, they will have a hard time finding arguments in an AfD, even if they mobilize like-minded editors (which is a dubious practice an admin can also look into). Even one editor could successfully defend the article if it truly is notable. Gap9551 (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In a regular discussion on a talk page, without an 'authority' overlooking the process, facing a majority without solid arguments can be more difficult. Then, if you truly feel you are correct but steamrolled, you'd have to ask for outside input as mentioned before. Gap9551 (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Porter Hall film addition
Would someone please add to the filmography of Porter Hall the 1937 movie, True Confession, with Fred MacMurray and Carol Lombard, where Hall played the prosecutor?? Thank you! 174.96.54.221 (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'll add it! 黄天使魚類❤ (blub o0O) 06:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Scholarship
Am Musiige Patrick And Am In Uganda. Can Anyone Help Me And I Get A Schorlaship Of Computer Science Study In USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiige Patrick (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Hello, Musiige Patrick, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you might have misunderstood the purpose of this page. It is intended to be a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, not for general life advice. It might be possible to get an answer to your question at Reference desk, but I don't have much experience with that service so I wouldn't like to say for sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Once changes made to a wikipage, what is the procedure?
Hello Teahouse, I have two questions. I actualised the page 'Seyed Mostafa Azmayesh'and added references. The BG19bot shows on 'view history' page that there should be something wrong with the punctiation and the references? I checked the point how to put references, and I dont know what is meant now, I believe I put them all correct. Secondly, how are things proceding from here? Do I need to leave any message or code somewhere that I made these changes? Thanks, Mistelrose (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. An error which the bot has twice corrected for you is the one which it has labelled in the edit summary as error #61, shown here, which refers to WP:REFPUNC. The bot has corrected the errors for you, as you can see from the differences linked from the article history.  --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , there is nothing more you need to do. The bot found a minor error (references should go after the punctuation, not before) and fixed it.  Done.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

When do i know if it's okay to make a page?
My internship at Foundation Granate wants me to make a page about the foundation. Which I don't mind at all! But I am not entirely sure if wikipedia would agree to such a page? It's a foundation that helps with the cultural progres in the Netherlands and has excisted since 2012. I've found several other foundations on Wikipedia but I'm still not a 100% sure. All help would be appreciated Etiennevandrunen (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Etiennevandrunen. There are two main issues here. The first is whether the Foundation Granate meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Put simply, these require that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If there is sufficient coverage of the Foundation Granate in reliable sources, then the second issue is the question of whether you should be writing the article, given your link with the subject. On this, please familiarise yourself with our conflict of interest policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for the quick response! But even if I were to stay objective in my creation would it still be wrong? And if so, is there any other way to get such a page created? 80.113.4.226 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Google doesn't seem to know about "Foundation Granate". Could you point to some independent sources where it is written about?    D b f i r s   15:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The conflict of interest guidelines do not prevent you from creating the article, Etiennevandrunen, but they do discourage it. An alternative would be to list it at Requested articles. However, as Dbfirs indicates, notability seems to be an issue here - and that applies regardless of who writes the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Google and rights?
Hi I'm creating a page on the coolfront resort and I found some pictures on google can I use those?

--RedExplosives 16:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Probably not. Pictures can normally be used only in Wikipedia only if they may be freely reused by anybody for any purpose: this means that either they are in the public domain or they have been explicitly licensed by the copyright holder under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. Most pictures on the web do not satisfy these criteria: the pictures would need to be explicitly stated to be public domain or suitably licensed.
 * Because these criteria are so tight, there is a possibility of using non-free materials, but Wikipedia's own restrictions on this are also very tight: the use would need to meet all the conditions in non free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again, RedExplosiveswiki. Can you please start signing your posts properly, as we discussed yesterday? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What do I put to sign it properly?

RedExplosives 16:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As explained below, you sign by typing four tildes (~) after your comments, RedExplosiveswiki. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

On special characters
To my surprise, a request for help posted on the Talk page of Help:Special characters has not received a response in over a day. deisenbe (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Many talk pages are not well watched. Posting an inquiry here, which you did, or at the Help Desk is more likely to get attention quickly.  Don't be surprised if talk pages are not well watched.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Links from French to English for "Geheime Feldpolizei"
English and French Wikipedia both have entries for "Geheime Feldpolizei". But the "Other language" link only works from English to French. I was unable to insert a link going towards English. Phormium (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what could be causing this problem, but links to other language wikis are managed through Wikidata automatically and therefore do not need to be manually added to articles on either Wikipedia. Thanks anyway, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All the interlanguage links appear to be working fine via Wikidata except for the NL link because of a redirect at NL wiki. Would someone who knows more about the subject matter than I do please take a look and try to figure it out please? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this still not working for you?--Boson (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Boson, It's working now.Phormium (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In case something like this happens again: I took a look at Wikidata and everything seemed to be OK. Since the links were already there, I couldn't add them. I then went to the French article, where the links were not displayed, intending to make a "null" edit. Accidentally, I hit enter too early so I really made a null edit, not even adding a space. There was no error message but no change visible in the history. From then on, however, the links were displayed in the French article. So I am assuming that there was some synchronization/caching problem that was fixed by my accessing the (uncached)  article with the intent to edit. It may have been chance of course. --Boson (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I get a For Profit company an entry on Wikipedia
I posted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies to request an article for a "for profit" company.

I was wondering if its possible for me to write the article first and then put it up for review?

Based on what I've read, there are relatively strict rules about impartial editing/writing. I'm actually handling the communications for the company so I did not want to fall foul of any "conflict of interest" rules. Mrmrcrab (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * See the conflict of interest policy and the corporate notability guidelines. If the company meets corporate notability guidelines, based on what independent reliable sources have said about it (not what it says), you may submit the draft via Articles for Creation.  It would be helpful to put a  template on the article so that no one thinks you are trying to "sneak through" an article.  Bear in mind that the draft will probably be declined if it contains promotional language (and your employers probably want you to put promotional language in the article) and may be heavily edited.  Bear in mind that you may not copy language from the corporate web site because the web site is copyrighted and we take copyright very seriously.  Be sure that your employer (or client) understands what Wikipedia is.  (They probably don't understand that Wikipedia does not have profiles, only encyclopedic articles).  Yes, submitting the article for review is encouraged, but you may be in an awkward place because your employer or client may not understand how Wikipedia works.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How to perform a "speedy keep" on an afd?
Hi. Recently, I nominated an article for deletion Articles for deletion/Cheryl Lehman, and I would like to withdraw my nomination. However, the documentation at WP:CLOSEAFD and WP:KEEP don't tell one how to actually perform what they ask one to do. So far, I've just added a note to the afd discussion. What would be thr proper actions to take? —Boruch Baum (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. With the general consensus provided to keep it and your withdrawal of the nomination, I decided to perform a non-admin closure for you and close the debate.  Zappa  24  Mati   23:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The steps on how to close an AfD as speedy keep are at Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. I went out on a limb, for what I hope is the future benefit of others, and edited WP:AFD to add two subsections, WP:AFD and WP:AFD. Hope that's not un-cool or anything, but the AfD set of pages could do with some end-user-friendly edits, as I see it. —Boruch Baum (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding form Submission by Support.Unixmo
Hi,

Just a Quick Question....This is my first time on wikipedia to post something. i was just here to post regarding my business. please Advise can we promote our business and put related information on Wikipedia.

ThanksUnixmo.Support (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse . Sorry but Wikipedia is not for promotion. —teb728 t c 01:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And they're now indeffed add promotion -only account. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User Page
Hi, can we have something like this on the user page "He is now one of the biggest software creators in USA.". I found it here User:Musiige Patrick. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User pages should not be written as fake articles. This has now been corrected.    D b f i r s   16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, Thank you...And yes it has been corrected now :) Peppy Paneer (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

help with referencing
I have been trying to get my article published. Draft:Aaryan Krishna Menon. I edited and redited the references, added citations (using templates) but am still getting rejected :( Please help. Last time someone who was tried to help me told me that some previous submission responses have been deleted. I have no idea how I could have deleted that. Because I am new to wikipedia and if that has been done, it is an accident. My advance apologies. Also i tried to get help via live chat. I was really unhappy. All the volunteers did was tell me that I am wrong, and that I don't have copyright to images and they were so rude! (I have copyright to all the images I have used on my article) Kindly help!Sowmyaaum (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could tell us where the images came from? Also, to establish notability, you need to provide a few references where the subject has been written about in reliable independent sources like your first reference (The Times of India).  I realise that you have been trying to do this, but Wikipedia rules are fairly strict regarding notability for Biographies of living persons.    D b f i r s   08:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Enquiry
I recently created a page. However, it was deleted under G1 criteria. But I see that there is no page on Wikipedia that explains the ' the GUI terminologies ' covering all the points that I had covered. How do I go about this? anilkpadule 04:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article has been deleted now so I can't see what was in it. Criterion G1 is used for "pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. It does not cover poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism or hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material. Nor does it apply to user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace. In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply."  So whatever was there could not be understood by either the person who nominated it, nor the administrator who deleted it. Perhaps you would do better if you submitted it through the Articles for creation process, where the article will get review feedback before going live.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, thank you for your inputs. I might try Articles for creation the next time I wish to create a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilkpadule (talk • contribs) 05:37, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC
 * Anilkpadule, for future reference, the criteria for speedy deletion are listed at Criteria for speedy deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding a picture to an info box
Hello,

I am working on a page for a football club, Inter Taipei FC. I have an info box to the side that give the brief details about the club including the logo. I have been trying to upload the correct size and shape of the logo and have tried a few times. Now every time I try to upload and image to the position i get a message that say " Image already exist and was deleted" After that I cannot upload and image.

This is a very important part of the page as a team must show its logo. I now have the correct size 200px although it is not .svg(I cannot get this to work either!) but I cannot upload.

Can anyone help?

Lion Lion Harley (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse . Your mistake was that you uploaded the logo to Commons, which does not allow non-free content like logos. You have to upload to English Wikipedia. But then since your article is a draft, not an article, it can't have a non-free image. When you are ready to publish the article, it will be time to upload the logo. —teb728 t c 09:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Anushka S Ranjan
why my article was rejected10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Anushka S Ranjan (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

```````````````10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)~


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. The reasons were explained in messages on your user talk page, and in the feedback on the draft itself.  In each of those messages the words in blue are wikilinks to pages which give further information.  --David Biddulph (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Anushka, I think you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is for.  It is not like Facebook where everyone can write about themselves.  The only people who have articles about them here on Wikipedia are people who are written about elsewhere in reliable sources.  See Biographies of living persons for details.    D b f i r s   10:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Gill Fielding
Draft: Gill Fielding has been reviewed seven times, by me on 4 December and by me on 5 January. The most common decline reason has been that the article does not have the neutral formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. Other declines have stated a failure to establish biographical notability. One reviewer suggested MFD, because no progress was being made (but did not actually nominate the draft for MFD). On 5 January, when I declined the draft again, I said: “This draft continues to read like a non-neutral essay. Please request help at the Teahouse in writing this draft in an encyclopedic style that is not promotional to Fielding.” User:Neilho has asked me for help in requesting help at the Teahouse. Can other experienced editors provide advice beyond the 10 decline comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is that the subject appears not to be notable. This is not User:Neilho's fault, and there is nothing we can do about it. Yes, I could work on improving the style of the article, but I would almost certainly be wasting my time, as it is never likely to be accepted as an article. Maproom (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, but I do disagree about the subject's notability although I continue to see - and address - areas where it could be argued that I have not been formal enough. First, here is my position on notability based on the basic criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." Fielding has had articles written about her in two and arguably three national UK non-tabloid newspapers. The Sunday Times and Telegraph are considered upper market newspapers - hence reliable - while the Daily Express (which has run two articles on Fielding) is described as a middle market newspaper (defined as 'the halfway point of a three-level continuum of journalistic seriousness; uppermarket newspapers generally cover hard news and down-market newspapers favor sensationalist stories.'). She has also featured as the central subject in a Channel 4 TV programme. Channel 4 is a publicly owned UK-wide TV channel. She also has a chapter written about her in an independent published book by Stephanie J. Hale. All of the sources I have mentioned above give Fielding non-trivial coverage.

In my mind, this only leaves the definition of 'significant' up in the air somewhat since I consider the above coverage to be significant yet some of those who have commented may not - despite my clarification of the UK press and broadcasting scene - agree with me. In this case, how do we resolve this stumbling block rather than going to and fro with 'notable', 'not notable', 'notable', etc. which is probably as frustrating for editors as myself :)

In terms of formal style I am more understanding since I started by copying the style of similar subjects (don't worry, I'm not going down the WAX route!) and thanks to the help of User:LaMona I realised that I should have been using every single reference to back up a fact and deleting everything else. After LaMona suggested deletion I understood where she was coming from and 'reverse-engineered' the whole piece. After the most recent reviewer's criticism (Robert McClenon) I have looked again with a fresh eye and suggest the following changes:

1. I remove the last paragraph about her views on education etc. and attach those references to the sentence where I say Fielding writes about various topics. 2. I remove both the last and penultimate paragraphs from the Media section and relocate them at the end of the Career section (her press coverage relates as much to her overall career as an entrepreneur as to her TV appearances). 3. I remove the reference to The Wealth Co. completely. Its inclusion is not that relevant and I can see how it may suggest promotion. 4. I could even remove the entire 'Charity Work' section as this could be seen as promotional.

To summarise: I disagree with those reviewers who say Fielding is not notable and I would like this issue to be resolved in a fair manner. However, assistance with ensuring a neutral style is welcome and appreciated. Ultimately, I would really love to put this to bed and get back to editing other pages (much less traumatic). Sorry for the long-winded response but I felt it was necessary to move forward. Neilho (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Serdar Bulun
I reviewed Draft:Serdar Bulun and declined it as having too few in-line citations for a biography of a living person. I also referred to it as an autobiography. I then received the following from User:Serdar Bulun on my talk page: “Dear Mr. McClenon, I was recently notified that the Wikipedia article titled “Serdar Bulun” was declined for further publishing. Based on the comment you provided, you mentioned the lack of in-line citations after each paragraph as well as the general discouragement to submit autobiographies. As Dr. Bulun’s administrative assistant, I submitted this draft which was proposed and created by Dr. Hugh Taylor, also a physician-scientist and the chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Yale University. I believe my submission was misunderstood as an ‘autobiography’; however, Dr. Taylor’s intention was to submit this as a biography of Dr. Bulun. With that, would you kindly suggest the next best step to alleviate the issues associated with this submission? Would it be best to ask Dr. Taylor to directly create and submit a different draft? Thank you so much in advance. Best, Nadia Mahmood Executive Assistant to Serdar Bulun, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Northwestern Medicine”. I now see two distinct but related issues concerning my initial characterization of the draft as an autobiography. The fact that it isn’t an autobiography doesn’t mean that there isn’t conflict of interest if the author works for Dr. Bulun. Also, the author’s user name violates user name policy because it appears to be that of a living person, the subject of the article. Do other experienced editors agree that there is a username problem? Also, I have issues with the article containing peacock language in the voice of Wikipedia. What do other experienced editors suggest be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a clear conflict of interest. Also, the use of a username which implies that Nadia is Serdar Bulun when she isn't, violates policy. But it would be cruel to lead her to think that these are the only problems. They can be overcome, while the lack of evidence of notability may be insuperable. Maproom (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is a clear COI, regardless of whether it is the article subject, their administrative assistant, their colleague or their confrere that writes and submits the article. is also correct that the core issue is around WP:NOTABILITY; which will not be addressed by changes to the writing team. I also agree that there are significant issues with WP:PEACOCK; and agree that the editor be encouraged to not use an account named after a person proposed to be notable, and to follow our advice at WP:COI et al if they are determined to contribute to articles on their employers or colleagues. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)